After All the Photos and Criticism of Donald Scorzetti’s Abuses, Lodi Borough Manager Marc Schrieks is Caught Doing the Same Thing (and Violating the Same Policies in Which He Was Investigated When He Was Mayor) …

 

Lodi Borough Manager Marc Schrieks Caught Taking his Borough Vehicle to the Jersey Shore

On Saturday, August 20^th, Lodi Borough Manager Marc Schrieks was caught taking a Borough vehicle down the shore and parking it on Ocean Ave.

Borough vehicles should only be used and are only supposed to be used for official borough business.  With the price of gas, insurance, etc. it’s outrageous that people like Marc Schrieks and Donald Scorzetti aren’t using their own personal vehicles for their own personal use.  There are going to be more borough vehicles down the shore than there are in Lodi.

Marc Schrieks and Donald Scorzetti continue to defraud the taxpayers of Lodi, its insurance providers and the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs.  Just ask Marc Schrieks himself.  Or ask Lodi CFO Charles Cuccia.

Marc was the Lodi Mayor in 2013.  Lodi was being investigated by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs for blatantly lying every year on the State’s “Best Practices Questionnaire”.  Marc Schrieks was certifying official State records that Lodi did not allow the personal use of borough vehicles while then Borough Manager Tony Luna was taking a borough vehicle to his vacation home in Bloomsburg Pennsylvania and everywhere else in the country. When Lodi was called out by the State for its lies, this was Charles Cuccia’s response:

Lodi By The Numbers: Charles Cuccia's 2013 letter in light of Donald Scorzetti’s personal use of a Borough vehicle in 2018… (lodioverhaul.blogspot.com)

Lodi is getting sick and tired of the double standards.  It’s disgusting and disheartening that the people committing the worst violations and abuses are the same people that unfairly targeted a well-respected Lodi Police Captain. 

Link to recent post about Donald Scorzetti:

Lodi By The Numbers: Residents of Lodi Can't Afford Their Own Gas. So Why Are Lodi Taxpayers Paying for Donald Scorzetti's Gas Guzzling Tahoe, Unlimited Gas for His Own Personal Use (and for the Personal Use of His Family and Friends), and for His Constant Trips to His Shore House? (lodioverhaul.blogspot.com)

 

Marc Schrieks' New Contract (Adopted May 21, 2024) Shows that the Lodi Mayor and Council Continue to Lie to Lodi's Insurance Providers, the Department of Community Affairs, the Lodi Taxpayers and Everyone Else...

 

Lodi Borough Manager Marc Schrieks Caught Taking his Borough Vehicle to the Jersey Shore (photo Summer '22)

From Marc Schrieks' new contract:

Link to Marc Schrieks’ new contract:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sIt7IqeQ8c5ByLNmXClznD8lRc3AIPnK/view?usp=sharing

Once again, this issue has been ongoing for at least 11 years since I exposed Lodi's violations at public meetings and the Luna administration in turn lied to State agencies and Lodi’s insurance providers.  Link to past posts on the subject:  

Lodi By The Numbers: Search results for personal use borough vehicles schrieks (lodioverhaul.blogspot.com)

This is certified fraud:

Luna is Not Public Safety and Schrieks is Not a Full Time Mayor

Lodi’s Completed 2013 Best Practices Questionnaire:

Arrogance:

#5: Instead of just answering with a “No”, they inserted the comment “The borough complies with state statues.”  There is no defense or justification for not having a real pay-to-play ordinance on the books in the year 2013.  There is NO state statue banning the practice of pay-to-play so a local ordinance is necessary.  The Lodi politicians should read the State Comptroller’s report on this subject right after they read the one on government legal fees.

Misguided:

#1: They listed "Lodi Board of Education school security" as a new shared service.  This clearly is not a shared service.  A shared service would be if the borough and the school were both using retired armed guards.  They would share the service and the costs.  But school security is strictly school security and related only to the Board of Education.  The retired armed guards provide no security to the borough hall or any borough facilities.  They are not Lodi police officers like the resource officers at the middle school and high school in which they can provide a service to both our schools and the borough throughout the year. 


No Accountability:

#15: Why hasn’t this administration corrected their noted deficiencies from past audits and why didn’t they list those deficiencies in their comments?

Lies:

#3: Tony Luna isn’t public safety and is still using a town vehicle for personal use.  At the October 8^th Executive Meeting, this administration stated that they currently do not have any policy prohibiting personal use of borough vehicles.

#4: Alan Spiniello acknowledged during the October 15^th regular council meeting that Lodi does not follow the best practices outlined in the Appendix of the State Comptroller’s June 25, 2013.  He said the borough may consider some suggestions of the checklist in the future.

#8: No codification was adopted at any October meetings.  

#27: Marc stated at the October 8^th executive meeting that a part-time elected official is still receiving health benefits from the borough (presumably him).  This administration acknowledged that they DON’T have policy of their OWN prohibiting this practice.

#38: This is clearly a "No" and not a "Prospective".

Other YES answers are clearly deceptive as well.  At the October 8^th executive meeting, this administration answered YES to things they said they may do in the future and others in which they casually said, “I believe” that could be a YES.

Here is a copy of their 2013 completed questionnaire:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/177573655/Lodi-s-2013-Completed-Best-Practices-Questionnaire-Another-Year-of-Deception

Groundhog Day..."Best Practices Questionnaire" One Year Later

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.

http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/lfns/13/2013-20.pdf

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.