Skip to content

Makes Sense To Me

As you are probably aware, a complaint was submitted to the Borough at the August 25 special meeting alleging that Mayor Doherty and Councilwoman Nicolay are in violation of Belmar’s pay to play law and should be subject to the sanctions the law requires.  At the September 6 meeting, Borough attorney George McGill stated that he examined the complaint and found none of the allegations in the complaint would form a basis for disqualifying Ms. Nicolay from acting in her full capacity as a member of the Council. He didn’t mention Matt, I guess, because Matt doesn’t even come to the meetings anymore.

A reader who saw the tape of the meeting disagrees with McGill and submitted this as a guest contributor:



  1. South Side wrote:

    The attorney works for the mayor and council, not for the citizens.
    The Mayor said this.

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 10:39 am | Permalink
  2. linlee wrote:

    South Side, I remember Doherty making that declaration, and essentially dismissing the resident who dared presume the Belmar paid-attorney works for the people of Belmar. Not taking anything for granted(but always hopeful), I want to think sharing this post with Mr. McGill will either inform him, or, at least, put him on notice that the people of Belmar are carefully watching him as well as the Mayor and Council.

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink
  3. ALLTRUMPEDUP wrote:

    OK Great. So WHO enforces these Ordinances when they are violated by the persons that were elected to enact them??? Is it “do as I say and not as I do”? Is this a dictatorship ?
    And WHAT Judge presides over the hearing of these violations? What are the penalties? This is not how government is supposed to function. Vote them ALL out, one by one, two by two. And get your friends and neighbors out to vote NO on Sept. 27th.

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
  4. Anonymous wrote:

    Lawless is as LAWLESS does.

    Pay to play, Vote No, 9/27/16

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
  5. Anonymous wrote:

    Hypocritical mat. Think back when he stood on the council dias in the past praising the 2005 Pay to pay Ordinance as a way of preventing GRAFT.

    We were not involved in the Birdsall Scandal which was statewide. What was the reason?

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 2:58 pm | Permalink
  6. Voter wrote:

    If the Borough is not enforcing all of its municipal laws or are selectively enforcing some, then anyone in Belmar can break any law. Litter, urinate in public, illegal parking, really anything and their defense if charged? Well… you cannot selectively enforce one law against me and then choose to randomly not enforce against another. Especially if put on notice. All criminals win their cases based on the defense that the administration’s lack/selective compliance with enforcing the law.

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
  7. Sign says.... wrote:

    So then would the one block of Resident permit parking in Belmar (does anyone even realize there is such a thing ) be called selective enforcement ? Guess where it is? 15th and main. Outside the boathouse. 14 houses on 15 th ave between Main Street and railroad tracks and 11 of them have driveways Wouldn’t the rest of Belmar like permit parking like the Boathouse (Harmons other Liqour liscence in town) and businesses in that area deal with? St rose area. The beachfront. Other bars in residential areas. Funeral homes. Everyone should get selective enforcement!! Or the poor customers that park to do their laundry. Goto eat. Have an appointment at a law office or buy a bike at the bike store accept a parking ticket as part of doing business in Belmar. Another example of Mcdirties pick and choose enforcement of resolutions and laws the puppets on council think up.

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 6:39 pm | Permalink
  8. Voter wrote:

    Selective enforcement is not legal

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
  9. Just the facts wrote:

    Why would anyone reference the law as evidence? Belmar doesn’t run that way

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:07 pm | Permalink
  10. Tulip wrote:

    I really liked when the mayor said it

    the law would help Republicans raise

    campaign monies too. I thought he did

    not care about us.

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 7:39 pm | Permalink
  11. excuse me wrote:

    #10 he does not want to sound prejudiced. After all, the loosening of the pay to pal law is to level the playing field: everyone else takes money and “cheat” and he should do be able to do so also. Lack of integrity should be allowed across the political board. (I am not saying the Republican candidates in Belmar do not have integrity. In fact, I wish they were more outspoken.)

    Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 9:16 pm | Permalink
  12. OLD MAN wrote:

    The two republicans running? Come out come out where ever you are!! Uh duh

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 6:09 am | Permalink
  13. joe goofinoff wrote:

    #12 – Correct, Brian and Janis are politicking all over the place. Our guys should get off their butts and do the same.

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 7:38 am | Permalink
  14. excuse me wrote:

    I heard in passing, a guy on the street saying to someone else that “everyone in town is mad about this election.” Pro or con? I could not hear the rest of the conversation. The NO people had better get busy and get “everyone” mad for the right reason. Who knows what kind of propaganda the Mayor and Council members are spreading.

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:23 am | Permalink
  15. dizzy wrote:

    “OUR LAWYER”? He sees “selective wiggle room” for an official? I want the opportunity to have selective wiggle room and not be accountable, by law.

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:41 am | Permalink
  16. A Voter 2 wrote:

    #13 Joe you are right, it seems the Republicans do not know how to campaign. People sell people, I understand they dont have the $$$ the democrats have, that is no excuse. Make photocopies explaining what you will do differently, document all the lawsuits wasting the court’s and Belmar’s time and money. Vote for me is meaningless.

    #14 If they are so mad why do they keep voting for the same type of people???

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:47 am | Permalink
  17. Katrina wrote:

    As a member of the Committee of Petitioners who protested the adoption of 2016-01, who walked our streets collecting signatures, who stood at town meetings openly questioning our Mayor and Counil, who is involved with having to bring forth the suit protecting Belmar voters rights, I ask all of you out in Common Sense land to speak to your friends and neighbors about VOTING NO on September 27. This is a town wide effort! Join together to PROTECT Belmar. Our conflict of interest laws are the toughest in the state! They’ve worked to protect us for 12 years. DONT ALLOW THEM TO BE WEAKENED!!!! Belmar needs all of us. Join together!! VOTE NO VOTE NO VOTE NO!!

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 9:01 am | Permalink
  18. OLD MAN wrote:

    JUST SAY NO Uh Duh

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink
  19. Cash wrote:

    Don’t allows bars and unions to control Belmar vote. NO

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink
  20. Anonymous wrote:

    Our strength is in our character for the future.

    The bar for legislators should be as high or higher than what we instill in our children.

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
  21. Speak the Truth wrote:

    #7. Matt can not be bothered, the permit parking was all Colleen, 99% of what people on this site bitch about was Colleen. While I am at it, would those who constantly bitch about Chef’s, please reference the rightful owners and villians -the Lombardi Brothers of Edison, NJ

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:46 pm | Permalink
  22. ALLTRUMPEDUP wrote:

    I am proud to say I am one of the 350 or so that did sign the petition. I have commitments from two other residents (whom did not sign the petition) to VOTE NO on Sept. 27th and WILL GET MORE. If all others do the same, that is a commitment of over 1150 NO VOTES. Lawless Matt and D’Jais would need the same or better, a total of 2300 votes. If my math is close that would put a total voter turn-out at well over %50, an unheard of amount. People, please get the word out to VOTE NO to stop this insanity.

    Monday, September 12, 2016 at 9:37 pm | Permalink
  23. Anonymous wrote:

    I have heard a rumor that at this year’s resident/ thank you party at D’Jais there will be a charge per drink
    I have heard $1 a drink with all money going to a charity. However the announcement letter we say this is due to a complaint made by Jim Bean. I have a feeling they may time it just before the vote.

    Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 6:30 am | Permalink
  24. Jim Bean wrote:

    WOW! Still being blamed for everything while not being in office for almost 2 years. So proud 🙂

    Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:04 am | Permalink
  25. Anonymous wrote:

    If D’jais is required to charge for drinks based on a complaint, that would mean it must have been wrong in some way for the bar to give away drinks, like in previous years. If that’s the case, NOBODY is to blame other than the bar owners. Jim Bean does not make rules or laws.

    Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink
  26. ANONYMOUS wrote:

    the only charity the money is going to is Doherty for freeholder

    Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
  27. Anonymous wrote:

    Fools, monkeys and drunkards.

    Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 7:28 pm | Permalink
  28. Jealous wrote:

    #27 is jealous curmudgeon
    #23 and #25 are just folly!
    (no connection to JBean)

    Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 8:37 pm | Permalink
  29. Anonymous wrote:

    Apparently it’s an ABC rule and the money is going to the first aid.

    Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
  30. watching wrote:

    Uh-I think the “deductive reasoning” is a bit flawed. If you look at the reports to Belmar- Nicolay reported all the contributions. All ELEC is saying is that the cash contributions weren’t reported as cash- that doesn’t mean they weren’t reported. They could have been put in under contributions under $300. That’s not a “failure to report.”

    Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 9:57 am | Permalink
  31. Anonymous wrote:

    #30-Completely wrong. The NJELEC has access to bank accounts. That is why they ask for bank account information. They state,in their complaint, say that Nicolay failed to report the cash contributions. It’s really simple… They want to see all the contributions going in and all the money going out. In this case, it looks like Nicolay failed to report the contributions coming in. If that’s the case, the same contributions she failed to report to the state, she failed to report to Belmar. Take a look at her 2012 general election reports and count the amendments. After all these amendments, she still didn’t get it right. So now the state has filed a complaint against her.

    Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
  32. Voter wrote:

    @30 – I guess you could contact NJ ELEC they filed charges against her still pending. Not that Nicolay did not file a report that she did not and has still not identified the contributor or a cash contribution. She is in violation of the law and NOT allowed to vote in Belmar on certain issues which she has.

    I guess she’s finding it hard to find someone prepared to lie about it under questioning by investigators or document it on an amended reports all potential different crimes.

    I guess but what do I know.

    Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
  33. Anonymous wrote:

    Looking at the reports on the state website, on 4/11/2013 Jennifer Nicolay certified that her election fund has wound up it’s business and has been dissolved. 2 years later she submitted her third amended final report. Reading the complaint, I guess it’s still not right.
    If I recall correctly, this is the same council person who “supposedly” spearheaded the negotiations with our water supplier. If she can’t get a simple state report correct, why should we trust her to broker any type of agreement.

    Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
  34. newtotown wrote:

    I am new to Belmar and was told this site was good way to know what’s going on in town. You guys definitely seem to know! I was reading all the stuff above and trying to understand something. Maybe someone can help- so elected officals have to file reports to both Belmar and NJ- I looked up the Nicolay reports on the town site and the NJ one-there’s more contributions listed on the Belmar one than on the NJ. Why is that?

    Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink
  35. Anonymous wrote:

    That’s because the local can be washed away with the tide when necessary.

    Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:04 am | Permalink
  36. Katrina wrote:

    #14. That’s because Belmar has stricter laws. Our officials need to report ALL contributors. Even those under 300.
    That’s why as a newbie I encourage you to VOTE NO to changing our conflict of interest law in September 27! Keep transparency in Belmar.
    Ps. It’s not rocket science. Just report All, follow the LAW. It isn’t expecting too much of elected officials to be held to the laws that are in place. In fact it is their DUTY.

    Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:54 am | Permalink
  37. Anonymous wrote:

    #34, The Town requires all contributions and contributors to be listed. The state requires all contributions to be listed; however, all contributions under $300 are only listed as a whole(no contributor info). The town requires you to identify each and every contributor.

    Friday, September 16, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink
  38. joe goofinoff wrote:

    I protest to the esteemed administrator for not putting my post up – nincompoop is a legitimate word. I didn’t use any names.

    Friday, September 16, 2016 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.