|
|
Post by admin on Oct 2, 2009 9:23:55 GMT -5
Long time readers may recall that last year there was an attempt at getting some sort of forum where residents can meet the candidates. Last year that discussion was started way too late to really get anything of value done right. This year is different.
Many of the same residents from last year who had this idea are at it again and it is being done right, with the addition of some more residents. But, to sweeten the pot, this gets better.....
On the Asbury park Press web site, there is a new blog called Freehold In New Jersey.com. The site editor there is named Colleen Curry. Colleen is taking a strong lead on this and the site she runs will be hosting a forum where residents get to submit questions to any of the candidates who show up.
Besides hosting his event, FiNJ will also run a live video feed to their site on the night of the forum. Prior to the event, there will be a form on line where residents can submit questions ahead of time. I strongly encourage people to submit those questions and attend. This site, the Freehold Voice, will not be accepting questions.
Invitations have gone out to all candidates and most details are ready to go. The date and location are still in the air at this time. residents can expect this event during the third week in October.
The rules and structure of the forum have been detailed, but cannot be posted until the candidates are aware and sigh off on them
The goal of this event is to provide a comfortable, fair and sane forum for candidates and residents. With the involvement of Colleen and her site, this is an innovative event that we have coming to our town.
Also, the League of Women Voters will be sending out one of two people to assist and ensure a quality event.
This site will keep people updated, but keep a close eye on Freehold In New Jersey for more details.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 2, 2009 9:26:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 2, 2009 9:29:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 2, 2009 11:01:50 GMT -5
One small step for democracy, one giant step for Freehold Borough. That is great news. When I ran for office in 1986 in Freehold, we had a candidates' forum. The Democrat incumbants were gracious enough to agree to it, and civil and responsible in the event. It was a great night. Those who would hold the public's trust - should trust the people to hold them accountable in public. IMHO |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 2, 2009 11:49:22 GMT -5
This is GREAT news! now we have something to be excited for! Now all 4 candidates have to step up and earn there votes! This is exactly what we needed! Can not wait to go to this, it should be an amazing night! Admin, thanks for the great news!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 6, 2009 14:04:11 GMT -5
Has anybody heard any new news about htis debate. from what i understand it isnt definetly going on, not all sides have agreed
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 6, 2009 15:08:17 GMT -5
Has anybody heard any new news about htis debate. from what i understand it isnt definetly going on, not all sides have agreed Who has not agreed? Why would anyone duck the public -- particularly in an event to be moderated by the largest regional newspaper? That would take some guts. I can see why an incumbent would want to avoid a debate. They have the most to lose. They are sitting on a majority, they have the lead, they have the job, and it is theirs to lose. Thus, a debate can only be a pitfall for them. That, of course, assumes that a challenger or challengers can deliver the goods. It also assumes that anyone pays attention. Assuming the rules are fair for both sides, I think ducking a debate is about as weak as it gets. To the credit of my opponent when I ran in Virginia for a County wide office -- we had 18 debates. They ranged from televised to small, local outings. The papers said I won all 18. I agree. It didn't help me a lick, LOL. My opponents had nothing to gain by showing up -- but the community had an expectation that its elected officials would stand to take their questions in an election season -- and those democrats did just that -- often under withering attack. Anyway -- I am sure the four fine candidates of Freehold will come together and be accountable in the Freehold Borough, the cradle of the American democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 6, 2009 17:28:47 GMT -5
a debate will be great. it will give the people of this town a chance to see if what everyone is saying about a particular candidate is true. I think the person who has the most to lose in this case is John Newman. From what i understand, he is an intelligent man and would probaly do a good job but i think his running mate would bring him down during a debate. The big question of the debate is can Johns running mate go threw the entire debate without attacking Marc LeVine??? I dont see him being able to act properly for a long period of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 7, 2009 7:37:49 GMT -5
Has anybody heard any new news about htis debate. from what i understand it isn't definetly going on, not all sides have agreed Obviously with time slipping away, there will be a need to advertise the daylights out of this event. Be careful of the information you are getting. And I hope it is not from any of the political parties involved. I can promise you that something will be going on. At this point it is just about dotting some I's and crossing some Tee's. Also remember that Freehold in new Jersey is the host of this event. All breaking news will hit there first. This site will merely be trying to drive traffic to that one, especially the portion where the public gets to submit questions. At this point there are only seven questions up there, so please submit your questions on Freehold in New Jersey. I have full and reasonable expectations that we will see the full and complete announcement by the end of this week or early next week at the latest. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 7, 2009 8:21:33 GMT -5
"Be careful of the information you are getting. And I hope it is not from any of the political parties involved. "
Admin, not sure were your going with this statment, freehold is a small town with alot of people that talked to both parties. i can assure, no one political gave me that information. Its having discussions with people in town, thats the "word on the street". discussions can come from people working on the debate, reporters, family,buisness people of freehold, certainly doesnt have to be a canidate. its a small town with rumors all over it!
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 14, 2009 10:19:20 GMT -5
tick, tock, tick tock.
Let me guess -- the parties can't agree on where, when, who, format, and the like?
Let me further guess -- Dems want it later. (No transcript coverage) Dems don't want citizen participation -- or they want to control that group? Let me further guess again, Dems want to dictate agenda and subjects?
Don't get me wrong -- I am sure the challengers have requests too. Let's face it though -- challengers can't really make demands, and they sure don't profit from delay.
Nothing like the famous delay tactics to effectively kill a debate.
Am I wrong? Is there anything to report?
The silence tells me this is in super stall mode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 14, 2009 10:58:25 GMT -5
Exactly what u knew was going to happen. i hav heard the delays are not just one sided but either way its not looking good. time is wasting away. sad because alot of people were excited to see what the challengers had to say, guess thats not gonna happen!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 14, 2009 16:01:46 GMT -5
Sad to say, the debate is DOA. The committee who put this together is a great group of people who deserve credit for trying to do something really nice for the residents of Freehold Borough.
I do not have all details yet, and it would be in really bad taste for me to come here and even hint at any blame game, so I will not. I know people may want specific answers out of curiosity. I have to ask that people accept that we will not have it and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 14, 2009 16:10:08 GMT -5
Sad to say, the debate is DOA. The committee who put this together is a great group of people who deserve credit for trying to do something really nice for the residents of Freehold Borough. I do not have all details yet, and it would be in really bad taste for me to come here and even hint at any blame game, so I will not. I know people may want specific answers out of curiosity. I have to ask that people accept that we will not have it and move on. Shocking. I will wait for the "facts" to emerge before assigning concrete blame. I will say this. Freehold is not a big town. It is not a political Mecca. It is not a politically significant jurisdiction, and plays virtually no role in significant policy in either the county or the state -- much to the chagrin of its citizens. Accordingly -- it is absurd that 4 part-time council people cannot sit-down, agree to debate, and come to agreement on reasonable terms for such a debate -- particularly in light of a bi-partisan effort led by an honest broker and major newspaper. How this could ever be a political game in a small town where we here "politics does not matter" is beyond me. I want to be clear -- because I know I am speaking directly to all the candidates and their various surrogates. You are embarrassing the Borough of Freehold and yourselves. You don't need surrogates. You don't need representatives. You don't need debate outlines, agendas and demands. You can meet at Sweet Lews, have a cup of coffee, and agree in 15 minutes to reasonable rules that allow you to discuss issues before the people you are seeking to "serve." Get it done. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 15, 2009 8:18:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 15, 2009 15:49:41 GMT -5
Other than Colleen Curry's post, all of the facts are not there and there is some serious misinformation on that site as well. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 15, 2009 16:36:50 GMT -5
Candidate Marc le Vine wrote the following on Freeholdinnewjersey.com : Marc LeVine on October 14th, 2009
Mr. Miller, I am very disappointed in you. Your statement lacks integrity by not leveling with the people of Freehold Borough who deserve to know the truth of what transpired during the initial and only debate meeting of October 13, 2009, as I understand. So, why not share with everyone exactly what has happened here, so they will understand the constructs of how your debate planning has been conducted?
The first time I actually heard of this debate was on the afternoon of October 1st when a letter was tucked inside my entry door at home. The letter was delivered to our homes only a couple of hours before public notification of the debate appeared on the APP InJersey blog. This letter requested that Councilwoman Shutzer and I or our appointed designees appear at a pre-arranged meeting at the local Asbury Park Press offices to settle on what you expected would be the final terms of a debate, which only you, your running mate and a few others already had planned. The fact is that neither Councilwoman Sharon Shutzer nor I, nor anyone else on the Council, had ever been contacted and made aware that a debate was already in the works by you or any other party.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Newman, it is certainly helpful for the public to know that the individual initiating and orchestrating this “one-sided” event was one of your best-known supporters, Brian Sullivan, the administrator of the Freehold Voice. The Freehold Voice blog has earned quite a reputation as a highly partisan vehicle for frequent attacks on the current governing body. Mr. Sullivan, who also chairs a Borough Community Information Committee (CIC) and is charged with creating positive PR for our town, spends much of his private time doing quite the opposite when wearing his Freehold Voice administrator’s hat. There was legitimate concern, by us, regarding the impartiality and fairness of the event as it seemed to be unfolding, for obvious reasons.
Despite the obvious chicanery and political game-playing taking place, Councilwoman Shutzer and I still agreed to send our designees to meet with yours so as to discuss our own preferences for time, date and location of the debate. After all, as 50% of the debating participation, should we not – as incumbents — have some say in the planning? Apparently, that was never considered from the beginning. It appears we were only to be told when and where to show up.
Councilwoman Shutzer and I were never extended a courtesy to being made aware of wishes to debate, until after some of your initial planning had already taken place. There was no consideration accorded us with regard to our availability on the date you chose to hold the debate, October 22nd. Nor was there any interest shown in soliciting our input regarding any other early details, which you already had decided upon when you instructed Mr. Sullivan to approach the Colleen Curry at the blog, www.freehold.InJersey.com and the League of Women Voters, among others. In my opinion it appears that you just expected us to show up when you snapped your fingers and hoped to use our absences, excused or not, against us for your own political gain, hence your post here immediately after the announcement.
More details the public should know: Since this all began, we have learned that you have already reserved the Park Avenue School for the evening of October 22nd and that Mr. Sullivan called our town’s police chief, a few weeks ago, to make him aware that he may need to send some of his officers over to the school on the night of the debate. So, it would seem that almost everything was formalized well before Councilwoman Shutzer and I were ever contacted by you or your representatives to discuss the idea of having a debate in the first place. Mr. Miller, do you have a crystal ball regarding our busy schedules? Might we have had other personal plans and professional commitments on the evening that you chose to debate us? There was no apparent respect shown to us regarding our personal and professional calendars, no respect shown towards us at all. Why is that?
I believe the handling of this whole affair by you and your supporters to be very unorthodox, inappropriate and totally unacceptable to anyone, who deserves the right to be onboard with something like this from the very beginning. Why wouldn’t anyone pick up the phone or send a letter or email requesting a debate? Freehold Borough is a very small town and none of us are so hard to find.
This maneuver also reeks of despair and lack of respect for the process of political campaigning. Your hero, Christopher Christie, would not even deign to pull something like this over incumbent Governor Jon Corzine.
Despite the slight we received from you and the obvious disrespect shown toward us by you and your campaign committee surrounding the pre-planning if the debate, Councilwoman Shutzer and I are still willing to debate you and Mr. Newman in Borough Hall on the evening of October 27th, if you are both available. This is a convenient date for both of us. Since you never asked us when we could do this, we are telling you now that this is a good night for both of us. In fact, you were already made aware of this date when our designees met with you on October 13th, just yesterday. We are still waiting for your reply.
So, I believe the ball is in your court, not in ours. We are willing, ready and able to debate. I am hoping you will take us up on the offer, so that we can all put on a fair and balanced debate for the people of Freehold Borough |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 16, 2009 9:17:51 GMT -5
admin, thats hardly true! while colleen did precent the story, Marcs statement ,which you put on here, tells the truth! Admin, why isnt john or teds statement on here? why nothing of the other date the dems offered which the gop hasnt responded to yet? wheres that reporting on here? or do we some how forget to report that side of the story?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 16, 2009 15:51:13 GMT -5
admin, thats hardly true! while colleen did precent the story, Marcs statement ,which you put on here, tells the truth! Admin, why isnt john or teds statement on here? why nothing of the other date the dems offered which the gop hasnt responded to yet? wheres that reporting on here? or do we some how forget to report that side of the story? Freeholdboy, you ask good and fair questions, but, I am not in a position where it would be appropriate to discuss those things. I did post candidate Le Vines comments here because I believe everybody should read them, it is worth the time. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 17, 2009 10:13:48 GMT -5
admin, thats hardly true! while colleen did precent the story, Marcs statement ,which you put on here, tells the truth! Admin, why isnt john or teds statement on here? why nothing of the other date the dems offered which the gop hasnt responded to yet? wheres that reporting on here? or do we some how forget to report that side of the story? Freeholdboy, you ask good and fair questions, but, I am not in a position where it would be appropriate to discuss those things. I did post candidate Le Vines comments here because I believe everybody should read them, it is worth the time. I am not sure the questions are either good or fair. We don't "report." We are a site where people post. I have many, many, many, many much better questions about Marc's Post -- which besides political spin -- I believe does him a disservice. Of course, his history is one of saying a bit too much, too often. I always credited Marc for being willing to engage the public in a public forum. He has changed from that really. He no longer discusses political issues on public fora -- except to do political spin and damage control like his last post. That's what the machine does. But I am curious indeed over Marc and the Mayor and Council's obsession over this site and its admin. Once again Marc attempts to re-write history and, while spinning his story on the debate, takes some time to attack the admin and this site again. If there is one thing that makes the machine crazy, it is fair, honest, criticism that it cannot control or muzzle. Since Mark opened the door, as we say in the legal profession, I will walk right through it. Marc calls the admin of this site's credibility into question and further states emphatically that in his private time he hurts the town's reputation. I see no evidence of that, and Marc points to no facts related to that bald assertion. If by allowing fair, civil, debate on Town issues he thinks this site does the town a disservice, I disagree. The only time this site brought bad publicity to the Borough of Freehold was when Marc himself posted comments on the site that polarized racial tensions, led to protests, calls of resignation, and the busing in of out of town radicals to create a media spectacle. The admin of this site and others, myself included, came hard to defend Marc because we knew he had no malice in his comments, and we knew that while we often didn't agree with him on issues, the overwhelming bulk of his comments and participation on this site at that time was good for Freehold. The admin of this site has never done anything to put Freehold in that type of horrific situation. Marc knows that contrary to his political hit piece, the admin of this site is a fair, honest, tireless advocate for Freehold both on this site and in his daily life. The cheap, and unsubstantiated shot he now takes at our admin is below the Marc Le Vine I knew, and certainly wreaks of political opportunism. Marc ultimately left this site, and others closely associated with him either personally or politically also left the site or were banned for conduct that was beyond the pale -- conduct that likewise cast bad publicity on the town and called intoo question the type of people this Machine is willing to appoint to committees. One former regular poster is another Councilman -- now apparently a member of the "New York Yankees." After getting tapped by the machine to become a councilman -- this pillar of strength quit the site and deleted all of his posts. (Not before I saved every, single, one of them.) This is what passes now for leadership in small town Freehold -- Cheap, silly, partisan political squabbling over jobs that once were held by honorable business men and women who served out of responsibility and common good, not political partisanship. This is the direct and proximate result of the Wilson era of machine politics -- in my opinion. Everything is political, everything is controlled, dissent is squashed, and the goal of the machine is to serve itself first, and then to further the private and political plumb opportunities for a few in the machine. I wouldn't want to stand and face the public either in a meaningful way if that were my record. I would want the debate not to have live coverage, citizen participation, or be held in time to be covered by the local newspaper. In other words, I would pull a Wilsonian tactic and attack and smear my critics, call the whole thing unfair, stall, and then seek political retribution against all involved - if I had their record. Here is what galls me. I have advised Congressional, Senate, Gubernatorial, Attorney General, and even Presidential campaigns. Yet the level of partisan BS in those real races was not as high in some cases, as exists among a group of mostly under-qualified, self-important, small time political hacks who have hijacked a town, drove it into the ground, assuaged any responsibility, foregone any honest effort to change, and have become nothing more than a political machine that acts for its own good. It's downright shameful. No George, you are not the New York Yankees. A council race in Freehold New Jersey is not the major leagues. It is important though -- which is why a real big leaguer wouldn't act like a bush leaguer. Marc's self-serving post on the injersey site is related to the TRUE FACTS much the same way I am related to Al Sharpton. (Not at all or distantly -- like only through adam and eve) The notion that this public debate was a conspiracy by the league of women voters or the APP is conjunction with that crazy FV admin -- makes Marc's entire post seem just silly. No one believes that. Ask yourself this - how is the admin of this site acting to hurt the town in his private time when he works to bring democracy back to Freehold by helping a bipartisan group plan a fair, open, honest debate streamed to the public and with public participation? The accusation that this admin uses his private time to hurt the town is repudiated by the real facts. If Marc, Sharon, Mike, George, and Jaye want to be big leaguers, they would be working to bring democracy back too. Jaye ducked debates the year he ran -- so it is interesting that he would play any role as a representative setting out debate parameters. And no Marc, being an incumbent doesn't and shouldn't give you any extra rights in a democracy. It should give you some sense of extra responsibility to act like a big leaguer -- and provide the people of this town with an honest debate and real accountability. You shouldn't have to have been asked, you should have volunteered to make it happen. Twenty-three years ago this week, at age 19, I had a debate/public forum at the old Court Street School. My incumbent opposition were respectful, serious, civic-minded democrats who stood before the people and side-by-side with their political opponent to be accountable. In that sense Freehold was the winner. Indeed, the very issues I ran on that year, took fire and helped carry a then Republican Marc Levine into office shortly after me. That was back in the infancy of the Wilson machine -- when Freehold was still a small town with public service minded people looking to serve not party -- but the neighbors with whom they lived. Twenty-three years later, civil, civic political discourse in Freehold is on life support -- and when it finally dies, it will be another legacy of the Machine. Finally -- I will only say this -- if Marc and Sharon -- and indeed everyone who seeks to serve in Freehold were as fair-minded, honest, dedicated, respectful, and committed to Freehold as Brian -- the admin of this site -- the town would be much better off. I have never met Brian. That is one of the rich ironies of this situation. I know all the other characters (except Mr. Newman), some of them quite well indeed. All of them are capable of and have been good people. In all the time I have been associated with this site, Brian and I have spoken just once on the phone -- when he asked me to admin. We might have exchanged 10 e-mails in 3 or 4 years. Yet I have the pleasure of watching him conduct himself with honor, decency, and civility in his quest to make Freehold a better place. He does so under withering political attack from those with not nearly as honorable intentions. I have enormous pride for his advocacy for Freehold -- and I find the continued attacks on him to be reprehensible. I wish he were my lifelong friend. Frankly, i have known some of the people in this race my whole life, and they ought to know better than to allow cheap politics to smear a good community servant. Brian -- hold your head up high - you and the bipartisan group of citizens who worked to bring this real debate to Freehold have acted with honor -- and you are the heroes here. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 17, 2009 14:09:42 GMT -5
Mr Kelsey with all do respect if you find marcs post from freeholinjersey to be "uncredible" then maybe you should take a closer look at your above post. Theres a few areas that seem to be alittle inaccurate in your post:
1.theres no reporting on the FV just posts? how about cutting and pasting articles and post from other sites, how about making announcements or giving details about events such as the debate? is that not reporting? i think it is.
2. you dont think my questions are good or fair? is that because there not all one sided like your post? since when is it a crime for someone to have a different opinion then yours? we do still have freedom of speech right?
3.people have left the site and erased there posts? well if your here just to post and not report, why would you have copies of all of someones post? what are you holding on too them for?
4.where did Marc attack the league of womens voters or the APP in his post? i saw him presenting his opinion of Mr Miller and Brian, no where did i see these acts you are referencing. Is he not entitled to speak his mind like you are on here? im confused.
5. im glad politics was so nice when you ran 23 years ago...as i remember it, wasnt there some personal controversy in your election? didnt people have personal attacks towards you? things have changed, so has our world. How can everything thats changed be Mike Wilson fault. Is it mike wilsons fault that the cost of our homes has gone up? Is it mike wilsons fault that our town is full of business, not many open stories. not sure when you visted last, but i live here and see my town looking pretty good. Now you say you have been involved with so so many elections on so so many levels? well, im pretty sure on all these levels you have seen an unwritten law, a law were a imcumbent does have alittle more say then a challenger. This happens on a local level to the highest level there is, that rich is called politics. Now you may be older then me but i have seen enough in my years to tell you politics has been like this for a long time in freehold, monmouth county, newjersey and america....
Why rich do you not adress teds comments on that same web site that you attack Marcs post from. Why hasnt Mr. Miller come out and called Marc out on all his "inaccurate" facts? why did you post your thoughts on this site not the other site in questions? I'm not saving that anyone is right or wrong but i know this, if there was a post calling me as a challenger out like marcs called ted, i would respond, brian too.
Maybe you think marc or sharon has changed from when you knew them. MAybe they have maybe they havent, i dont know. I just think posting marcs comments and not teds or newmans is alitle one-sided. i think you attacking marc is alittle one sided. I guess on election day, when the people of this small town speak, we will clearly see who they believe!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 17, 2009 16:51:43 GMT -5
Rich Wrote:
The only time this site brought bad publicity to the Borough of Freehold was when Marc himself posted comments on the site that polarized racial tensions, led to protests, calls of resignation, and the busing in of out of town radicals to create a media spectacle.
I do want to correct one thing for the record. There was one other occasion when this site made it into the papers for a negative reason. That was when there was heated discussion pertaining to a committee appointment that the governing body made to the Human Relations Committee (HRC). The chair of the HRC did go to a council meeting out of concern for pot shots that were alleged at that committee. It was reported in the paper and the record was corrected that there was no pot shots at the committee, just reasonable questions for the governing body that to this day have never been answered, even when the papers asked. Ironically, this issue was very tied into the issue that Rich mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 21, 2009 8:08:32 GMT -5
"Other than Colleen Curry's post, all of the facts are not there and there is some serious misinformation on that site as well. Stay tuned."
where is the "stayed tuned" info to show all these "misinformations" you guys are refering too? I find it hard to believe that Mr. LeVines post has so much "bad information" and no response from anyone involved in setting up the debate? Forget those 2 wonderful GOP canidates, how come no one from the APP or anywhere didnt respond??? Humm, maybe because Marcs post was accurate? Cant wait, only a few more weeks til election day and then the people of freehold have the real "FREEHOLD VOICE"!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 21, 2009 8:50:57 GMT -5
"Other than Colleen Curry's post, all of the facts are not there and there is some serious misinformation on that site as well. Stay tuned." where is the "stayed tuned" info to show all these "misinformations" you guys are refering too? I find it hard to believe that Mr. LeVines post has so much "bad information" and no response from anyone involved in setting up the debate? Forget those 2 wonderful GOP canidates, how come no one from the APP or anywhere didnt respond??? Humm, maybe because Marcs post was accurate? Cant wait, only a few more weeks til election day and then the people of freehold have the real "FREEHOLD VOICE"! Freeholdboy, you are the one who made claims that the true facts are on FiNJ. Even so, there is a lot missing on that site as well as this one. Some things do not belong on either site. Where did I state that levines post was wrong? I simply posted it because I believe as many people as possible should read it. I really didn't refer to an specific post as being wrong. The reality is Freeholdboy, many of the facts do not belong in the public arena. The only concerns the public should really be concerned about is whether or not there will be a debate. The answer to that is no, so it really is a dead issue. As far as the bickering between the two parties, I will not feed into it or get in the middle of who is right. Being that I am on the citizens committee, I can say that it would be in bad taste for me to come here or to another site shooting off my mouth. Let me give you an analogy. I have sat on the contract negotiating team for my union. While the negotiations are in progress, we can not speak about what is going on behind the closed doors. Besides being a bad faith practice, it also feeds the rumor mill which is very irresponsible. To speak about ongoing negotiations can negate any real work that is accomplished. Once the contract is signed, then who cares anyway? People are looking at the final product. Getting back to the debate issues and what did or did not happen, I cannot in good faith come to this or another site and talk about what happened or do anything that bad mouths any candidate or party. I know people are curious, but if there is to be any further public statements, it will come from the debate committee as a team and in unison. Until then, I ask all people to avoid the rumor mill or nasty commentary toward anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 21, 2009 9:08:16 GMT -5
Admin,
I agree with your analogy, and you are correct no one wants to feed the rumor mill. Lets for once feed the "fact" mill, ted and john have come out indicating that the "truth" needs to come out, dont the people of freehold deserve that much? If as indicated by Ted, John and recently, Mr Kelsey(an admin to your site), there is people calling themselves the Yankees or they incumbents were the ones that stopped this, dont you think they would jump all over that? Why was there no statement from the debate commitee, is it gonna be released the day before election in a one sided manor to help certain people running? Again, I ask you why you ONLY posted marcs response? previously you said "I did post candidate Le Vines comments here because I believe everybody should read them, it is worth the time. " is millers and newmans not, looks like a certain underlined spin is being put out there on here...just looking for both sides to get a fair report...I will say, from my short time on here, you are usually extremely fair in your post, just seems this one is alittle one-sided. Maybe im wrong, just my opinion!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 23, 2009 6:57:37 GMT -5
AS per Freeholdboy's requests, I will post the Newman and Miller comments from another web site here. This is being done for the purpose of inclusion and completeness on the topic, not advocating for one side or another. This way, readers can makeup their own minds. Candidate Le vines comments are already posted here.
After these comments are posted, I am changing the admin feature of this board for a very brief period so that the Citizens Committee may post their response as a guest to this site. NO OTHER GUET WILL BE ALLOWE TO POST! Once that response is made, I will return the admin functions to requiring guests to register to post. Here are the Newman and and Miller comments which were made prior to Le vines comments:
John Newman on October 14th, 2009
I ask that the committee people that tried to organize this debate provide the full explanation of what happened. This is not the full story.
Ted Miller on October 14th, 2009
Colleen you have done an extraordinary job with your community outreach. You have been implicitly honorable in the way you engaged the NONPARTISAN community group who have been seeking their own opportunity for Candidate Q&A. Freehold borough voters deserve a full explanation of what happened, why Marc and Sharon will not allow voters to ask them relevant questions on local issues in a live public forum on October 22nd.
|
|
Citizen Debate Committee
Guest
|
Post by Citizen Debate Committee on Oct 23, 2009 7:01:11 GMT -5
Freehold Borough, NJ
The Citizen Debate Committee makes the following statements regarding the breakdown in negotiations on the proposed candidate debate.
The Citizens Debate Committee will not publicly assignee blame for the breakdown but believes that residents should know the facts and come to their own conclusions. The Committee is also releasing the text of the letter to the public to allow the public to judge the letter on its own merits and not on rumor.
The Committee has given both Parties an opportunity to review and comment on our statement below prior to its release and those comments are included at the end of our statement. The Citizen Debate Committee asked both sides to refrain from further comment on the debate negotiations to ensure that this matter is concluded in a civil and honorable manner. The Citizen Debate Committee hopes and expects that this statement, followed by the Parties’ comments, will conclude the public disagreement waged by the parties over this matter.
Citizens Debate Committee Letter to Candidates
Dear Candidates,
“The constant free flow of communications among us- enabling the free interchange of ideas- forms the very bloodstream of our nation. It keeps the mind and body of our democracy eternally vital, eternally young.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt
With that refrain in mind I would, along with Freehold.InJersey.com in conjunction with the Asbury Park Press, and Freehold Borough residents, like to invite you to participate in the Freehold Borough 2009 Council Election Debate sponsored by Freehold.InJersey.com and the Asbury Park Press. This debate is intended to provide the residents of the Borough an opportunity to hear your views on the future of the Borough side by side with your opponents in an orderly and constructive manner.
I would like to make all candidates aware that the Freehold Borough Police have committed resources to assure an orderly forum, that the Asbury Park Press will be providing a moderator, that Freehold.InJersey.com will be collecting questions from readers online, and that the League of Women Voters will be participating. I invite each ticket to send a representative to meet with myself and Colleen Curry of Freehold.InJersey.com and the Asbury Park Press to discuss debate rules and format. Please have your representative call me at $$$-%%%-&&&& by Tuesday October 6, 2009 so we can schedule a day to meet.
The debate will be held in Freehold Borough toward the end of October at 7:00 p.m. Please ensure that your representative is authorized to agree to the debate rules, format, and date as once the rules, format, and date are agreed to changes will not be made.
Plato said “the punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” We applauded your willingness to serve and look forward to your participation at this forum.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Friedman, on behalf of
(Members of Citizen Debate Committee)
Citizens Debate Committee Statement
1.-No candidates or parties were involved in the planning of the debate. The Citizens Debate Committee comprises members of the Freehold Borough CIC, residents, and property owners.
2.-All candidates received notice from the Citizens Debate Committee on the same day.
3.-Letters were delivered by professional messenger service not political operatives.
4.-The Citizens Debate Committee communicated with the Freehold Borough Police only to ensure that any planning done by the Citizen Debate Committee would be done in compliance with public safety protocol and procedure.
5.-There were Three (3) dates available to the candidates for the debate not One (1).
6.-One side called the Citizens Debate Committee contact person upon receipt of the letter while the other side first had their lawyer call the APP making inaccurate claims that the letters were delivered by political operatives.
7.-One side agreed to meet with the APP and the Citizens Debate Committee contact person while the other side would only meet with the APP.
8.-One side agreed to the rules as presented by the LOWV while the other side presented their own non-negotiable format.
9.-Both sides were asked not to discuss debate negotiations. Both sides posted remarks regarding the breakdown of debate negotiations.
10.-Both sides believe that the other side has acted improperly and commented inaccurately regarding the debate planning and negotiations.
Response by parties regarding the Citizens Debate Committee’s statement
Councilman George Schnurr, on behalf of the Democratic Ticket: Our position is we will only negotiate with Republican candidates and not through third parties.
Chairman Ted Miller, on behalf of the Republican Ticket: Prior to reviewing it I am sure it was crafted in the same spirit that the Committee has endeavored to have an open debate and I have the highest levels of appreciation for all involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 23, 2009 10:57:51 GMT -5
Freehold Borough, NJ The Citizen Debate Committee makes the following statements regarding the breakdown in negotiations on the proposed candidate debate. The Citizens Debate Committee will not publicly assignee blame for the breakdown but believes that residents should know the facts and come to their own conclusions. The Committee is also releasing the text of the letter to the public to allow the public to judge the letter on its own merits and not on rumor. The Committee has given both Parties an opportunity to review and comment on our statement below prior to its release and those comments are included at the end of our statement. The Citizen Debate Committee asked both sides to refrain from further comment on the debate negotiations to ensure that this matter is concluded in a civil and honorable manner. The Citizen Debate Committee hopes and expects that this statement, followed by the Parties’ comments, will conclude the public disagreement waged by the parties over this matter. Citizens Debate Committee Letter to Candidates Dear Candidates, “The constant free flow of communications among us- enabling the free interchange of ideas- forms the very bloodstream of our nation. It keeps the mind and body of our democracy eternally vital, eternally young.” Franklin D. Roosevelt With that refrain in mind I would, along with Freehold.InJersey.com in conjunction with the Asbury Park Press, and Freehold Borough residents, like to invite you to participate in the Freehold Borough 2009 Council Election Debate sponsored by Freehold.InJersey.com and the Asbury Park Press. This debate is intended to provide the residents of the Borough an opportunity to hear your views on the future of the Borough side by side with your opponents in an orderly and constructive manner. I would like to make all candidates aware that the Freehold Borough Police have committed resources to assure an orderly forum, that the Asbury Park Press will be providing a moderator, that Freehold.InJersey.com will be collecting questions from readers online, and that the League of Women Voters will be participating. I invite each ticket to send a representative to meet with myself and Colleen Curry of Freehold.InJersey.com and the Asbury Park Press to discuss debate rules and format. Please have your representative call me at $$$-%%%-&&&& by Tuesday October 6, 2009 so we can schedule a day to meet. The debate will be held in Freehold Borough toward the end of October at 7:00 p.m. Please ensure that your representative is authorized to agree to the debate rules, format, and date as once the rules, format, and date are agreed to changes will not be made. Plato said “the punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” We applauded your willingness to serve and look forward to your participation at this forum. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Friedman, on behalf of (Members of Citizen Debate Committee) Citizens Debate Committee Statement 1.-No candidates or parties were involved in the planning of the debate. The Citizens Debate Committee comprises members of the Freehold Borough CIC, residents, and property owners. 2.-All candidates received notice from the Citizens Debate Committee on the same day. 3.-Letters were delivered by professional messenger service not political operatives. 4.-The Citizens Debate Committee communicated with the Freehold Borough Police only to ensure that any planning done by the Citizen Debate Committee would be done in compliance with public safety protocol and procedure. 5.-There were Three (3) dates available to the candidates for the debate not One (1). 6.-One side called the Citizens Debate Committee contact person upon receipt of the letter while the other side first had their lawyer call the APP making inaccurate claims that the letters were delivered by political operatives. 7.-One side agreed to meet with the APP and the Citizens Debate Committee contact person while the other side would only meet with the APP. 8.-One side agreed to the rules as presented by the LOWV while the other side presented their own non-negotiable format. 9.-Both sides were asked not to discuss debate negotiations. Both sides posted remarks regarding the breakdown of debate negotiations. 10.-Both sides believe that the other side has acted improperly and commented inaccurately regarding the debate planning and negotiations. Response by parties regarding the Citizens Debate Committee’s statement Councilman George Schnurr, on behalf of the Democratic Ticket: Our position is we will only negotiate with Republican candidates and not through third parties. Chairman Ted Miller, on behalf of the Republican Ticket: Prior to reviewing it I am sure it was crafted in the same spirit that the Committee has endeavored to have an open debate and I have the highest levels of appreciation for all involved. Wow -- I have never seen such a release in all my years of politics at any level. I have one guess and one guess only as to which side was not playing nice in the sandbox. I have only one other guess -- and that is that the response to this release by the side that was not playing nice in the sandbox -- will be to attack the committee as partisan hacks, right-wing nuts, and the like. Oh wait -- we already saw that response posted about the debate. |
|
ka19
Junior Member
Posts: 356
|
Post by ka19 on Oct 23, 2009 14:05:28 GMT -5
Freehold Borough, NJ The Citizen Debate Committee makes the following statements regarding the breakdown in negotiations on the proposed candidate debate. The Citizens Debate Committee will not publicly assignee blame for the breakdown but believes that residents should know the facts and come to their own conclusions. The Committee is also releasing the text of the letter to the public to allow the public to judge the letter on its own merits and not on rumor. The Committee has given both Parties an opportunity to review and comment on our statement below prior to its release and those comments are included at the end of our statement. The Citizen Debate Committee asked both sides to refrain from further comment on the debate negotiations to ensure that this matter is concluded in a civil and honorable manner. The Citizen Debate Committee hopes and expects that this statement, followed by the Parties’ comments, will conclude the public disagreement waged by the parties over this matter. Citizens Debate Committee Letter to Candidates Dear Candidates, “The constant free flow of communications among us- enabling the free interchange of ideas- forms the very bloodstream of our nation. It keeps the mind and body of our democracy eternally vital, eternally young.” Franklin D. Roosevelt With that refrain in mind I would, along with Freehold.InJersey.com in conjunction with the Asbury Park Press, and Freehold Borough residents, like to invite you to participate in the Freehold Borough 2009 Council Election Debate sponsored by Freehold.InJersey.com and the Asbury Park Press. This debate is intended to provide the residents of the Borough an opportunity to hear your views on the future of the Borough side by side with your opponents in an orderly and constructive manner. I would like to make all candidates aware that the Freehold Borough Police have committed resources to assure an orderly forum, that the Asbury Park Press will be providing a moderator, that Freehold.InJersey.com will be collecting questions from readers online, and that the League of Women Voters will be participating. I invite each ticket to send a representative to meet with myself and Colleen Curry of Freehold.InJersey.com and the Asbury Park Press to discuss debate rules and format. Please have your representative call me at $$$-%%%-&&&& by Tuesday October 6, 2009 so we can schedule a day to meet. The debate will be held in Freehold Borough toward the end of October at 7:00 p.m. Please ensure that your representative is authorized to agree to the debate rules, format, and date as once the rules, format, and date are agreed to changes will not be made. Plato said “the punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” We applauded your willingness to serve and look forward to your participation at this forum. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Friedman, on behalf of (Members of Citizen Debate Committee) Citizens Debate Committee Statement 1.-No candidates or parties were involved in the planning of the debate. The Citizens Debate Committee comprises members of the Freehold Borough CIC, residents, and property owners. 2.-All candidates received notice from the Citizens Debate Committee on the same day. 3.-Letters were delivered by professional messenger service not political operatives. 4.-The Citizens Debate Committee communicated with the Freehold Borough Police only to ensure that any planning done by the Citizen Debate Committee would be done in compliance with public safety protocol and procedure. 5.-There were Three (3) dates available to the candidates for the debate not One (1). 6.-One side called the Citizens Debate Committee contact person upon receipt of the letter while the other side first had their lawyer call the APP making inaccurate claims that the letters were delivered by political operatives. 7.-One side agreed to meet with the APP and the Citizens Debate Committee contact person while the other side would only meet with the APP. 8.-One side agreed to the rules as presented by the LOWV while the other side presented their own non-negotiable format. 9.-Both sides were asked not to discuss debate negotiations. Both sides posted remarks regarding the breakdown of debate negotiations. 10.-Both sides believe that the other side has acted improperly and commented inaccurately regarding the debate planning and negotiations. Response by parties regarding the Citizens Debate Committee’s statement Councilman George Schnurr, on behalf of the Democratic Ticket: Our position is we will only negotiate with Republican candidates and not through third parties. Chairman Ted Miller, on behalf of the Republican Ticket: Prior to reviewing it I am sure it was crafted in the same spirit that the Committee has endeavored to have an open debate and I have the highest levels of appreciation for all involved. On behalf of the CIC, I would like to make one clarification to item #1 of Mr. Friedman's post above which states that the Citizen Debate Committee comprised of "members of the Freehold Borough CIC..." Any participation with the Citizen Debate Committee by certain members of the Freehold Borough CIC was strictly in their own individual capacities, and the CIC was in fact uninvolved in the planning or execution of the proposed debate, nor had the debate planning been discussed at any CIC meeting. The CIC continues to work towards fulfilling its stated mission and does not become involved in election campaigns. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Oct 23, 2009 14:21:41 GMT -5
Hi!
A new guy here with a simple, yet obvious question: who exactly makes up the "Citizens Debate Committee"?
I consider myself pretty involved in this community as well as a home owner - yet I don't recall ever seeing a public notice announcing the formation of this group or being invited to join this group. I only ask this because I understand the fact that things are rarely what they appear to be on the surface. (Case in point: The small - yet focal - fringe group named the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"? I'm not going to get into the details here, but anyone wishing to learn more about the outcome of that situation need only to google the name and read the post-election follow-up information on the group & their claims.)
Now I'm not claiming to know every detail of the failed debate, however there are always 2 sides to every story. And my experience tells me that the usually truth lies somewhere in the middle. So to read a press release by a group that we know little about and attribute it as fact may be a bit premature...
dfx
|
|
