file photo by Boyd Loving
September 9,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, During Wednesday evening’s Village Council Work Session, Deputy Mayor Michael Sedon confirmed that former Village Manager Roberta Sonenfeld had failed to adhere to NJSA 5:31-3.1 when she chose not to deposit a check for $100k from the Ridgewood Baseball Softball Association (RBSA), made out to the Village of Ridgewood.  According to Mr. Sedon, Sonenfeld put the check in either a “safe or drawer,” where it remained for an undisclosed period of time (likely weeks or months) before being returned to the RBSA.
It is believed the $100k was intended to serve as a donation for construction of a then planned 90 foot baseball field on the Schedler property.  However, despite the submission of an Open Public Records Act request, no official documents were ever produced in connection with the donation, its subsequent return, nor any stipulations associated with it.
Receipt of the check was mentioned during at least one (1) open public meeting of the Council, but there was never any open discussion about why NJSA 5:31-3.1 (funds to be deposited in authority’s legal depository within 48 hours of receipt) wasn’t being followed, nor why the check was being returned.
So the mystery continues . . .
How in God’s name can the RBSA have 100K to bribe public officials….that’s a red flag.
Reminds me of the RBDA controller that embezzled 80K back in the early 90s…
Roberta was a train wreck. We will be picking up after her for months if not years. Poor Heather. Rurik Halaby: are you getting all of this?
Let me understand this–the criticism is that Roberta did not deposit a check to pay for a field that you didn’t want built. The check was to build a field. The field was not going to get built. The check was not deposited. That all seems to make total sense to me.
There are plenty of things Roberta did wrong including getting too involved in the parking campaign but this check thing holds no water for me. It is really a silly issue.
I said it all along. Maybe now people understand my complaints. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Hopefully now I will be given the chance to heard.
Thats the way they do it in the private sector.
Yes Brian violation of NJSA 5:31-3.1 must seem silly to you.
Parents, before you sign your kids up for rec sports in this town, attend ONE board meeting and request financials.
Ms. Sonenfeld stated clearly at a council meeting that the RBSA’s $100K check was a quid pro quo: it was to be cashed only if the 90-foot field were built, Merely having accepted it and put it in a drawer or safe was a shocking thing to admit. This is not how donations are supposed to be made. It should have been handed right back. I couldn’t believe my ears.
No documents were ever produced to verify the claim of a quid pro quo donation. Regardless, the $100k check was not handled in accordance with State of NJ requirements. That is the issue. She knew the rules but chose to violate them.
Jackie Hone – you have been heard, believe me. The exit of Ms. Sonenfeld screams loudly and clearly that you have been heard. Thank you for all your hard work and determination to root out the massive web of illegal and unethical activities.
Sonenfeld broke so many rules in her short tenure. Unbelievable.
Why was the check returned? Was there an official vote taken about building a 90 foot field? The money should have been deposited and held until plans were finalized. Only then should the money have been returned.
Brian, this is just one example of how Roberta broke the law, broke protocol, broke the rules. The money should never have been accepted. But, having been accepted, it should have been deposited PER LAW and then reiumbursed when the field plan died.
She obviously felt that the laws didn’t apply to her.
Why wouldn’t a letter of intent from RBSA been sufficient? Why make out a check that would not be dashed?
What is the sate of the check? Isn’t there a time period for depositing?
My point isnt that she was right, it is that it is a particularly silly point to debate since she did what you wanted her to which was to not take money and build a baseball field. I don’t have enough information to know the play-by-play of what occurred but the bottom line was correct. She didn’t take the money for the field and the insane 90-foot diamond was not built.
I would prefer to spend time on what comes next for Schedler rather than on the specific actions by which the payment for the field was returned.
The point is simply that $100k should not have been left sitting in a drawer or safe at Village Hall. We all know what happens to large sums of money kept there, even money being watched by CCTV cameras.
Severance pay?
No escrow account?
2:06 – You cannot conditionally cut a check to a GOVERNMENT entity based on whether they implement your preferred policy. If you do cut a check, it should be immediately cashed by the government agent in receipt of that cash.
In this case – based on what is being reported – it appears that the government agent acted as an agent of that outside entity rather than of the government. If someone cuts a check for the government, it is supposed to be cashed unconditionally.
We need to know why it was not.
Was VM Sonenfeld under the impression that the act of cashing the check would have formed a contract between Village government and the RBSA, by the terms of which, the Village would have been obliged to build a 60’x90′ baseball field at Schedler? If so, the Village Council should try to verify this somehow.
Sonenfeld wanted the money. Sonenfeld wanted the field. Sonenfeld wanted to please Don Delzio and company. Sonenfeld held that check and hoped like hell that the Schedler house would be razed, the property would be clear-cut, and a giant stadium would be built. Promises were made. But the people prevailed. Thank god for the Friends of Schedler and those who worked with them.
Thank you at 3:41 for explaining what Brian and a few others on this thread missed. While it might have been their intention that the 100K get directed to the field, the LAW prevents a donation from being earmarked. She did not follow the law and protocol.
@3:44 I am sure the RBSA would EXPECT the money to go toward the field, but no legal contract or bond would be formed based on accepting a donation. Surely given her experience in municipal government she would have known this….oh wait…
Yet another ethics violation. Matt Rogers will be humming all of the way to his bank.
Typical shady practice of the previous regime to accept money for something before it’s been approved. Someone should check that “safe or drawer” for a check from John Saraceno.
Someone needs to bring this to the AG! When he throws you out of his office for wasting his time, you can come back here and bitch about more nonsense. Let’s move on folks.
Actually, 3:44 makes the most sense.
Actually, 3:41 makes the most sense.
Its not like she stole money.
5:55 PM, there’s a running them on this blog of having people minimize the significance of an event to try to make the conversation stop. (It seems to have the opposite effect.) Here’s a scenario that did NOT go down. A fervent resident presses a literally-pay-to-play-baseball check upon an official, who smiles, hands it back, and says, “We know how much you want this mondo field that the Schedler neighbors have good arguments against. If we go with it, believe me, we’ll come to you for a big donation. Until the council has voted to proceed, however, naturally you can see that we can’t accept any money. Think how that would look! And of course we wouldn’t be allowed to let it sit around without cashing it–there’s an ordinance against that–yet cashing it prematurely would give the wrong message about how the council makes its decisions. opening village government to valid criticism and potential lawsuits. That wouldn’t be good! See you at the Daily Treat!”
…a running theme…not them. Sorry.
Brian’s point is spot-on. its just more witch-hunting by the Knool-Aid drinkers. As for Jackie….yeah, its all about you honey, we just need to hear from you and everything will be ok.
So how long will this Village Council play the “Blame Roberta” game as cover for their ineptness and their ridiculous agenda. Here’s another riddle; how many more Friends and Family will certain members of the Village Council get to hire?
at lest as long as Aronsohn and company blamed Gabbert for everything
Chris Peal, everyone is blaming Roberta, Paul, Gwenn and Albert. Not just Roberta. The voters got rid of the three maniacs and now public pressure has undone Roberta. ,power to the people.
Did you hear someone wringing her hands at the meeting the other night about how low Robertas salary was? Poor underpaid Roberta.
9:15 You appear to be saying that the CURRENT COUNCIL is playing “Blame Roberta” as a cover for the current Council’s actions. I think you mean the PAST COUNCIL members and Roberta who marched forth as if they were the “Four Horsemen of Notre Dame”. The two current Council members who are left over tried diligently to control Roberta and the Council but got nothing in return but being totally ignored as well as being lashed out at by the other members. And also, Ridgewood has hiring based on a Civil Service test. If you are not at the top of the list (except for Roberta’s friends) you don’t get hired. The current Council attempts to play by the laws of NJ that are meant to limit illegal activities.