When you can’t defend an answer, chances are your
answer wasn’t honest.
Here are some highlights from tonight’s executive meeting when I questioned the council about answers to their 2013 questionnaire:
They answered “YES” that they exclude part-time
elected officials and appointed officials from receiving health coverage. But when questioned, Marc Schrieks made the
revelation that he may not be the only part-time official or employee currently receiving
health coverage from Lodi.
Lodi actually has NO POLICY on this
matter so if they switched out of the SHBP tomorrow, they could put every part-time official on the borough’s plan.
Marc did not understand this concept.
Marc said, “What else?” instead of
defending his actions.
They allow personal use of borough vehicles but told
the state the contrary- AGAIN. When Marc
was asked about this answer, he said, “I’ll have to get back to you.”
He had the same question last year.
They were told that the appendix of the Boxer Report
regarding legal fees was quite lengthy and that I didn’t understand how Lodi
could answer “YES” to following the checklist (all legal contracts for Lodi
went to campaign contributors). Marc
said, “I’ll have to get back
to you.”
They were told that agendas for the Zoning Board and
Planning Board are not posted on-line, yet they answered “Yes” to it. Marc said he disagreed and would have to look into it. He said the same thing last year. Others conceded that the minutes and agendas
for the boards are not on-line.
They answered that they post salary ordinances
on-line. When questioned about this,
they said they will be putting them up on-line.
The questionnaire asked them, “Has your municipality
instituted a policy to not compensate employees for sick leave accumulated
after a certain date?” Instead of
answering “NO”, the CFO answered “Prospective”.
He used the word, “Prospective”
and the phrase “I believe”
often throughout the night for questions that seemed like they required
straightforward “Yes or No” answers.
I told them that I wouldn’t even get into their tax
appeal answer again. But they stated
that George Reggo told them that true valuation is at a whopping 98% right now in
Lodi so no reassessment is necessary.
George Reggo makes these claims at the same time he is lowering the taxes for the politically connected "in house" without any appeals even taking place. And once again, this administration has to shield George Reggo from attending
any public meetings to answer for his bad behavior.
Their questionable answers were not only limited to
the ones discussed above. They only answered NO to numbers 5, 15, 43, and 44. The CFO tried to minimize #5 by saying that most towns don't have a pay-to-play ordinance. I would say most WELL RUN towns do.
If the Lodi politicians cared about saving a
significant amount of tax dollars, they would have implemented the state’s best
practices. If the Lodi politicians were
ethical, they would have answered the questionnaire honestly. If the Lodi politicians were transparent,
they would have listed the questionnaire as an agenda item, and discussed their
answers at a regular public meeting. If
the Lodi politicians were accountable, they would be able to at least defend
their same answers one year later.
Tonight, they did none of the above.
