|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Dec 28, 2007 12:44:15 GMT -5
Congratulations on your appointment. It appears you were appointed despite my December 4, 2007 nomination of you on this site! freeholdvoice.proboards46.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1196456557&page=1(see reply 11)  I think your public comments about mending partisanship sound great, but I hope they are not meant to suggest that Freehold should not have open, honest, fair, frank debate. Anyway -- I thought you added great value to the debate when you participated here. I appreciated that participation, and the site was better for it. We did not agree on many issues, and you were a vociferous defender for the mayor on every action. Hopefully, as a member of the Council, you will show strong independence. Your record, at least as I remember is and as it is left within the threads of others here -- is one that is unambiguous about your willingness to stand for the legal residents of Freehold, and against those there illegally. I hope your truthful postings convert to guiding principles for your service to the Town. You once wrote that you believed every member of Borough Committees should be "legal residents of Freehold Borough." On that point, you and I agree completely. Hopefully, you will take some immediate, tangible action to insure that is the case. At the end of the day -- you have stepped-up at a very difficult time in the Towns long and storied history. Its citizens as well as its alumni are thankful for people willing to take on the challenge. I am optimistic that you will work to re-formulate and re-invigorate the Council. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 2, 2008 5:54:09 GMT -5
The news Transcript has not updated it's web site so I cannot post the right article right now. There is a quote from George Schnurr which is wrong. The quote in the paper is....
"Coming from the outside, I am not here to suggest any ordinances or any policies."
I received from a good source that the above quote was not what was said.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 2, 2008 10:44:27 GMT -5
The news Transcript has not updated it's web site so I cannot post the right article right now. There is a quote from George Schnurr which is wrong. The quote in the paper is.... "Coming from the outside, I am not here to suggest any ordinances or any policies." I received from a good source that the above quote was not what was said. This might be another great reason to tape Council meetings and have them archived as streaming video available for public consumption. |
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Jan 2, 2008 11:50:49 GMT -5
As I came onto this site, I saw that Geo was also online. Perhaps he could clarify?
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Jan 2, 2008 12:04:10 GMT -5
ooo, he left with saying anything...
So does the alleged real quote substantially change the meaning of what was quoted in the paper?
"Coming from the outside, I am not here to suggest any ordinances or any policies."
|
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jan 2, 2008 12:14:00 GMT -5
Told you he's a "closet ultra-right wing Republican", he sounds just like Geo W. now! Besides, maybe this is a clever election strategy? But enough with the Negativity, its only the 2nd day of 2008. ooo, he left with saying anything... So does the alleged real quote substantially change the meaning of what was quoted in the paper? "Coming from the outside, I am not here to suggest any ordinances or any policies." |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jan 2, 2008 13:19:31 GMT -5
The news Transcript has not updated it's web site so I cannot post the right article right now. There is a quote from George Schnurr which is wrong. The quote in the paper is.... "Coming from the outside, I am not here to suggest any ordinances or any policies." I received from a good source that the above quote was not what was said. Brian...did your source give you the proper quote? I was at the meeting last week, and I remember some of what he said, but as to this particular quote, I can not remember specifically what was said. Reading some of the posts, it seems like people are already jumping at Mr Schnurr for one reason or another. This is how this site gets a bad name folks...let's give the man a chance to do something positive before we start making any assumptions. With luck, Mr Schnurr will hold true to his ideas of listening to all sides, breaking down partisanship (by listening to all sides), and cherry picking good ideas that will help the town, no matter where they may come from. I'm still disappointed that he (like Mark Levine) decided to not only stop participating on the site, but to delete all of their posts, however again, let's give him a chance...perhaps, if we're lucky, he'll make a comeback at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Jan 2, 2008 14:57:14 GMT -5
Andrew, I think it would be interesting if the actual quote substantially differs from the news quote. It seems pretty innocuous.
As to the rest of what you said, I won't go any further. Without knowing the man, apart from his postings here, he sounds like a reasonable man with a high level of dedication to the community. I am sure those qualities will eclipse the fun I was having at his expense. I was hoping that when he read this thread that he would reply, but he didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 2, 2008 17:28:49 GMT -5
Andrew, I think it would be interesting if the actual quote substantially differs from the news quote. It seems pretty innocuous. As to the rest of what you said, I won't go any further. Without knowing the man, apart from his postings here, he sounds like a reasonable man with a high level of dedication to the community. I am sure those qualities will eclipse the fun I was having at his expense. I was hoping that when he read this thread that he would reply, but he didn't. I would just add that I don't think posters have been on him at all here really. Fiber is a bit on the hunt -- but mostly everyone has come out and wished him well -- notwithstanding the odd circumstances of his departure. Having said that -- I think it is dubious to believe that any elected official from that body is going to post here. I would bet my third child -- and he is very cute -- that Council members have been asked not to post here or anywhere. Ironically -- posting here -- or somewhere else -- is better than being misquoted or misrepresented. It also provides the poster an opportunity to choose words carefully, and not react hastily as can happen in off- the-cuff remarks. Frankly -- if you can't write out a few sentences without worrying about what you said and what people will think about it -- that seems crazy. Nonetheless -- the lawyer in me understands why some might be advised to insure that their words are not forever memorialized in writing. Lord knows we have seen enough of that from people here who should know better. The new Councilman ought to be given some reasonable time (a day or two -- just kidding) to get his feet under him and decide what initiatives he wants to support. He is on record here with a few very nice quotes that did not get erased. I hope for the sake of the people of Freehold, he follows through with those ideas. I for one will be looking to see if deeds match words. That has been one very recent problem, as well set forth here, with members of that governing body. |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jan 2, 2008 17:41:47 GMT -5
please, where have I been on the hunt? I'd like to address and correct if called for.
Who offered the first congrats. here???
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 2, 2008 18:50:26 GMT -5
As I came onto this site, I saw that Geo was also online. Perhaps he could clarify? Geo was online because he was the one who sent me a PM trying to correct the misquote. He figured out and rightfully so, that a quote like that would open up a field day on this site. Geo wrote to me... "I said that my first order of business is not to suggest an ordinance or a policy change, but rather to cleanse the partisan atmosphere that's begun to take hold in Freehold Borough." In other words, the quote was not complete. The other day Geo also reached out to me and we had a good long talk. I do not fault him for leaving the site. After the March incident with Marc, I think many elected people are cautious about participating on an open board. I do not think elected officials really know how to best use something like this site. The way I look at it, his account on this site is his to do as he wishes. I hate it when people delete their posts, especially when they did nothing wrong. In Geo's case, I think most people felt he was a good participant. In the end, it is his right to delete/participate as he wishes. Geo also provided me with a good example of what can happen. Someone on the APP message board had cut and paste his quotes from here. That person did so in a manner which was incomplete and reflected conversations the wrong way. Some of those APP posts were deleted. At least one is still there. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 2, 2008 18:56:31 GMT -5
The news Transcript has not updated it's web site so I cannot post the right article right now. There is a quote from George Schnurr which is wrong. The quote in the paper is.... "Coming from the outside, I am not here to suggest any ordinances or any policies." I received from a good source that the above quote was not what was said. I'm still disappointed that he (like Mark Levine) decided to not only stop participating on the site, but to delete all of their posts, however again, let's give him a chance...perhaps, if we're lucky, he'll make a comeback at some point. I would love to see more elected people and regular people of differing views participate. I can never stress enough that this site is welcoming to anyone from our town. There are many topics to choose from and I am always willing to open up more. For those of us who do participate here, our challenge is to attract more people to participate. The best thing anyone can do is get the word out and invite others to join us here. Ironically, with the departure of our Dem friends in November, we have had eleven people sign up since then. We are gaining viewers and members, we just need some more talkers. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 2, 2008 19:00:53 GMT -5
As I came onto this site, I saw that Geo was also online. Perhaps he could clarify? Geo was online because he was the one who sent me a PM trying to correct the misquote. He figured out and rightfully so, that a quote like that would open up a field day on this site. Geo wrote to me... "I said that my first order of business is not to suggest an ordinance or a policy change, but rather to cleanse the partisan atmosphere that's begun to take hold in Freehold Borough." In other words, the quote was not complete. The other day Geo also reached out to me and we had a good long talk. I do not fault him for leaving the site. After the March incident with Marc, I think many elected people are cautious about participating on an open board. I do not think elected officials really know how to best use something like this site. The way I look at it, his account on this site is his to do as he wishes. I hate it when people delete their posts, especially when they did nothing wrong. In Geo's case, I think most people felt he was a good participant. In the end, it is his right to delete/participate as he wishes. Geo also provided me with a good example of what can happen. Someone on the APP message board had cut and paste his quotes from here. That person did so in a manner which was incomplete and reflected conversations the wrong way. Some of those APP posts were deleted. At least one is still there. Wait -- there are people who would cut and paste quoted material out of context for the purpose of misrepresenting what another was trying to say. That's outrageous! Next thing you know it will be anarchy -- cats, living with dogs! BTW -- most of those people that do that -- are either running for President, or working for someone runnign for President. |
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Jan 2, 2008 20:02:59 GMT -5
As I came onto this site, I saw that Geo was also online. Perhaps he could clarify? Geo was online because he was the one who sent me a PM trying to correct the misquote. He figured out and rightfully so, that a quote like that would open up a field day on this site. Geo wrote to me... "I said that my first order of business is not to suggest an ordinance or a policy change, but rather to cleanse the partisan atmosphere that's begun to take hold in Freehold Borough." In other words, the quote was not complete. The other day Geo also reached out to me and we had a good long talk. I do not fault him for leaving the site. After the March incident with Marc, I think many elected people are cautious about participating on an open board. I do not think elected officials really know how to best use something like this site. The way I look at it, his account on this site is his to do as he wishes. I hate it when people delete their posts, especially when they did nothing wrong. In Geo's case, I think most people felt he was a good participant. In the end, it is his right to delete/participate as he wishes. Geo also provided me with a good example of what can happen. Someone on the APP message board had cut and paste his quotes from here. That person did so in a manner which was incomplete and reflected conversations the wrong way. Some of those APP posts were deleted. At least one is still there. Okay, that does change the quote a bit. I think that Geo, Marc, or any other should post. This is an open public forum. They don't have to respond tit for tat, or respond to everything, but it is certainly worthwhile to keep open channels with the public. Responses can and should be thought out and measured. I think a few things could have been cleared up quickly, and certainly wind can be kept out of sails by open forums with the public. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Jan 3, 2008 10:50:46 GMT -5
I think Marc's position, and certainly that of his progeny was that hearing from elected people in this forum was a privilege.
In addition, the sense was from the younger Le Vine that if Freehold residents have something to say, they should go out to a council meeting and be heard in that forum.
If my recollection is incorrect on this -- please someone correct me.
Anyway -- those are very limited views communication. I am not saying that this forum needs to become the legitimate forum or official public forum of Borough officials. However, it does seem to me that the Borough should be looking to use multiple fora for means to both communicate to, and take communication from its residents. That is the reality of the information age. More information should be available and accessible through the Borough web page. The Council members should have official, published, e-mail addresses. Council meetings and those of the Planning committee should be recorded and made available on streaming video.
While political blogging is huge now -- most people also don't know that business blogging is the fastest growing aspect of business marketing. Likewise, creating some blog or communication forum with local elected officials would make sense.
Because the Borough is a one party town, it is probably even more important that the town create greater transparency, more open and free access, and take greater steps to open communication with its residents.
Those are just some suggestions. With some new blood on the Council, now might be the time to see some communication innovations. I suspect a more open communication process might help facilitate the bipartisanship goal set out by Councilman Schnurr.
|
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jan 3, 2008 12:42:07 GMT -5
Geo also provided me with a good example of what can happen. Someone on the APP message board had cut and paste his quotes from here. That person did so in a manner which was incomplete and reflected conversations the wrong way. Some of those APP posts were deleted. At least one is still there. The sad fact of the matter is that this can happen to anyone, from anywhere. Yes, if someone posts on this site, someone else can take parts of their quotes and make it seem like they were saying something different. But that can also happen just from talking at a meeting, or talking to someone on the street. As Mr Schnurr has already experienced, it can happen in the media as well, your words can be misquoted and misunderstood even by someone who doesn't intend to do you harm. If elected officials continue to "act cautious" because of this fear, then they will continue to widen the gap between themselves and those that elected them. As an elected official, you have to communicate with the public as much as possible. As an elected official, you have to deal with people who are going to oppose every word that comes out of your mouth. As an elected official, you have to learn to listen to all sides no matter how off the wall they may seem to you...these are all part of the job...learn to deal with it, or give up your post I mean, what's better...speaking your mind and being open and honest with the public, and perhaps defending yourself from time to time when someone tries to use parts of your words against you? Or clam up, don't communicate with the public so as to avoid having to defend yourself and your words, but create a void of doubt and mistrust between you and those who elected you? |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Jan 7, 2008 8:45:14 GMT -5
...just so it's understood...my post above was not meant to point a finger directly at Councilman Schnurr, or (believe it or not) anyone else on our Town Council or our Mayor...it's just a basic belief that I have that resonates from local school boards and municipalities all the way up to the federal government (which I feel is where you see the widest gap between the elected and those that elected them).
After reading it over this morning, I just wanted to make that clarification.
|
|
