Skip to content

Council Meeting Of September 20, 2016


  1. joemcgee wrote:

    That’s pretty sad on the council’s part. These people ought to be ashamed to be involved in such a charade.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 5:11 am | Permalink
  2. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    Inasmuch as Mr. McGill works only for the Mayor & Council, he has no need for a microphone because they can hear him without.
    Better use of the microphone would be on the other end of the table for use by public commenters with disabilities …. or have paper references that are difficult to juggle while standing.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 9:23 am | Permalink
  3. legion wrote:

    I heard no mention about the proposed meetings about the sidewalk repairs. Did that fall into the black hole of misleading information?

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink
  4. Ms. Sarcastic wrote:

    Matt is hiding and Tom could not decide what to wear from his wardrobe so he stayed home.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink
  5. Love the Beach wrote:

    Agenda rearranged for Nicolay so she could leave? The meeting should have ended at that time. No quorum. Absentee members, members who can’t wait to leave, committee reports sound like a social club, never a financial report, and I could go on and on. Just pathetic. Get the attorney a microphone so the public can hear him when he’s allowed to speak. Ugh….

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    Never will be approved to speak for the populous.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
  7. Guest wrote:

    This mayor and council continue to take advantage of the citizens trust by neglecting to attend meetings and by also never mentioning the financial position of the borough as routine business.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
  8. legion wrote:

    I did not like the public session moved to the beginning instead of being at the end as was typical. If someone with something critical and important to present came in too late, he/she was out of luck. That looked like a deliberate and sneaky trick to me. And get rid of that lawyer. His advice appears to be too biased for the mayor and council’s shenanigans. In my opinion.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
  9. Anonymous wrote:


    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
  10. OLD MAN wrote:

    Blame all the people who voted for these people. Vote for your party no matter what? NOT

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 5:28 pm | Permalink
  11. Tom Dilberger wrote:

    #8 – Was the public session moved up because councilwoman Nicolay was leaving early?

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 7:38 pm | Permalink
  12. legion wrote:

    Unless I am mistaken, the individual resolutions were bundled as a consent agenda and passed, which was not how they were presented on the agenda. Also, Nicolay and Blackburn may not have been permitted to vote on the liquor license renewal for the Boathouse, a Harmon establishment. “Retooled”? What does that really mean?

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
  13. legion wrote:

    They voted separately to pass the payment of bills; the other two items were grouped and passed together.

    Why did they move up the public session? Because they could and no one would object? I suspect they were expecting someone to confront them with something they did not want to address. A pre-emptive strike. My opinion.

    Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
  14. Feisty wrote:

    Really sad, the picture says it all….MIA council and mayor.

    Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:46 am | Permalink
  15. Concerned wrote:

    Where and why was not our mayor at this meeting? I know there are challenges surrounding the P2P law. Someone please explain to me the no show. I would think that a political official would want to spearhead the issue to the tax paying residents of Belmar.

    Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 5:11 pm | Permalink
  16. Shame! wrote:

    matt and the council should be completely ashamed of their performance on behalf of Belmar. However, with their moral and ethical deficiencies, they are okay with it. Shocking! Gutless and crass ambition!

    Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 6:12 pm | Permalink
  17. callmecynical wrote:

    No one addressed the pay to play matter in the public session, at least to use their five minutes to express their displeasure. Yes, it seems pointless to address the people upon the dais, but at least speak for the record.

    Friday, September 23, 2016 at 11:56 am | Permalink
  18. Katrina wrote:

    #17. You were welcome to go to meeting and address the pay to play issue at the public meeting. I mean after all who is “no one, or they? The same people stand at these meetings inviting the wrath of the administration. It’s time for everyone who reads these pages and cares about Belmar to openly get involved. Stand up, speak out, join together and VOTE NO on September 27.

    Friday, September 23, 2016 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.