Skip to content

Former Borough Engineer Pleads Guilty

In Birdsall Pay to Play Scandal

Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 3.51.49 PM


  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

Your email is never published nor shared.