unfair and unbalanced

[casualreader]

Miller is a scoundrel -- I am the real underdog. I am the real voice for change.

The PTO is obviously one-sided why was I not considered for this debate? Miller is ducking me.

I will debate him, Kane or Sims anytime and anyplace. The first Casual sign went up this evening. Feel the Groundswell.

[glow=red,2,300] VOTE CASUAL ON NOVEMBER 6 [/glow]

[phyllisdefonzo]

As someone who is all too familiar with PTOs, and someone who was all too active with the FLC PTO and FIS PTO for many years, let me point out that Geo is absolutely right. If there was something like this on the calendar or even in the offing, it should have been discussed at the PTO meeting and included in the minutes. Is it any of the other two PTOs' previous minutes? (I'm sure it might be now, going forward, to cover themselves.)

We always had to be so careful when it came to politics and the appearance of any partisanship. When all three PTOs sponsored a debate of the School Board members many years ago, it was certainly discussed through all the planning stages, and was certainly in the minutes of our PTO meetings. Mr. Miller should be very careful with his association with these organizations - as a candidate, not as a parent - and avoid the appearance of impropriety at all costs.

As president of the PTO, Mrs. Lichardi should be a lot smarter with the way she speaks to the press and answers questions posed to her. She should somehow educate herself on her comportment as a PTO officer when it comes to matters political. Hopefully the principal will pick up on this and avoid any embarrassment and headache for his individual school and the entire district.

I was always very concerned with the way PTOs conducted themselves and how there was a glaring absence of any system of checks and balances as to their behavior. This latest incident only confirms my concerns.

I will say, however, Mr. Sims, it is also my belief that any parent, whether PTO member or not, can put a sign on their lawn as an individual resident for whoever they wish to support, and it would not be reflective of any position of the school group as a whole.

Lastly, it is disappointing but certainly not surprising that there is no desire on the part of the Democratic candidates to debate. When is the last time that even happened? They won't debate in any "legitimate forum" - that's just lip service. They don't need to debate at all - they will get enough votes from their relatives, pals and cronies. They haven't had to answer to anyone for decades, why start now?

[phyllisdefonzo]

Correction - make that "debate of the School Board candidates," not "School Board members."

That's what I get for replying so early in the morning.

[richardkelsey]

I have removed the PTO minutes posted on this board. The removal is made based on a request that unauthorized, unapproved, draft minutes not be posted.

The mythical machine must be better than I thought -- as it somehow got its hands on unapproved minutes.

Every person involved with any functioning Board -- and I am chair of several volunteer Boards currently -- as well as an active PTO member, knows that Meeting minutes from any monthly meeting are not approved at that meeting -- and in fact are approved at the earliest, the next scheduled meeting. The reason for this is that draft minutes are circulated, items inserted, and other items removed. Once the draft is complete, Board members review and vote to insure their accuracy.

This type of political chicanery will not be allowed.

If I were sitting in Freehold today -- I would want to know the answer to 1 simple question -- based on this news story.

Why does Mr. Kane believe the PTO and the school parents are not "a legitimate forum" for debate?

Is that statement alone enough to raise questions?

Here are some easier questions. Which forum is legit and when will you show up?

[richardkelsey]

Censor? We were asked to remove them because they were not official minutes.

I would have left them up had you posted a source link. (I would have denied the request as they are now in the public forum -- apparently with the Board approval.)

You have resolved that problem by posting the link.

None of which resolves the issue in the thread.

BTW -- if this request was not real -- why is Mr. Kane on the attack -- attacking the PTO as not a legitimate forum? Why is Mr. Simms suggesting that party affiliation of a member of a group makes the group, and all of its people to partisan to host a debate?

Why are these guys -- running as democrats in an all democrat town terrified -- like little kids -- to debate one guy? Heck, under the rules of any legitimate debate, all three could show up and use their respective answer time to triple team the guy! LOL

If you are unwilling to stand before the voters in any fair forum -- you are unfit to serve in any office -- anywhere. IMHO

I have told you this before -- but because you are dogmatically in the camp of the incumbents -- you choose to ignore it.

Debate rules are easy to make fair -- even when hosted by "non-friendly" organizations. It's the rules that assure the fairness.

By their very nature debates bring out the partisans -- and each side tries to stack a room or get an advantage. Everyone knows this. Mr. Kane is the Council President -- what on earth is he afraid of?

I don't know Jaye Simms -- but running from adversity is not a Simms trait, and I suspect he is playing the game by the rules dictated to him by the make believe machine.

Look -- carrying the burden of this Mayor and Council is not easy -- so I understand why lesser candidates are afraid to take the heat. That might get them elected -- but it still makes them lesser candidates. Welcome to NJ politics -- a state virtually devoid of leadership. (I know -- everybody thinks its the other town's politicians who are the problem. It's not.)

50 percent of people want to leave New Jersey, the other 50% are living off the people through incompetence, patronage, and political favors.

These guys are running for seats morons can't lose -- in a town where they start with a 600-0 vote lead. If they can't answer to one debate, they may win -- but Freehold will be the loser.

[cheryl]

richardkelsey said:

50 percent of people want to leave New Jersey, the other 50% are living off the people through incompetence, patronage, and political favors.

How incredibly offensive you are!

I have no desire to leave New Jersey, and I assure you that I live off of no one's "incompetence, patronage, (or) political favors."

You insult me, my family, and all other good New Jerseyans who live here by choice, pay our own way, and care deeply about our home state.

[Libyan Sibyl]

cheryl said:

richardkelsey said:

50 percent of people want to leave New Jersey, the other 50% are living off the people through incompetence, patronage, and political favors.

How incredibly offensive you are!

I have no desire to leave New Jersey, and I assure you that I live off of no one's "incompetence, patronage, (or) political favors."

You insult me, my family, and all other good New Jerseyans who live here by choice, pay our own way, and care deeply about our home state.

Cheryl, in the past month or so, there has been several news stories about people wanting to leave NJ. I posted about it here:

freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1192622310

[cheryl]

libyansybil said:

cheryl said:

How incredibly offensive you are!

I have no desire to leave New Jersey, and I assure you that I live off of no one's "incompetence, patronage, (or) political favors."

You insult me, my family, and all other good New Jerseyans who live here by choice, pay our own way, and care deeply about our home state.

Cheryl, in the past month or so, there has been several news stories about people wanting to leave NJ. I posted about it here:

freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1192622310

I am well aware of the recent studies. Please, if you will be so kind, point me to one which validates our moderator's assertion that "the other 50% (of NJ's population) are living off the people through incompetence, patronage, and political favors"...?

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Did the poster check to see if the minutes had been approved, or did the poster just assume?

I was informed that these minutes had not been approved, that there was no motion by the PTO to vote on, and approve these minutes.

PTO minutes are not an issue!

Candidates debating issues are critical, and it is sad that rather than a dialog about when where and how a debate can be offered to the votes, we see rhetoric about Lawn Signs and who a member of the PTO, and the PTO is not a legitimate forum???

I admit to being a card carrying member of the PTO, most parents are.

[richardkelsey]

geo said:

The first reaction to news that would make people look bad was to shred and delete the evidence - not a good sign. That tells me more than any debate ever would.

Per my e-mail to you -- please post the minutes as a seperate thread.

[Libyan Sibyl]

geo said:

The first reaction to news that would make people look bad was to shred and delete the evidence - not a good sign. That tells me more than any debate ever would.

or to ignore the questions; like "will you debate me?", or "is your latest appointment an illegal alien?"

[casualreader]

Once again Libyan Sybil I ask how does anyone know he is an "illegal alien?"

Who came up with the bright idea to ask him? Is he being convicted because of his surname?

Why are people in the Ted "Wannabe Councilman" Miller camp dodging this question?

[glow=red,2,300]VOTE CASUAL ON NOVEMBER 6 [/glow]

[petedefonzo]

Geo What does not posting unauthorized minutes tell you about the candidates. Or even better, what does the lack of willingness to debate, tell you about the two current council members. Maybe they don't feel the need to answer any questions or be held accountable ? Why should they. They haven't been held accountable for years !

[Libyan Sibyl]

libyansybil said:

geo said:

The first reaction to news that would make people look bad was to shred and delete the evidence - not a good sign. That tells me more than any debate ever would.

or to ignore the questions; like "will you debate me?", or "is your latest appointment an illegal alien?"

wow, Geo, how prescient! ... and ... d**ning, that is, by his own admission.

Anyway, Geo lives in the search engine under "Geo wrote"... and there are a few gems left in here. Check it out...

[richardkelsey]

I am disappointed that Geo deleted his numerous posts. That seems inconsistent with both his persona on the site, and his great willingness to engage in debate.

I would think, based on what i have been told about him, that he is not acting on orders.

I'd like to think that perhaps he has elected to sign-up instead under his own name, and post freshly.

Either way -- eliminating one's posts from the site -- assuming of course, they have not already been saved by members both electronically or in hard copy, seems like the move of a person who has concerns about opinions he or she wrote in the past.

Again, we don't make people post her under one's own name -- but attaching one's name to posts does have the effect, for most but not all, of making people post more thoughtfully.

[casualreader]

Brian and Kelso dudes:

Just as an idea -- why don't you put a limit on the amount of time an author has to edit or delete his posts?

There is something wrong about altering public statements months, even years, after they have been made. It is one thing to correct some grammatical or spelling errors -- a few hours or days after a post. But it is dishonest to just purge your entire record.

Someone mentioned that awhile back Councilman Levine dude purged some of his posts. Now, Geo may have done the same.
There is something wrong about this.

In some ways, the posts here by elected officials, and the rest of us, could eventually serve as a sort of time capsule for those wanting to look back on what happened in our misunderstood borough.

Don't these posts become property of the message board after awhile?

I suggest you give this some thought.

Casually Protecting the Historical Record

[admin]

casualreader said:

Brian and Kelso dudes:

Just as an idea -- why don't you put a limit on the amount of time an author has to edit or delete his posts?

There is something wrong about altering public statements months, even years, after they have been made. It is one thing to correct some grammatical or spelling errors -- a few hours or days after a post. But it is dishonest to just purge your entire record.

Someone mentioned that awhile back Councilman Levine dude purged some of his posts. Now, Geo may have done the same.
There is something wrong about this.

In some ways, the posts here by elected officials, and the rest of us, could eventually serve as a sort of time capsule for those wanting to look back on what happened in our misunderstood borough.

Don't these posts become property of the message board after awhile?

I suggest you give this some thought.

Casually Protecting the Historical Record

Casual,

Awesome questions. I am with you in that I do not like to see people delete their posts, especially on cases where they have nothing to be ashamed of. You are also right that all of this is a time capsule of events and our thoughts. Reading old posts can be really cool.

With that said, there is no way for admin to really prevent people from deleting their own posts, short of banning that person or rendering their account inactive.

Even so, I am not sure that I would prevent people from deleting their own posts. I do not agree that posts become the property of the site. That actually goes against the principal of the site. That principal being an open site. I want people to have the right to participate,or not participate, as they choose. That also includes allowing people to delete all of their posts if they wish.

Going back to Geo, he is a good example of a person who is a loss to the site. He was always reserved, but posted good points to ponder. He never came across as a partisan and carried himself well. For what ever reason, he chose to leave and that is his right. If he wants to take his posts with him, he can. The irony, I am always keeping in the back of my mind who I would ask to be a moderator if another were to be needed. I considered him a contender if the need arose.

[casualreader]

Brian Dude:

He is editing them because he is probably being considered for a council seat -- He may have already been selected -- and he does not want his colleagues or the LLA sifting through his comments.

Casually Conspiratorial

[admin]

casualreader said:

Brian Dude:

He is editing them because he is probably being considered for a council seat -- He may have already been selected -- and he does not want his colleagues or the LLA sifting through his comments.

Casually Conspiratorial

I love conspiricies! Are you tying to say that the "machine" has dug their claws into Geo? Poor Geo!

[casualreader]

Geo is gone. His independence crushed by the machine, Brian dude.

Are you, me, and Kelso dude the only ones faithful to the cause?

[fiberisgoodforyou]

I seem to remember a few instances when even the troll had gone back to "edit" potential d**ning comments from a few posts.

Be careful what you wish for