Common Sense For New Hampshire

10 Comments

1. A Voter 2 wrote:

   That’s what you get when you become greedy.

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:20 pm | Permalink
2. Planet Belmar wrote:

   Pay-To-Play ? Where have I heard that before?
   Birdsall? Where have I heard that before? Belmar-Birdsall-Pay-To_Play, where have I heard the three in the same sentence before?

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
3. Resident wrote:

   Pay to play laws keep everything transparent. Doherty just took that all away with his revised ordinance weakening everything. Still very dark at Boro Hall.

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:14 pm | Permalink
4. linlee wrote:

   We know Birdsall Services appears to have been a preferred provides for Belmar, even after initial indictment information was becoming public knowledge our association with Birdsall continued. The recent guilty pleas I presume is an indicator of the volume of evidence gathered by the prosecutor’s office. What I don’t know is if in the eye of the law only Birdsall is criminally liable for their role in the pay-to-play scheme, or if the corresponding private individuals or municipal employees identified in the evidence against Birdsall are equally open to criminal action.

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
5. admin wrote:

   You know there’s a reason why none of those contributions from Birdsall employees were made in Belmar.

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
6. niccolo' wrote:

   Tightened pay to play ordinance in Belmar frightened Birds all from obvious donation to candidates

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
7. admin wrote:

   Birdsall was free to give. Candidates couldn’t accept without being barred from voting on development issues.

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
8. Resident wrote:

   Not anymore

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
9. katrina wrote:

   And our council voted to strip ordinance when they couldn’t even explain why. Let’s not except this lying down

   Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 7:50 pm | Permalink
10. nodee nyall wrote:

    I wonder how many council members voted “yes” because the mayor remained in the room after recusing himself. Was his presence intimidating to anyone?

    Sunday, February 28, 2016 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment