| Author |
Message |
    
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 7:59 am: | 
|
At the BOT meeting last night, trustees repeated that "a survey" was conducted that polled SO residents about their opinion of the TS sculpture.
Where is it? Can someone post it online? I'd like to see the survey, know how sampling was conducted, number of respondents, geographic, educational, SES, professional and other sociological distributions. I'd like to see the statistical analysis for it.
I don't believe there is a survey. If the trustees have seen one, let them produce it. Otherwise, they should stop referring to it.
We do know there is an online petition with 134 signatures the last time I checked. |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 63
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 8:12 am: |
|
SOrising
If the trustees are unable to help you in your request to view the survey, perhaps you could ask Ms.Arnedt. She seems to know a lot about this (conducted the survey?) and I am sure she would have kept a copy for people to see, giving the names of those who signed, addresses, comments etc, just like the online petition does... |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4524
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 8:13 am: |
|
SOrising
MG can answer this better, but I'll give it a stab. The 'poll' they speak of is the one Ms Arnet insisted she took. A couple of BOT meetings ago she said she polled the' majority' of South Orange residents and everyone she spoke with was in favor of the statue. One of the men in the audience questioned this. She gave some sort of response about being a pollster for CBS (I think). Funny how I live in one of the areas she insisted she polled and nobody I asked took the poll.
So far nobody has seen this so called poll. Why? Because chances are there isn't one. And, of the people I spoke with, with the exception of MOL people, most had no idea what was going on. Of those who did, not one was aware taxpayer money is paying for the statue. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4525
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 8:25 am: |
|
Soparents
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Ms. Arnet to give anyone a copy of the 'poll' she took. I thin I remember her saying she asked in the Montrose Area, Newstead, Hillside Ave. Not too sure now. That certainly wasn't a fair representation of the town. What I don't understand, if there really is a fair survey, poll, whatever, don't you think Ms Arnet or a member of the BOT would have produced it by now to shut us up? I think so. Or wouldn't it be part of the public record, or at least mentioned in the BOT's minutes somewhere? |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 64
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 8:26 am: |
|
JTA
I also live in an area where she polled. I repeat my earlier comment that no-one I have spoken to around here, and indeed I have subsequently found out that the people I asked have asked others, were asked anything in this poll, or knew anything about a poll.
The easy solution to stop all this, is for the "poll", which of course is in writing, or it would NEVER have been mentioned, because it would blow up in several faces, needs to be shown to the public.
|
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4530
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 8:56 am: |
|
Soparent-
Okay, didn't realize you had already said this. While I agree with you in general, you have to take into consideration what we're dealing with. Considering we were already mislead on several fronts, it wouldn't surprise me if there is no proof of a poll. So far nobody can find where using tax money for the statue was discussed by the BOT. BOT members say one thing one week, then another the following. I don't think it would faze some of them if it turns out there is no real proof of a poll... |
Soparents
Citizen
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 66
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 8:59 am: |
|
JTA -
When I said that "Of course is in writing, or it would NEVER have been mentioned" I was being sarcastic.... In reality one can only surmise that if this representative poll existed IN WRITING, it would have been shoved down our throats by now....
|
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4531
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 9:04 am: |
|
Okay. In case you didn't notice last night; I'm a little slow. And I agree 100%! If this poll existed, they would have produced it to shut us up. Same with the minutes of all these so called discussions between the residents and BOT members in favor of tax money paying for the statue. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 9:06 am: |
|
Soparents, you are absolutely correct that the survey, poll or whatever it is, be made public. Given that the BOT has cited it numerous times as a basis for their decisions, it becomes part of the public domain and there should be full, detailed public disclosure of it.
For this reason, the public should not have to go to a private foundation or enterprise to get it. The public should not have to chase it down from Ms. Arnedt or from any other private source. They should not have to file an OPRA request for it; if it is not in the possession of the village, an OPRA request would be pointless anyway. On the contrary, it should be mounted on the village website, available for pickup at village hall or otherwise easily accessible to the public.
It is wrong this has not happened. Of many reasons why it has not happened, I suspect it is because it does not exist, but I'd love to be proven wrong. A public survey relevant to the expenditure of public funds should not be hidden or difficult to obtain. People should not have to ferret it out. It should be easily at hand for any who want to know about it. It is not, as I write this. There is at least the appearance that the BOT had flimsy evidence of public opinion to go on when it committed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the sculpture and all work related to it (such as tearing out the gazebo, etc.).
Unfortunately, I will be shocked if it is not more than mere appearance, however. |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 524
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 9:15 am: |
|
I also doubt that a poll exists. Yet at the BOT meeting on 3/13, Ms. Arnedt was quite emphatic that she did a poll of residents. She could not have used the word "poll" cavalierly, as she was quite emphatic that she was a director of polling for CBS. Anyone with that credential should know the meaning of the word poll. So, if there is a poll, let's see it. If there is not, then Ms. Arnedt and the BOT's should come clean. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4540
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 6:22 pm: |
|
jayjay
Correction on the poll. She said it was a poll of the MAJORITY of those who lived in South ORange. Key word 'MAJORITY (forgive me if spelt wrong...) Can the town sue her and hold her responsible for lying? |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 8:22 pm: |
|
In order for an opinion poll to be statistically valid, there is a minimum number of respondents you need to include. That minimum number depends on how large a sampling error you are willing to tolerate and (surprisingly to a lesser extent) the size of the population that you are sampling.
One need not pool "the majority" of residents, but several hundred responses are required to avoid an impermissibly large sampling error. And if several hundred responses are required for a poll of South Orange Villagers to be statistically valid, wouldn't it stand to reason that SOMEONE reading this thread was polled? (Correct me if I am wrong, but nobody has stepped forward to say they were polled by anyone representing the sculpture group.)
Either (a) the pollster defied all odds and missed all the faithful readers of MOL's South Orange section, or (b) the poll was flawed, or (c) there was no poll. Occam's Razor tells me it's one of (b) or (c). (Insert barnyard epithet if desired.)
(note: edited to add one more connect-the-dot) |
vermontgolfer
Supporter
Username: Vermontgolfer
Post Number: 386
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Stuart0628,
Didn't you know that there's only three of us here, but we all have many assumed names.
LET THE POLL BE SEEN!
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2695
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Stuart, even if she did poll a few hundred people, it is apparent that the people she questioned were not a random sampling, but people inclined to agree with her position. Therefore no matter how many people she polled, it would be invalid, since it was not a representative, random sampling of the population. Right? |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:12 am: |
|
Rastro, that or something like it is it in a nutshell. I would like to examine her methods--if there are any methods.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt for the moment and assuming she actually did ask 300 residents their opinions, there are various sampling techniques that should be used...and I could go on and on.
Of course, the poll could have been a Push Poll, which is a horse of another color.
Or perhaps it was an alimentary poll, where the results are pulled out of one's (insert three red dots here). |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 6:10 am: |
|
Stuart and Rastro, not only is the Tau poll a bad sample and non-representative (in addition, perhaps, to being non-existent), Ms. Arnedt claimed, on the basis of her professional "credential" to have polled a "majority" of SO residents. If SO has roughly 16,000 people in it, she claimed then to have polled at least 8,001. Perhaps she conducted face-to-face interviews with 8,001 persons since no one seems to have gotten a survey in the mail or otherwise remembers it. But even then she would have had to have had an interview protocol and have tabulated her findings. Surely the BOT has access to this information and needs only to produce it.
Do you think Ms. Arnedt or the BOT knows that self-reportage is the least reliable measure of behavior in sociological and psychometric research? This would mean that instead of simply recording what people report about their willingness to pay for a statue out of private donations, among other things, she would have needed to find previous comparable behavior to extrapolate likelihoods of them donating towards the statue. Would this have been part of her survey?
Do you think she would have used multivariate or path analysis to analyse her findings? With a sample of at least 8,001 surely she would have used a computer, don't you think, to discover the results of her poll? So surely these printouts and results would be available to the public if only the BOT who must have seen them or be familiar with them, would make them available.
I am very interested to learn the analysis of the public polling Ms. Arnedt did that the BOT based their decision to borrow a minimum of a quarter of a million thus far to pay for the sculpture on. Do you think the village clerk has the results of the poll? Has Ms. Arnedt ever provided them to her? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2698
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 10:28 am: |
|
SOrising, as I've said before, it is pretty obvious that she did not do the poll that she mentioned, in the detail she implied. She has not provided any details of her poll to the board, beyond what she said a the meeting. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 719
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
|
I'm pretty sure that Ms. Arnedt actually meant to say that she met with a bunch of neighborhood associations, the BOT, MSSO, etc. and the majority of people in THOSE groups were supportive and in favor. Although, I do believe that she probably believes that a majority of SO residents WOULD want the sculpture, which is why she is doing this project in the first place.
Someone on the BOT (I think it was Rosen) seems to have misunderstood her and stated in Monday's BOT meeting that there was a poll that showed a majority of SO residents want the sculpture. I saw Cheryl, in the audience at the time, shake her head and start to interrupt and correct him, but she realized it was inappropriate and apparently she didn't want to get up and speak at the podium.
What she has said is that very few of the people posting on MOL have contacted her with questions, which she says she is happy to answer. She says the negative posters on MOL don't want accurate information, but rather simply want to put a stop to the project.
If you really do have questions you want answered, call her or send emails to 973-275-9840 or tonysmithproject@verizonmail.com. (This info was on Cheryl's Tony Smith Sculpture Project business card included in a folder of info., including the newspaper articles referred to in the Mon. BOT meeting.)
She really is a nice person, as are probably most of the people associated with the Lennie Pierro Foundation (including Eric DeVaris, who is listed on the upcoming Gala invitation as a member of their "Advisory Committee"). The exact same group, using the exact same tactics for this same project, but in a town with better management, would very likely have yielded a different story. I don't think we need to sue Cheryl or her group; really they are just a group of socially active, good-hearted volunteers tyring to get something nice done for the town.
The problem and true source of our frustration lies with the most of the BOT, and, as I said in another posting, "The Fish Stinks from the Head!"
BTW, Bill Calabrese is also listed as a member of their Advisory Committee. |
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 236
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 11:54 am: |
|
Pdg,
Your post reflects my exact feelings.
Many of us, frustrated over BOT's methods, take our anger on the Tony Smith sculpture people. These people think that by supporting Tau they are doing something for the good of the town, as many on this board think that by opposing Tau they are doing something for the good of the town. The difference is that the sculpture people have been working on this for years. Poll or no poll they have followed the process that got the BOT approve the project. Is it their fault that during all this time the BOT didn't poll the public and did not communicate their decisions on how they will finance the project? I think not.
I also have met Cheryl Arnedt. She is spending a lot of energy on this project, gratis, because deep in her heart she believes that this will be good for South Orange, and she decided to do something about it.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Pdg - I totally agree with you. The group involved with the sculpture represents what is best about the community - people who are passionate about something and have great affection for the community, and really want to do something good for the community.
Sadly, the way this was handled by the BOT reflects what at times is not the best way of handling something. Some of the people who have signed the petition were among the strongest supporters of the sculpture. I'm sure that for one signer in particular, it had to be an agonizing decision to sign the petition, have been a close friend of the Smith family and one of the strongest supporters of the sculpture.
This is going to be an extremely difficult budget year. Even though Allan Rosen said it would not have any effect on this year's budget, and the funds were already set aside and would not take away from anything else, it's going to be difficult for people to accept this in view of the way it's been handled.
|
SoOrLady
Citizen
Username: Soorlady
Post Number: 3152
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Spitz - your post is right on the money (so to speak).
Mary - I've meet Cheryl Arnedt too and she is indeed a force and passionate about this sculpture. At a different time, I would be on her bandwagon, but alas, if TAU ever is put in place, it will only serve as a reminder of Calabrese's (& those on the board who blindly follow) blatent manipulation. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3202
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:06 pm: |
|
It is extremely fustrating when good people try to do good things for the community and get shot down for reasons beyond their control. Much (most) of the Tony Smith brouhaha has little to nothing to do with the size,placement or cost of the statue. Thank you, Cheryl for all your hard work. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 720
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:19 pm: |
|
LibraryLady, I disagree with your last post.
Most of the problem with the sculpture absolutely has to do with the placement AND the cost to taxpayers.
The rest has to do with the fact that Calabrese and the BOT did not properly communicate with the taxpayers in a timely fashion and in a manner that would permit us to voice our opinions, while they could still be considered!
To date, the majority of taxpayers in this town still do not know that $250,000 will be bonded (i.e., plus interest as it is paid back over time) to pay for committed tax dollars toward the 2nd improvement of an already renovated downtown location! MHD observed in a recent post that it is quite likely that the bond used to pay for the gazebo and fountain is still being paid off!
IMO, if this project were properly handled by the BOT, the public would have had an opportunity to provide input into the location of the sculpture. The gazebo location would not even have been able to be considered due to it recently being improved. The town would have been able to vote whether or not they wanted to have tax dollars support this project at this time. Possibly they would have voted yes - but we don't know because we had no information or opportunity to register our agreement or disagreement!
Perhaps we would have made a better agreement with the TS Estate - one where we pay no more than 50% of the total installation costs and nothing toward fabrication, especially given Cheryl's strong conviction that she will easily raise whatever funds she needs to.
It is simply another example of a poorly negotiated project without public participation or representation! |
Peter J. Watts
Citizen
Username: Peter_watts
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:20 pm: |
|
LibraryLady, the cost issue is at the heart of the brouhaha. I think if it was free there wouldn't be as many complaints. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4551
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
But if the group that promised to raise the money for the statue falls short, how can it not be their fault? And instead of saying the majority of the town was polled and is in favor of the statue, leading those who heard the statement to believe those asked were in favor of spending taxpayers money on the statue, wasn't it said special interest groups were spoken to. They weren't aware of the cost to the town, but they thought a statue would be a great idea?
Even more, why hasn't anything been said to clear up the supposed misunderstandings? There were even some people who would very much like to see a Tony Smith Statue in town who spoke at the last BOT meeting. But, now that they're aware of how it's being funded, feel differently. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 189
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Several recent posters should have read my earlier post to Soparents.
HEre it is, again:
Soparents, you are absolutely correct that the survey, poll or whatever it is, be made public. Given that the BOT has cited it numerous times as a basis for their decisions, it becomes part of the public domain and there should be full, detailed public disclosure of it.
For this reason, the public should not have to go to a private foundation or enterprise to get it. The public should not have to chase it down from Ms. Arnedt or from any other private source. They should not have to file an OPRA request for it; if it is not in the possession of the village, an OPRA request would be pointless anyway. On the contrary, it should be mounted on the village website, available for pickup at village hall or otherwise easily accessible to the public.
It is wrong this has not happened. Of many reasons why it has not happened, I suspect it is because it does not exist, but I'd love to be proven wrong. A public survey relevant to the expenditure of public funds should not be hidden or difficult to obtain. People should not have to ferret it out. It should be easily at hand for any who want to know about it. It is not, as I write this. There is at least the appearance that the BOT had flimsy evidence of public opinion to go on when it committed to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the sculpture and all work related to it (such as tearing out the gazebo, etc.).
Unfortunately, I will be shocked if it is not more than mere appearance, however. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4552
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Pdg-
If anyone misunderstood what Cheryl 'meant' to say about a poll, she has only herself to blame. She used that word herself a few weeks ago. Someone else at the BOT meeting questioned her about her poll to which she told them she took polls for CBS. (please someone correct me if I'm wrong)
If Eric and Bill are both involved, even indirectly with this project, they shouldn't have been allowed to vote on it, right?
While I see the point about Cheryl's energy and passion to do something nice for the town, I'd rather have seen that energy into saving the Old Stone House, or getting the leaking roof at the library fixed or saving the building on Vose that was torn down. Or getting any of the half dozen half finished (or even fully started) projects that cause our Village to look a wreck.
It's upsetting to some of the people I know that a sculpture (something we really can't afford and is not something we really need at this time) will be finished before we get the promised New Market or the other 'coming soon' establishments we've been promised. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 723
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
SORising, I did read it the first time, which was partly why I posted at 11:03 on this thread.
You're right; there was no formal poll or survey done. (But please feel free to call Cheryl if anyone wants to confirm this.) |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
There are much larger issues involved in deferring to a private institution to find answers governments should provide. I agree that volunteer efforts in a town are commendable. It is not commendable to have any private organization function as a surrogate for representative government or, de facto, as an unelected, shadow government. This is the problem here: the village government is trying to hide behind a non-elected private foundation to justify its own actions. The virtues of the private foundation in this instance are being used to mask the vices of the government. No one, including the private foundation one would think, but also the electorate of the government, should find this acceptable. I do not find it acceptable and I think others would not if they thought about it much.
It is most unfortunate that the good intentions of donors to the TS sculpture are allowed to shield elected officials from public outcry about their irresponsible and perhaps illegal activity. But I am not able to remove these donors and volunteers from that line of fire. They must, should and I hope will, remove themselves. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4555
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Sorising
Was your 1:37pm post directed toward me?  |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3736
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
I agree with PDG's posts above that the issue is about cost and communication, as well as lack of priorities. I also do feel badly that the sculpture people have been mis - led as much as the rest of us.
Since LL has chimed in, I just have to say - I cringe everytime I walk into the library and see buckets on the floor to catch rain water. The fact that we already pay such incredible taxes and have to deal with that, plus the conditions the people are forced to work in are shameful.
Given a CHOICE, do you honestly think this sculpture is a higher PRIORITY than fixing the leaking library? Based on the actions of the BOT, it appears that THEY do think that way. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3205
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
One thing doesn't have anything to do with the other. The money to repair the library roof and heating/airconditioning system has been allocated and the project is underway. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3737
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 4:34 pm: |
|
...and the Library has EVERY book it wants? ...and the computers in the Library are the latest? ...and you are more than adequately staffed & paid?  |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 193
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
No JTA, it wasn't. It was directed at any who do not realize that town officials are mistaken and that the TS sculpture people would be wise to disassociate themselves from them if they do not want to wind up as collateral damage. I posted about this a long time ago. The real culprits would be happy to use the worthwhile cause of public art to protect them from their own unjustifiable and perhaps illicit acts. Any who truly care about public art should protect it from being used by mistaken politicians. I think many artists who have signed the petition realize this aptly.
Having said all that, however, I do believe Ms. Arnedt has exaggerated and misrepresented the validity of her "sampling" of public opinion. This is another reason why the BOT cannot use her to escape the consequences of their own mistakes. In some instances, such as the polling, she is actually wrong instead of right, so she can provide even less cover for them there than ostensibly in other areas, were Ms. Arnedt and others to allow them to do so. |
SoOrLady
Citizen
Username: Soorlady
Post Number: 3155
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 4:41 pm: |
|
LL - true, things are underway for the library and the town hall and once whatever legal issues with the firehouse are resolved that will be done. But, I have to ask you, given the rising taxes and the Corzine administration's budget plan, is it prudent to spend a minimum of $250,000 for artwork? If we were in better fiscal shape, it would be grand. But we are not - and to top it all off, the citizenry has been misled or outright lied to. Very sad stuff. |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 509
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Librarylady, how many years has the monies been "allocated"? |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 726
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 5:15 pm: |
|
And, it's not like they actually HAVE the $250,000 for the sculpture. It's a bond, which amounts to a loan plus interest.
Heck, I bet that they also bonded funds to repair the leaking library roof (obviously a necessary expense!). They probably also bonded money to pay for the internal library renovations which were partially damaged due to not maintaining the roof!
Funds for a small village's projects SHOULD have a cap; there shouldn't be limitless borrowing, and spending. Discretionary luxury items should be planned well in advance and actually made in a year that there aren't a LOT of other actual NEEDS.
With the time-line constraints that were placed on the "gift" of this sculpture, the township should have said "Thanks, but now is not the right time." Why on earth was the Tony Smith Estate permitted so much power regarding South Orange's acceptance of this gift? Why did no one negotiate better terms on behalf of S. Orange?
It reminds me of the transparent marketing attempt to boost sales: "Buy two, get one half price. Limited time offer!"  "Gee, honey, look how much money I saved buying these three things we really couldn't afford right now and don't really even "need"!" |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3206
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
HL-You tell me, you are the money maven.
I have been told in the recent past (since last summer) and it has been reiterated recently (in the past week) that the money is allocated, the plans have been drawn up, the is current investigation of a "greener" installation, and work will begin soon.
Does anyone really think that if we recind our committment to the Sculpture, we will place in the town budget more money so that the Library has EVERY book it wants? ...and the computers in the Library are the latest? ...and you are more than adequately staffed & paid?
BTW, SOV could NEVERadequately pay the Library staff. My coworkers are truly exceptional. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 728
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 5:37 pm: |
|
No, LL, we don't think there'd be "more money". We do, however, firmly know that there would be LESS DEBT! |
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 530
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 6:48 pm: |
|
LL- You seem to think the library and the sculpture are not related. I don't know how you can conclude that. There is no bottomless well of money. Our BOT would like people to believe they are not related, when in fact it is there own inability or unwillingness to prioritize. There needs to be a clear and transparent capital expense priority list as well as a timetable for major and routine maintenance. And it should be openly discussed and debated. I have never seen that. All of a sudden, a sculpture is top priority because the Tony Smith Estate says so. The Tony Smith Estate doesn't live in town, doesn't pay taxes in town, and should have no say about it. If they can't accept that, too bad. Then we don't want your "gift."
You as a town employee should appreciate more than others, the deplorable state of our village buildings. I remind you, that you, too, may become a victim of a "coming soon" approach to the library repairs. Take a look at all the "coming soon" projects in town and how long they have taken. Ask the fireman about repairs to the firehouse. You may find yourself in a library trailor soon. Until our library is state of the art (no art pun intended), I'd forego a sculpture. |
Sitoyan
Citizen
Username: Sitoyan
Post Number: 159
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Quote:The Tony Smith Estate doesn't live in town, doesn't pay taxes in town, and should have no say about it.
jayjay, according to you the SHU students who sign the petition, and there are many of them, should have no say about the Tony Smith sculpture because they don't pay taxes in town, although they use all the services that the town provides, and they don't live permanently here, only a little more than half a year. I repeat "according to you". |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 253
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Bayside girl:
Size matters.
A large, black metallic protuberance will be permanently placed down the north south axis of Sloane Street.
jd |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 4557
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 9:06 pm: |
|
LL
You know how much I respect you but, ... Okay the roof is being taken care of, but has the work actually started? It saddens me that Maplewood has two libraries. When you compare our one library to Maplewood's two, our one library is, well let's just say seriously lacking. We have a great dedicated staff, but don't have anywhere near the resources their libraries have.
Even Millburn's Library puts ours to shame. What about Town Hall? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
Unlike the Tony Smith Estate, SHU students live in town and pay taxes in town on everything they purchase here, Sitoyan. Many of them are also registered to vote here. The Tony Smith Estate cannot register to vote here and does not vote here.
Claims you allege are jayjay's are your own. |
FlyingSpaghettiMonst
Citizen
Username: Noodlyappendage
Post Number: 47
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:07 pm: |
|
JTA..We have two train stations and Maplewood only has one. Maybe we should close one of ours or should Maplewood open a second??? |
Lt. Columbo
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9066
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Quote:Cheryl Arnedt
Citizen
Username: Cheryl_arnedt
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:45 pm:
--
Dear MOLers,
I am a professional pollster with more than 17 years of polling experience.
I never claimed to have taken a “poll” of South Orange residents. That claim was made by another speaker. I did say that the hundreds of people we have personally spoken to over the past four years were a “representative geographic sample” of South Orange residents.
Why did I say this? Because in reaching out to civic leaders and residents, we have deliberately gone into a broad range of neighborhoods. In addition, the many dedicated volunteers who are on the various civic boards in town represent a broad range of South Orange residents. Finally, we asked our hosts to invite all their neighbors – whether or not they had heard of or had an opinion of the Tony Smith Sculpture Project.
Our intent from the outset has been to educate, not persuade.
In fact, two of my close friends who held meetings were, at the outset, opposed to the town spending any money on the sculpture project. They agreed to host the meetings because we wanted to lay out the project from start to finish to all comers. That way, people could make an informed decision about whether they were in favor of or against the sculpture project.
Here is a list of the groups to which we have presented: Main Street South Orange, The Village Club, the Montrose Park Historic District Association, the quarry group, the Newcomers Club and Historic Preservation. We presented in these neighborhoods: Vose Avenue, Prospect Street, Ridgewood Road, Harding Drive, Hillside Place, Meadowbrook Lane, two in Montrose and Sherman Place. (We had reached out to residents on Walton Avenue and Thornden Street, but time ran short and we could not organize it in our timeframe.)
Once again, if anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at tonysmithproject@verizonmail.com.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2718
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:34 pm: |
|
I'm downloading the video right now to confirm Ms. Arnedt's exact words, but since she made a big deal of the fact that she was aprofessional pollster, I am quite sure that she did indicate that hse had either polled or surveyed "a majority of residents."
Unless her intent was to explain that she knew that what she had done was not a poll, what purpose would pointing out that she was a pollster serve, unless she had claimed to have taken one? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2719
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:36 pm: |
|
And to be fair, I have no doubt in Ms. Arnedt's sincerity. And I again applaud her efforts to get this project done. Most of the people here have much much less of an issue with the sculpture itself than the ay in which the town handled communication and financing. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Please get back to us with the findings from the video review, Rastro. The language "representative geographic sample" coming from a "professional pollster" could hardly mean anything other than a statistically representative sample. Yet, clearly, this is not the case. It is misleading to suggest it has the research and statistical validity to represent a geographical or opinion-based diversity of the town unless the sample was randomly drawn. Again, clearly, it was not. The sample Ms. Arnedt has used is statistically biased and therefore extrapolations to the larger population of the town cannot be made on the basis of it. It is a preselected audience or subpopulation of the town. As such, the sample of those Ms. Arnedt chose cannot represent the larger population of the town for two reasons: (1) it is self- or pre-selected, and, (2) it was not randomly drawn.
In addition, as she has just described in disclaiming that she actually polled people, sessions in which this (statistically) biased sub-group of the SO population appeared were not for the purpose of objectively ascertaining their opinion about various aspects of the sculpture, but instead were sessions designed to "educate" attendees to a foregone conclusion or point of view. Most would call this persuasion, although Ms. Arnedt does not.
The trouble with much of Ms. Arnedt's description of what she did is that she wants it both ways. She wants to provide statistical and research validity to what she did on the basis of her employment as a "professional pollster" while she also admits the sessions do not themselves meet professional-level criteria for a poll. Her sessions were too informal for that. They did not meet statistical and research methods that would qualify her sample as validly representing the town as a whole or provide the basis of statistical extrapolations to the wider population of SO residents.
There is no doubt that Ms. Arnedt is enthusiastic about her project. There is critical doubt that her informal sessions with various groups in town represent anything about the larger population of SO residents, whether it be geographic or any other kind of diversity, or whether it is the collective opinion of residents on any number of questions about the sculpture. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2720
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Going through the video again...
Ms. Arnedt is indeed correct. She did not say that she polled a majority of the residents. John P said that, and she disputed that characterization. My apologies for misspeaking above.
One thing that led most of us to conclude that she had some methodology behind her sampling is this:
"As a former director of polling for CBS News and ABC news, I did a representative sample as I outlined, in ALL of the neighborhoods." Except that a self-selecting group of residents involved in community groups is not a representative sampling. Just as a group of baseball fans would not be a representative sample of people to ask about building a baseball hall of fame in town.
A few more items...
The site was chosen with no input from the public. It was selected by the Smith family, the town (administration, I assume) and the Pierro foundation.
"Gifts do cost money" - If someone gives me a piece of art, say, a painting, I do not incur a cost for that. If someone given me the right to paint a Picasso, and it requires that I take classes to learn to paint properly, I would likely rethink that gift.
"I sympathize with residents who think it's too much money and they think that it should go elsewhere. But I happen to disagree with them, and so do a majority of residents, since I have spoken with them and presented to them." On what is this statement based? The self-selecting group of residents involved with the neighborhood associations and art groups?
The money that has been raised has been used to hire the landscape architect who build the model? Did I hear that right? Is that separate from the $40-50k that the group says they have raised to date? is the cost of that landscape architect contained within the $410,000 that this will cost?
Naysayers were convinced it was a good idea. Were they presented with accurate financing facts? I don't mean to imply that the TSSP would knowingly provide false information. Just that it does not appear all the facts have been known until recently.
If they raise more than the allotted $160k, they will consider putting that money into a trust. What else would the money be used for? Are the donors aware that money donated for the Tony Smith sculpture may not go to the Tony Smith sculpture?
"I know that the detractors are in a minority."
"We've had umpteen letters to the editor. I can get more if you like. Some of them totally unsolicited" So many of them were solicited?
I am confused, however. Ms. Arnedt appears to be arguing against something that has not been put forth. No one was saying her group did not do their jobs, or was doing a bad job of fund-raising, or planning. Everyone was saying the BOT did not put the information out there properly. So while I comment her efforts, I wish she could be more objective about the criticism. Again, until that BOT meeting, I saw no criticism of her or her group. It was all about the BOT and their lack of proper communication. |
Pdg
Citizen
Username: Pdg
Post Number: 737
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 5:42 pm: |
|
I'll add to that. During Monday's BOT meeting, a News Record article was quoted and she completely agreed to what was said, nodding yes to the person at the podium, as below. Article titled Project seeks to honor sculptor, dated 11/6/03
Quote:The group has raised about $500,000 to date. About $250,000 more is needed before the materials can be bought and transported and the sculpture can be built, Arnedt said.
I could not believe it when she agreed with that number on Monday night! That would bring the total required funds to $750,000!
A copy of this article was distributed along with other articles that all essentially implied that the Tony Smith Sculpture Project would be raising the funds required to put the sculpture in place. In NONE of the articles were the planned use of taxpayer dollars mentioned.
These articles were included in a packet of information that I received from Ms. Arnedt that also included blurry photos of the architect's model of the sculpture, copies of 11 supportive letters to the editor in the News Record, one of them being written by Cheryl Arnedt, a couple of sketches of the sculpture in its proposed surroundings, and a several page document called "Frequently Asked Questions."
During my meeting with her, I asked if the fund-raising were to raise more than the $160,000 if they would be open to refunding the taxpayers and as I recall she said something very close to, "Maybe. Perhaps up to $50,000, but no more, since the township will realize so many benefits from the sculpture and the improved site."
FYI, I strongly suggested to her that if she weren't inclined to post replies to straightforward questions posted here on MOL that her group should at least have a website with all the materials she gave me published for all to see, including many views of the architect's rendering. She said she didn't have the time or budget. I find that disturbing; one of her main priorities from the start should have been to openly provide as much factual information as possible. Rather than that, she seems to prefer making people who call with questions come in for a full presentation in her home. Very nice, but not terribly efficient. I left unsatisfied, but it was clear I had taken more of her time than she had to give and I left.
Again, I'll post her number and email address for anyone who wants to contact Cheryl directly with any questions.
Cheryl Arnedt, Director Tony Smith Sculpture Project, 973-274-9840, email: tonysmithproject@verizonmail.com |
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 515
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Rastro, from your post “The money that has been raised has been used to hire the landscape architect who build the model? Did I hear that right? Is that separate from the $40-50k that the group says they have raised to date? is the cost of that landscape architect contained within the $410,000 that this will cost?”
They did not hire the architect but rather the Village did and has paid for it. Resolution #215-05 “To Engage the Professional Services of SESI Consulting Engineering to Perform Engineering and Landscape Architecture Services for the Design of Site Improvements for the Tony Smith Sculpture”. The Village issued a PO to SESI for an amount not to exceed $71,500. The work has not been completed and so far the Village has paid a little more than $22,500 to date.
The impression was that the foundation had paid for this study. Maybe they can clarify.
Listen to: www.howard-levison.com/bot03132006_sculpture.wmv
|
jayjay
Citizen
Username: Jayjayp
Post Number: 532
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Why should the TS estate have the authority to require the BOT to circumvent the normal process of issuing a Request for Proposal for an expenditure of this amount? Does anyone know if this is even legal for the village to agree to this? |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Legal? Why bother with details, jayjay? It is all impossibly muddled. For all we know, the town gave the money to the private foundation which then paid the landscape architect, in the same way they shifted monies among bonded loans, federal grants and capital costs of more than one (we don't know which ones or how many) projects. Why not include a few off-budget, private, money laundering routes in the mix to the shape-shifting internal accounts? That way, there is even less chance the public will find it.
As I said before, shadow governments that subvert public funds are a bad idea. |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 359
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 10:45 am: |
|
I haven't read through the whole thread here, so sorry if I'm repeating something, but there WAS a survey that was conducted by the town. I remember it distinctly because I filled it out and submitted it, and it asked questions like "should tax money be used to fund any part of it" and I remember answering NO to all those types of questions. It was some time ago but I most definitely remember it, I have been meaning to ask if anyone else remembers it and did they fill it out.
I believe I caught wind of it through my neighborhood association's email loop.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3873
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
Maybe you were thinking of this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/SOtaxes/petition.html |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 360
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
No it was a poll, not a petition, and it was conducted if memory serves directly on the official town site. This was, also, some time ago, not a recent event.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 3879
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:01 pm: |
|
There was a small blurb in the latest Gaslight today about the upcoming "gala" to raise money for the sculpture. However, I thought that Gala was long since sold-out, so why are they advertising it in the Gaslight?
BTW - there was STILL no mention of the TAXPAYER cost. |
SOrising
Citizen
Username: Sorising
Post Number: 288
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 3:20 pm: |
|
wnb, since even Ms. Arnedt is now denying that she conducted a poll and since no one, either the Pierro Foundation people or city officials, have ever produced one, you would provide a great service to the town if you could find the poll you think you remember. If it exists, there will probably be more questions than can be answered by it. It suggests that whoever conducted it is intentionally hiding it. The question would be why they are. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page