| Author | Message | ||
     Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 50 Registered: 3-2003 |
Washashore: At the risk of being condescending you really don't know what you are talking about. You take a little truth and twist it, make some of it up or take it out of context. THE REAL PROBLEM IS SOMEBODY READS YOUR POST AND ASSUMES INCORRECTLY IT HAS SOME TRUTH TO IT. | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 215 Registered: 9-2002  |
I'm starting to wonder if Washashore wears an aluminum foil pyramid on his head to keep the aliens from reading his mind. I think we're all bozos on this bus. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4831 Registered: 5-2001  |
(I'm still trying to figure out if "anatomical biology" is redundant phrasing) As for "performance appraisals" I think they're called elections. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 42 Registered: 4-2003 |
Dave Ross: 1) There is anatomical biology; forest biology; marine biology; invertebrate biology just to name a few. Redundant phrasing it's not. 2) Election every four years, when the electorate is not privy to all of the doings of the Town, its elected officials and employees are hardly indicative of much, except that, at Mr. Rosner's own admission, the Village withdrew its advertising budget from the News Record prior to the election because, according to Mr. Rosner, the N-R was not covering S.O. well. Could that be why the N-R had NOT ONE article on the issues and the differences between the two slates? The N-R didn't even bother to attend the one debate that the incumbents agreed to, and therefore didn't even report on it. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 4832 Registered: 5-2001 |
The lack of media coverage does not hurt incumbent candidates. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 44 Registered: 4-2003 |
Dave Ross: I'm not sure I understand the intent of your last post, so my response here may be off. In saying that "lack of media coverage does not hurt incumbent candidates" is why this past election can not be seen as a "Performance Appraisal" of the incumbents or their employees, as you suggest it should. No coverage of the issues/questions about what they've done and why others ran against them leads to no discussion of performance, and, often, not having to pay the consequences (lost elections) for poor performance. By withdrawing advertising from the N-R, one of its main sources of income, and clearly one that the N-R desperately wanted to win back, the incumbents helped create the "lack of coverage" that, as you state, could not hurt them, but also could not then help inform the electorate of the differences. | ||
| mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 308 Registered: 5-2001 |
Edwin, The "lengths you will go to to falsely attack peolpe" is a bit of an exxageration, don't you think? Mark stated that he never new Bill to be partisan or to endorse a candidate & I simply stated that he did. In reviewing my files, I see it was actually Dale Favors, who was running on Candy Straight's ticket and for that I stand corrected.  Lighten up, Ed. It's Summertime - loosen the tie & don't be so quick to get defensive or condescending! | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 496 Registered: 4-2002 |
Just to correct what Washashore said I stated. I suggested that we consider using the Star-Ledger to advertise meetings, ordinances, and all the legal notices that must be printed for two reasons: 1. More people read the Star-Ledger than the News-Record (based on subscription figures). 2. The Star-Ledger is printed every day and when there is a holiday week it is sometimes difficult to meet the deadlines of the News-Record. Both papers do a lousy job of covering the village meetings and reporting on local news. The News-Record has very limited resources and clearly does not have enough staff to cover everything and the Star-Ledger only reports on a major story (i.e. SHU Fire). Their reporter is rarely at a meeting (in fact I have never met the current reporter from the Star-Ledger). Mayhewdrive: I can only state that Bill C has never ever asked me to support any political candidate and he has never handed me literature or even hinted at what party he supports. I think he tries to remain neutral and the flyer you show above looks like he wanted to support someone from S. Orange (and he did the same for Fred Caraballo when he lived in S. Orange and Fred is a member of the Democratic party). And to further correct more misinformation by Washashore, the incumbents agreed to up to three debates as the challengers wanted. I sent Brian O'Leary an e-mail the week after the petitions were turned in giving him dates that would work. They did not get back to us until after the debate at the middle school. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 84 Registered: 1-2003 |
Getting back to the thread. I was surprised to see some of the quotes in the Record today. I know the Record is not the greatest source of info, but I don't think town officials should say anything other than we are desperate for additinal state aid. To say that other years were worse ... well I just wouldn't want anybody in a decision making authority to see that. It could subconciously affect next years grant. Now to a bigger question. Why is MW's muni increase only about 2.7% or something like that per the Record and if an earlier thread is right our's will be 5.8%. If the percentages are wrong, plse let me know. But something is very very wrong with such a large differential. Further to that, you would think that our muni tax increase % would be better than MW's in that we have the Pilot revenue from the Gaslight Commons that is going all to subsidize the muni budget. I don't understand. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 213 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark: Is the municipal increase 5.8%? If so, what happened to the 4.6% increase that was mentioned by you on this board prior to the election? | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 85 Registered: 1-2003 |
My prevous post may be off a bit. An earlier post on this thread said 5.8% and that was the # I quoted, but now I see that that was the overall increase, not the muni only. Mark, can you clarify: - the muni only increase - the overall proj increase now. Lastly, I would still refer back to my previous question, of why is it MW can increase their muni taxes by only 2.7% and we have a much higher increase? Thanks. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 499 Registered: 4-2002 |
Our projected increase is around 4.48%. One should look at the increases over a period of time 3 - 5 years rather than for just one year. For instance if we raised our taxes 4.5% last year and Maplewood's increase last year was 10%, then you can understand why they would have a smaller increase this year. Over a longer period of time and given that everything else is equal, the average increase should be close. My guess is that you will see just that. Also, one needs to look at the total picture (Reserve, Tax collection rate, one time expenses, etc). | ||
| Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1512 Registered: 3-2002 |
Mark, I think the e-mail you are recalling was a private one from you to me, in which you identified the dates that you would be in Europe and not around town. Some time after that, you postponed your trip. I didn't take that e-mail as an official offer of debate dates, just a heads up on when you would be around. While you may have been willing to debate more than once, your campaign manager was very clear with both our manager and with the CCN advisor that the LWV slate saw no reason to hold a second debate. The crew from CCN contacted Allan Rosen on the day of the League debate (which I think was April 30) asking for participation from both slates. We agreed to any of the dates offered the following week, after which Dave Bressen visited Frank Mullin personally to argue against having a televised debate. Frank then called Roz Diamond to join the discussion, which ended with the clear message from Dave that there would be no debate. Personally, I feel that the campaign is over and the voters elected the incumbents to represent them for the next four years. I would have liked to have had additional debates, much as I would have liked the News-Record to have provided the South Orange race with even half the coverage they gave to the Democratic primary in Maplewood. It didn't happen. If I were the incumbent, I may also have been reluctant to have a second debate... why give the opposition any chance at all? I'm not debating that as a strategy (I had that chance in May). Given that the election is over, and that we lost, it's a concern to me now that we're revising history to say that the LWV slate was gung ho to debate. It's just not true. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 502 Registered: 4-2002 |
Brian: I sent a follow-up email when I was able to postpone my trip and said I would be available almost any night the first week in May. It was a private e-mail and you are right that it was not an official offer to additional debates, but I thought it was understood that I was ok with more debates. I was never told or asked about doing another debate from David Bressen or Roz Diamond. You are right that it was to our advantage not to debate again and probably why Dave did not want to pursue one. I did not say we were gung-ho, but I will say Allan Rosen tried to coordinate a TV debate but there did not seem to be a date that everyone including the TV studio could agree upon. I certainly agree with you about revising histrory and did criticize the News-Record for not covering the debate or for not giving the whole election very much coverage. | ||
| nwyave Citizen Username: Mesh Post Number: 86 Registered: 1-2003 |
4.48% is muni increase or overall? If muni, what is the overall increase? I will try to look into the 3- 5 year increases for SO vs MW. | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 46 Registered: 4-2003 |
Woodstock et al: Please note Mr. Rosner's obfuscation of the truth in stating that the incumbents agreed to three debates with the challengers, and Brian O'Leary's response that "it's just not true." Mr. Rosner prefaced his three-debate willingness statement with "to further correct misinformation from Washashore..." in an attempt to continue Messrs Matthews' and Rosner's goal of discrediting me. Yet, as with this three-debate-willingness comment of his, most of what we get from the incumbents and their staff is misinformation. Mr. O'Leary's statement above exposes Mr. Rosner's inability to accurately reflect history, and tries to set the record straight. It would be great to see in this forum that when someone makes statements that appear to have merit or raises serious questions about Town goings-on, that others whose interest has been piqued by such comments, pick up the thread and continue to ask questions of the incumbents and their staff, to pursue clarification at THAT end. Resorting to name-calling, or disregarding such statements made by residents because not every statement is factually documented with chapter and verse, does not help to get the truth out. As someone wiser than I once said: "DARE TO KNOW, FOR THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE." | ||
| woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 218 Registered: 9-2002 |
Washashore, I am quite able to read and see that Brian and Mark disagree on what happened with scheduling the debates. Or perhaps it's a misunderstanding. I don't feel the need to jump to the conclusion that there is intent to deceive, as you seem to on every occasion. -I have not resorted to name calling. -I have no problem (heck I encourage) questioning public officials about how they're serving us. -I am all for not letting said officials off the hook when they provide incorrect or obtuse answers. I will, however, personally disregard comments by anyone when they are made in an accusatory manner and are not backed up by facts. You've made many claims and accusations about the current administration. All I've asked is that when making these claims, you provide some level of proof. And yes, sometimes simply asking a question in a certain manner is an accusation. Innuendo is not the way to conduct a public debate. I think we're all bozos on this bus. | ||
| David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 36 Registered: 4-2003 |
The election is long past us now, and we should focus attention on issues that will move our town forward. That said, let me just confirm that we challengers did try quite hard to engage the incumbants in more debates (offering any day, any time, anywhere), but were flatly denied. Mr. Rosner was probably quite willing to do it, and perhaps Mr. Rosen was as well. They were obviously trumped by Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Bressen who rightly saw no benefit in engaging us on the issues. Mark, perhaps you were unaware of our efforts, but please do not claim "the incumbents agreed to up to three debates as the challengers wanted" when it not true. | ||
| Edwin R. Matthews Citizen Username: Edwinrmatthews Post Number: 52 Registered: 3-2003 |
Washashore: I have never had a goal of discrediting you. I do however from time to time discredit the inaccurate, misleading and false information you post. It appears you post without making any effort to check the accuracy of what you say. Case in point your post in which you discuss the selection of a treasurer to replace John Mosca. All of the candidates who were interviewed by the Finance Committee were asked if they would move to South Orange not just the candidate who "rose to the top". She in fact told the Village she would not relocate and when she declined the job offer gave as her reason that she did not want to commute from her then residence in part because she had recently had a baby. When she took the job in Maplewood there was some surprise in South Orange. I was told confidentially by a Maplewood Official her decision was not just communtation related but was also based on some personality issues and because she felt there were too many problems to be straightened. She was talking to other towns (including Maplewood which did not have the number of problems South Orange had.) Contrary to your assertion she lasted in Maplewood less than one year. While all the facts of her leaving are immaterial it was quite clear at the time that there was dissatisfaction with her. The decision at the time to have the then administrator serve as the treasurer was based in part on the fact that there was a perception that there were no "quality candidates" available to the Village. Three additional points are worth mentioning: 1)This took place over six years ago; 2) Four of the six trustees presently serving were not on the Board at the time, and 3) the current administrator was not here at the time. Your assertion that no village employees has had a performance evaluation in the last four years is absolutely untrue. To respond to your specific question as to how I know John has performed well for four years since there has not been a performance appraisal in those four years. My response is simple. I work with John very closely. There is rarely a day that goes by that I do not meet with or talk with John. I observe first hand how he handles the day to day operations of the Village, how he handles problems and issues and how he deals with people. I have discussed his performance with the elected officials and have listened to their comments. I don't need a formal performance evaluation to know whether John is doing a good job or not. My observations and my over twenty years experience working with township administrators both in South Orange and elsewhere gives me a perspective to reach the conclusion I have. Is John perfect? No. Is he without faults? No. Is he a damned good administrator? Yes!!!  | ||
| deepthroat Citizen Username: Deepthroat Post Number: 1 Registered: 5-2003 |
Eddie Baby, Seems pretty clear where your bread is buttered. I find it amazing that people still buy your parlor tricks and smoke-and-mirror bit. What happens when the old folks who Bill's been dosing all these years that keep voting him in like a diety find out that their fixed incomes and pensions won't allow them to live out their natural lives in South Town? Of course, all the "new, imported" residents will surely fall in line with the multi-million dollar Diamond Bill status quo. Riiiiighhhhhtt. Now, about these PILOTs. What happens when the YUPs from NYC, who are, incidently, used to having children in apartments do just that and it blows your whole evil plan? My understanding is that at $10,000 a pop to the school system, your little mark-up on the Gaslight Commons deal could quickly go into the negative numbers. We, the people of the Township of South Orange Village, deserve answers to the questions - nay! the SKELETONS - in ole Billy Boy's closet. We deserve the truth behind the haze that hovers above the Sacks, Hartwyck, and Mosca disasters and we deserve to know the truth about John Gross's current reign over every aspect of this town's business. Is that too much for you? If so, just explain Hartwyck and everything he touched or everything any relative of his touched. The orchestrations by ole Billy Boy last election were creative in their deception. Guess we'll have a fence to look at and a demo zone to walk by until the next. Quit insulting citizens, because I'm sick of reading it. If you can't post nice (or truthful), don't post at all. DT |
