Answers needed in Freehold

[BrianSullivan]

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-16/Editorials/Answers_needed_in_Freehold.html

Answers needed in Freehold

GUEST COLUMN
BRIAN SULLIVAN RICHARD KELSEY
The following was written in a News Transcript editorial on Jan. 11, 2005: “Casa Freehold, by virtue of its actions, comments and apparent support of illegal immigration, will never have, and does not deserve, the trust, respect and cooperation of borough officials.”
Recent events demonstrate the truism that Casa Freehold does not deserve the trust or respect, and cooperation of borough officials. So, why has the mayor of Freehold Borough given that trust and cooperation? To fully understand the malfeasance, some history is necessary.

In March 2007, several radical out-oftown groups descended on Freehold Borough in protest of the town’s rental suggestions and some sad comments made by a sitting councilman at that time. Among those agitators were members of Casa Freehold.

Casa Freehold is a radical, open borders group dedicated to the promotion of illegal immigration and the open flaunting of federal immigration law. The organization was instrumental in a lawsuit against the town previously to protect illegal alien day laborers. Its members have a long record of hostility toward the good people of Freehold, often using the race card as a sword to skewer Freehold. Longtime residents are certainly no strangers to this open borders’ crowd and their radical agenda.

Out of this particular demonstration in March 2007 came a list of demands. We believe the borough capitulated to these radicals while the ink was drying on the legal settlement they made when they surrendered to this group. This letter focuses on one specific demand made by Casa Freehold that the mayor improperly granted.

The key demand of the outside agitators was to put a day laborer on the town’s Human Relations Committee (HRC). This demand was critical to the radicals to legitimize the demands and presence of illegal aliens. Mayor Wilson and the council at at the time bowed down to the agitators and appointed a “day laborer,” who also happened to be a member of Casa Freehold.

The mayor, with the consent of council, appointed a Howell resident, Juan Reyes, to the HRC. This appointment raised many questions that to date have never been answered. Mr. Reyes’ recent resignation raises this matter again, and makes it appropriate for the mayor and remaining council members to account for their actions and inactions with respect to this betrayal of trust.

This letter is not meant to be an indictment of the HRC and its legitimate members and hard work. It is meant to get to the bottom of a sordid, backroom political maneuver that apparently placed an illegal alien on a town policy advisory committee.

We run a local community Internet website called the “Freehold Voice.” On that site it was disclosed in October 2007 that Mr. Reyes was a member of Casa Freehold and does not and did not live in Freehold. At the time it was also strongly believed, but not yet proven, that Mr. Reyes was and is an illegal alien.

Lawful Freehold residents, the site and its members asked many questions about these circumstances, yet we, as well as the website and its contributors, came under withering public and private attack by the mayor and his cronies for raising questions about the legitimacy of this appointment, and all facts surrounding the appointment.




Not only did the mayor and council appoint Mr. Reyes and attack its own citizens rather than answer questions about him, they reappointed him again this January without so much as a basic investigation.

Indeed, with the town overrun by illegal

aliens, one should at least ask the obvious question: Why appoint an illegal alien from Howell rather than Freehold? It seems obvious that Casa Freehold was calling the shots on who the mayor would appoint.

Isn’t this the same mayor who once defiantly pounded the podium and told illegal advocates to “bring it on” if they wanted a fight with Freehold? Maybe this is why the mayor went silent on the Reyes appointment, and instead used his 20-plus years running an insider political machine to mount a new campaign against those who dared to question his judgment.

In May, the Asbury Park Press described Mr. Reyes as an illegal alien in a published article. This was no surprise to anyone following the fiasco.

The real questions are these: Did the mayor knowingly appoint an illegal alien to a policy-making board? If not, why didn’t the mayor investigate the allegations of Mr. Reyes’s legal and out-of-town residency when those issues were raised three years ago? Why did this mayor again rubber-stamp Mr. Reyes’s reappointment this year, without investigation or inquiry?

Not long after the original appointment, the chair of the HRC at that time went to a council meeting to air concerns about comments that had been made on the Freehold Voice website about the appointment.

The News Transcript wrote an article about the concerns raised by the HRC chair, giving the mayor an opportunity to clear the air. Having served for more than two decades, the mayor preferred to be flippant and evasive, as if questioning him were beneath his dignity.

Whether or not the questions are beneath the mayor’s dignity is a character judgment for others to make. Certainly, the questions raised then and now are not beneath his office. Mr. Mayor, with respect to fair, honest answers, it is time to “bring it on.”

Brian Sullivan is a resident of Freehold Borough. Richard Kelsey is a former resident of Freehold Borough, who currently resides in Virginia.

[richardkelsey]

I love these guys. :-)

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 16, 2010 8:14:46 GMT -5 richardkelsey said:

I love these guys. :-)

Well Rich, as the saying goes- duck.

I will be interested to see what if any responses come from this. Will we see my past prediction of a wedded bliss between the outside open borders interests and the council?

More importantly will we ever see open, civil and decent answers? Or a knee jerk response full of emotional drivel that deflects from the topic?

The funny thing is, it decent answers had been given years ago, this letter would never have been necessary. The Mayor said himself recently in a council meeting that they have to make tough decisions and those who cannot do not belong up there. He is right. Why not discuss those decisions if they were so right?

I am also reminded of what Sharon Shutzer said. People may not get the answers they want. She is right. Again, just decent and civil answers would be nice.

[Mike Rosseel]

Maybe DUCK is the approiate term to use. I believe you guys have a right to ask these questions, I also believe you guys have a right to want answers. I dont agree with writting a letter to the paper, Brian, you go to almost every council meeting, why not ask it there? Why not try in a civil manner to get your answers! Now the press and transcript has made our towm look like fools again! Im not saying you were wrong, I think there are other avenues you could have taken instead of the paper. Just my thoughts!

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 16, 2010 11:39:35 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

Maybe DUCK is the appropriate term to use. I believe you guys have a right to ask these questions, I also believe you guys have a right to want answers. I dont agree with writing a letter to the paper, Brian, you go to almost every council meeting, why not ask it there? Why not try in a civil manner to get your answers! Now the press and transcript has made our towm look like fools again! Im not saying you were wrong, I think there are other avenues you could have taken instead of the paper. Just my thoughts!

Mike, good and fair question. I did think seriously about going to a meeting and bringing this up. But, I have lost faith in that route. When I saw how the landlord group was treated, it made my decision to go to the papers that much easier. Why would I go to a meeting with fair questions just to get cut up? I also do not like the forum structure where the council gets the last word. Things can get spun around too easy.

I am also reminded of the time I went to a council meeting with very softball questions about the new pending rental board. I did not get the answers to my questions until the next day when i read about the issue in the News Transcript.

So part of my decision is frustration and the other part is simply staying the course with what I believe in- being open honest and civil. That is all i ever want from anybody, anywhere.

[Mike Rosseel]

Havent you said in the past people should speak up at the meetings during the public speaking time? I just think its a bad look for Freehold and theres right and wrong. This IMHO is wrong. Jeff stood up and took it because he believed in what he was saying, did he like the end result, Im sure he didnt but he can be respected for doing the right thing!

[Mike Rosseel]

I also dont understand one thing. With your obvious connection with councilman Newman who comments here quite often, why didnt these questions get presented to him as a concern to be brought to the mayor. It all just looks bad to me, not saying Im right, just my thought!

[richardkelsey]

Jun 16, 2010 12:36:41 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

I also dont understand one thing. With your obvious connection with councilman Newman who comments here quite often, why didnt these questions get presented to him as a concern to be brought to the mayor. It all just looks bad to me, not saying Im right, just my thought!

Which part looks bad Mike?

How did Brian become the bad guy? I know you are a big fan of the Mayor -- but how is it Brian's fault that the Mayor appointed an illegal alien? How is it his fault that questions were raised three years ago about this appointment, and the Mayor never answered them -- then re-appointed the guy?

Why can't a sitting Mayor be asked these questions in writing? Why does Brian have to go bow down to the Mayor who ignored these questions for 3 years, attacked Brian, and led a campaign against Brian and the site? Why would Brian expect a fair opportunity to express his view point?

Why would asking these questions in a public meeting with press there be any better than asking them in public in a letter? For whom is it better?

When was the Mayor going to announce, if ever, that he asked for and got the resignation of Mr. Reyes? When was he going to come clean about what he knew and when he knew it with respect to the appointment?

Why should Brian go to Councilman Newman with these questions? He didn't appoint him. In fact, if I recall, he abstained on all appointments because he felt he had insufficient information. Seems pretty smart now -- doesn't it?

Given your obvious connection and political loyalty to the Mayor, why didn't you go ask these questions -- or offer to Brian when this issue came up to get some great answers and put this all to rest?

Why are you so angry about this issue?

Is it your opinion that these are unfair questions and the Mayor should not have to answer them?

Is this the right forum to ask you questions -- or should we go somewhere else?

[Mike Rosseel]

Im angry Rich because your questions are based with out facts, wheres the list of demands, who was at this closed door meeting? tell us Rich, when the tables are turned and people present questions without the who what where when and why you want they get deleted, wheres your facts? wheres your who what where when and why?

So lets give Newman a pass because he didnt support this because he was a councilman for two weeks, come on, who are you kidding? You guys practically climax because Newman post here, why not ask your member to get you these answers, you know why you didnt because it doesnt matter.

Why let this go 3 years, you guys are very passionate, why not bring it up in 2007, 2008, 2009, why wait to write a letter in 2010? If someone hit your car in 2007 would you wait until 2010 to put in your claim, I think not.

Rich, Im pro-Mayor?? wasnt it a few weeks back i was slamming them over the Fire Department issue, wasnt I on peoples $hit list because of that? You claim the mayor is a friend, why couldnt you get the answer?

it seems to me that perhaps you had a buisness proposition or idea in the past or something that the Mayor didnt like? Seems like you have been waiting to jump on this topic for 3-4 years now? Why else would you still be so vocal from Virginia? Did you come to the mayor with a bad business idea or a town idea that he didnt except that makes you from Virginia fight him today?

And yes, the public part of the meeting is the RIGHT time to ask, thats why they have it. Its not bowing to anyone, its having class and doing the right thing, not writting a letter full of the Rich and Brian theories. Is there no media at the council meetings? Seems to me like the press and the Transcrpit has a presence each meeting, if it was a LEGIT question and deserved to be answered they wouldnt report it, especially with Brians relationship with Collen?

I still say Sour Grapes boys!

[lisas84]

You have every right to have asked these questions and they really are good ones, in my opinion. But my question too is – in three years why didn’t anyone just get up and ask – try to get some insight if this whole thing is that important?

I always endeavor to go straight to the source when I need the info.

The approved media read every year at reorg is the APP, NT and Star-Ledger, not the Freehold Voice. I say this because I see that part of the whole thing is that they never responded to these questions – the only place they were asked these questions was on the FV. Civil as this discussion is, compared to other forums, again, the FV is not approved media and frankly, hasn’t earned much respect by the current governance except one.

I would also say that if one is a bit too shy to get up in public and ask the questions, asking the council liaison Jaye Sims or even the borough attorney after any of the meetings in the past three years would probably have evoked some answers too.

Again, going straight to the source would likely have garnered you answers -- you may not have liked the answers you received, but at least the effort would have been made.

OK. Your editorial has been published and you both stand by it. If you do get some flack for it, that’s part of the ballgame, as is any praise you may have received. Now let’s move forward.

[Mike Rosseel]

Rich Kelsey wrote,

"Why can't a sitting Mayor be asked these questions in writing? Why does Brian have to go bow down to the Mayor who ignored these questions for 3 years, attacked Brian, and led a campaign against Brian and the site? Why would Brian expect a fair opportunity to express his view point?"

Who what where whens and whys

Who told you the mayor had a campaign against this site?
What are the facts that you have behind these accussations?
where did Brian as the mayor for 3 years without an answer, any proof?
Why does the mayor care about one resident with a site with 173 members, which 70 percent or so havent posted in years?

Again, another accusation without any facts behind it, arent these your rules rich, maybe on of your invisible users or admins can go over the rules with you so you can see these are simple violations of YOUR GUIDELINES!

[richardkelsey]

Jun 16, 2010 18:26:36 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

Rich Kelsey wrote,

"Why can't a sitting Mayor be asked these questions in writing? Why does Brian have to go bow down to the Mayor who ignored these questions for 3 years, attacked Brian, and led a campaign against Brian and the site? Why would Brian expect a fair opportunity to express his view point?"

Who what where whens and whys

Who told you the mayor had a campaign against this site?
What are the facts that you have behind these accussations?
where did Brian as the mayor for 3 years without an answer, any proof?
Why does the mayor care about one resident with a site with 173 members, which 70 percent or so havent posted in years?

Again, another accusation without any facts behind it, arent these your rules rich, maybe on of your invisible users or admins can go over the rules with you so you can see these are simple violations of YOUR GUIDELINES!

You answer my questions -- I will answer yours.

If you hate the site so much -- why do you post here all the time?
If this site is so pathetic -- why do you care what it says?
If it has no reach of any kind, why do you read it?

You spend a great deal of energy burning up with hate for this site or Ted Miller, or me or Brian or the cause of the day. I get that you are in the Mayor's camp and you hate Miller and the GOP. I recognize that you were profoundly bitter and shocked when Mark Le Vine lost, and you ate some humble pie over that.

What I don't get is how it is wrong for anyone to ask the questions Brian and I asked of a public official?

I don't make the "rule" on your site. So -- run it as you please. I have supported it -- and I have thought it a good site. That is undisputed. .

I don't know why you came out so personally against me -- or this site. Likewise, your propensity to take swipes and digs today on your site is your right. It did FL a disservice -- not me.

We have shown nothing but respect for what that site does -- you show nothing but contempt for us. On that you might want to reflect.

Defend the mayor all you want and join the cabal out to tear down this site. We are stronger today than ever before -- and we appreciate you posting a story about us. You reached many of my friends, and gave an even greater immediate audience to our questions.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 16, 2010 12:36:41 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

I also dont understand one thing. With your obvious connection with councilman Newman who comments here quite often, why didnt these questions get presented to him as a concern to be brought to the mayor. It all just looks bad to me, not saying Im right, just my thought!

Mike, this is a very simple question for me to answer. I do not take this up with John for the very same reason I did not take it up with Jaye or George. None of them had anything to do with the initial appointment.

The tough part of this issue is that people have got to look at the history to gain a proper perspective. George and John were not even on the council when Juan was appointed under very questionable circumstances. Jaye had just been appointed and likely had very little to do with it. He had got onto that council at a very, vary tough time.

To make the point short and simple, I do not consider it fair to bring this to George, Jaye or John. hat is why the letter focuses on the mayor.

[Mike Rosseel]

You know what Rich, I dont need any answers. I assume they will be filled with no truth and the great thoughts of the fine people of Freehold Voice. I think since my page did such an injustice to you today, you should delete yourself from the craziness inwhich I run the page. Its best for all of us!

Last point is simple! All you said in that letter is backed by ZERO fact! Its nothing more then something you guys THINK may have happened, just like your stories of the failed debate last year, you have no FACTS. If you two were men, you would have stepped up like every other resident does and ask the questions in front of the council, press and residents in attendance. Guess, no revealing of facts is the biggest story from your letter.

[richardkelsey]

It looks like I missed some posts here. I was told there were other posts, but these seem tame.

So -- rather than have personal recriminations -- which we all don't like and which we actually frown upon, let's discuss the facts as we know them:

Undisputed Material Facts:

1) The Mayor, with the advise and consent of the Council appointed Mr. Juan Reyes to the HRC several years ago.

2) Mr. Reyes was and is, as self-described, a member of Casa Freehold.

3) Casa Freehold is an organization that advocates for and helps immigrants, those here legally and illegally.

4) Casa Freehold has been involved in attacking the policies of Freehold.

5) The New Transcript has said of Casa Freehold, "Casa Freehold, by virtue of its actions, comments and apparent support of illegal immigration, will never have, and does not deserve, the trust, respect and cooperation of borough officials.”

6) Mr. Reyes is an "undocumented" alien by his own admission in the Asbury Park Press.

7) Mayor Wilson was instrumental in working with the Federal Government to create the original muster zone.

8) Mayor Wilson then wanted to eliminate the Muster Zone, and when challenged by outside, open-borders activists, declared at a public meeting, "Bring it on."

9) There was a lawsuit brought against the Borough and the Mayor for his actions.

10) A legal settlement with the illegal aliens and their advocates who sued Freehold Borough and the Mayor was announced at a Council meeting with no advance warning of the announcement or discussion of the issue with the public prior to that meeting.

11) Mr. Reyes's initial appointment by the Mayor to the HRC was after the Borough settled a lawsuit brought by illegal aliens and their advocates.

12) Unsubstantiated rumors circulated around town and on this site that Mr. Reyes was not present in the US legally.

13) Posters on this site, and people like me asked the Mayor to address the rumors and the circumstances of the Reyes appointment -- on or around 2007.

14) The Mayor did not address those concerns to me, or to members on this site who raised those issues.

15) After these issues were raised, allies of the Mayor began a campaign of attacks on the Freehold voice site and its participants. This campaign included but was not limited too: One Council person told me personally that they wanted the site shut down. That is first-hand knowledge. A long time poster and Mayoral appointee stopped posting on the site. Other former posters, including the son of a Mayoral appointee left the site.

16) Vicious, scandalous, libelous, and outrageous attacks were made by unidentified persons on another forum -- using cover of aliases to attack the site and its posters.

17) Site viewership continues to grow to an all-time high.

18) A site poster not-associated with the Mayor ran for Council last year and successfully defeated an incumbent democrat appointed by the Mayor.

17) In January 2010, the Mayor re-appointed Mr. Reyes.

16) This spring, Mr. Reyes identified himself as not here legally, and according to the Mayor in a statement released after our letter was published, he asked Mr. Reyes to resign.

Those are the relevant facts. If someone wants to dispute those -- please provide additional facts.

Now -- no one can really take issue with the Mayor asking the man to resign. This presumes that the Mayor actually does agree that sitting an illegal alien on a policy advising committee is not a good idea for a town battling illegal aliens. It is difficult to give the Mayor credit for asking for the resignation of Mr. Reyes more than 3 years after he failed to do proper due diligence on the appointment. Nonetheless, it is better than the alternative -- which is having the Mayor take no action at all. And, I am not one bit surprised that the resignation request was done quietly, and that no substantive announcement was made. That's politics. It is clear that our letter upset the plan to keep this quiet and manage damage control.

Facts we don't know

We don't know why Mr. Reyes was appointed.

We don't know how he came to be known to the Mayor.

We don't know the due diligence the Mayor performed in selecting Mr. Reyes -- or any appointee.

We don't know what knowledge, if any, Mr. Wilson had about Mr. Reyes's legal status at the time of the appointment. However, to be fair, it appears now to be the Mayor's position that the Borough "couldn't ask him." That doesn't actually answer the question of what he knew. For example, knowing he is an illegal alien from other sources, or the man himself, would give him knowledge without the Mayor having to ask. He doesn't address that straight on.

Assumptions

Because the Mayor apparently did no due diligence, and because there was no public discussion about this appointment, his background, his associations, affiliations, loyalties, and agenda, we are forced to look at the fact we do know and try to draw reasonable conclusions. Again, the conclusions must be reasonable to fit the facts -- and the facts are all we have given the Mayor's own stonewalling.

It is certainly reasonable to conclude, as has been rumored, that Casa Freehold wanted a seat at the proverbial table. It is reasonable to conclude that they wanted a member of their organization on a Borough Committee, and that after achieving a settlement and surrender by the Borough in litigation, they felt the advantage was theirs to press for such and appointment. The timing of the appointment from the undisputed facts supports that conclusion, but again we don't know these to be facts.

Can we reasonably conclude that the Mayor knew, or should have known, that Mr. Reyes, a "day laborer" and member of Casa Freehold was in fact here illegally? Well, I think that is a fair conclusion. I actually think one would have to be politically motivated, or wearing complete blinders to assume the opposite. The Mayor is not a stupid person. In fact, he is quite an able politician. He almost certainly had to question in his mind the status of Mr. Reyes, even if he did not know or did not ask.

Conclusion

The Mayor failed to due his due diligence on the appointment or he knowingly appointed an illegal alien. The Mayor has tried to prevent open, fair, public discourse on the appointments process. The appointments process, as evidenced by the need to ask for a resignation, is broken and in need of public discussion. The Mayor has attempted to skirt the issue of this appointment and the circumstances of this appointment to avoid the political liability of his complete surrender to advocates of illegal immigration. Politically speaking -- for his own selfish political ends -- I don't blame him. However, given these facts the questions posed in the letter I was proud to co-write are a great starting point for this discussion. With some more transparency, we won't have to make any assumptions based on limited facts.

[adefonzo]

Rich and Brian...I have to repeat and even elaborate on what Mr. Rosseel mentioned.

Why didn't you guys "do the right thing" and stand up at a meeting and ask your questions?

Now for the elaboration...

Seriously...I can not understand for the life of me why you didn't go to a Council meeting with a prepared statement, read it in the public portion of the meeting for all 8-10 folks in attendance, and then stand there as a formidable target as the Council and Mayor disregarded your statement, or perhaps even made a couple of derogatory comments towards your audacity to question such a thing? I mean, sure, you would have left feeling that once again, the Mayor and Council refused to answer a legitimate concern. So what if they might have dismissed your statement as libelous accusations despite the fact that they were well researched and well thought out? All that is secondary to the fact that you would have gained the respect of those who feel it's better to just continue to bend over and take it up the ___ rather than allowing the APP and News Transcript to make "our town look like fools again".

PUH-LEASE!!!

I am so sick and tired of people who think anyone who lives in town and speaks out against something they see as wrong is somehow damaging this "delicate image" of Freehold Boro!! What alternate reality are you living in??? Do you not speak to people outside of Freehold Boro?? Do you not realize that we are already considered a laughing stock and a dumping ground for illegal immigrants? What is this seemingly polished image that you feel Freehold radiates to the rest of the world which is so easily damaged by those who dare raise fair, well thought out, fact based questions??

"That's the point, Andrew!! It's people like you and Rich and Brian that are giving Freehold Boro this bad image when you bring up all these negative topics"

I'm going to go out on a limb here an say that I'm speaking for Brian, Rich, and myself when I say that we don't bring up these things to damage the image of Freehold Boro, we bring them up because they are legitimate questions, that are raised through legitimate research of facts, and which time and time again have been answered with either straight up dismissal, absolute avoidance, or a political tornado that twists and turns the topic around and upside down so fast you get whiplash from the whole thing!!

If someone wants to live with their head in the sand, just thinking that Freehold Boro is a wonderful place to live, and we'll just ignore all the problems that exist in town...go ahead. If you don't want to deal with or be confused by the facts...so be it. But there are those of us who live in the real world, and we expect our town government (and all elected officials for that matter) to be held accountable for their actions and inactions, and if it somehow offends your delicate sensibilities about your euphoric image of things...tough...maybe it's time for you to take your head out of the sand and live in the real world with us.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 19, 2010 0:08:11 GMT -5 adefonzo said:

Rich and Brian...I have to repeat and even elaborate on what Mr. Rosseel mentioned.

Why didn't you guys "do the right thing" and stand up at a meeting and ask your questions?

Now for the elaboration...

Seriously...I can not understand for the life of me why you didn't go to a Council meeting with a prepared statement, read it in the public portion of the meeting for all 8-10 folks in attendance, and then stand there as a formidable target as the Council and Mayor disregarded your statement, or perhaps even made a couple of derogatory comments towards your audacity to question such a thing? I mean, sure, you would have left feeling that once again, the Mayor and Council refused to answer a legitimate concern. So what if they might have dismissed your statement as libelous accusations despite the fact that they were well researched and well thought out? All that is secondary to the fact that you would have gained the respect of those who feel it's better to just continue to bend over and take it up the ___ rather than allowing the APP and News Transcript to make "our town look like fools again".

PUH-LEASE!!!

I am so sick and tired of people who think anyone who lives in town and speaks out against something they see as wrong is somehow damaging this "delicate image" of Freehold Boro!! What alternate reality are you living in??? Do you not speak to people outside of Freehold Boro?? Do you not realize that we are already considered a laughing stock and a dumping ground for illegal immigrants? What is this seemingly polished image that you feel Freehold radiates to the rest of the world which is so easily damaged by those who dare raise fair, well thought out, fact based questions??

"That's the point, Andrew!! It's people like you and Rich and Brian that are giving Freehold Boro this bad image when you bring up all these negative topics"

I'm going to go out on a limb here an say that I'm speaking for Brian, Rich, and myself when I say that we don't bring up these things to damage the image of Freehold Boro, we bring them up because they are legitimate questions, that are raised through legitimate research of facts, and which time and time again have been answered with either straight up dismissal, absolute avoidance, or a political tornado that twists and turns the topic around and upside down so fast you get whiplash from the whole thing!!

If someone wants to live with their head in the sand, just thinking that Freehold Boro is a wonderful place to live, and we'll just ignore all the problems that exist in town...go ahead. If you don't want to deal with or be confused by the facts...so be it. But there are those of us who live in the real world, and we expect our town government (and all elected officials for that matter) to be held accountable for their actions and inactions, and if it somehow offends your delicate sensibilities about your euphoric image of things...tough...maybe it's time for you to take your head out of the sand and live in the real world with us.

I guess the majority of this town lives with there heads in the sand because besides you, Brian, Rich and Ted Miller, no one else tries to come up with things to destroy the towns image except the above mentioned. Interesting that 2 of the four with the "great questions" were running for some type of office at one time or another, interesting???

Mr DeFonzo, let me ask you this. If the company you work for has issues do you go to the press and the news to announce them? Do you write letters to the editioral section of a news paper? The answer no, why because you keep issues in house to keep the image of the company at its highest potential. Not saying Freehold is a business because it isnt but the same practice should go on here. The council meetings are there for a reason, and they have a special time for the public to speak. There is proper channels to follow. If they went to a meeting and asked the questions and all the above BS you listed above happened, then go to the paper!

Simple fact is all residents of Freehold have a interest in town because you own homes, buisness, etc here. Everyone knows theres issues here, like EVERY town has. Why bring to light all the negative in the papers, which can push people from coming to town to eat, or may push people to not buy homes here? This lowers the values of homes! Why not have "BALLS" and ask these questions face to face? I dont think Brian and Rich are wrong for having questions, they could have asked during the public portion of the meeting(well not Rich because he hasnt lived her for years). Maybe there is only 8-10 people there, 2 of those 8-10 are news reporters Mr Defonzo! Brian is at all the meetings, he is friends with Colleen Curry, you dont think if he didnt get answers that his pal wouldnt have posted them on FinJ anyway?

We may have our heads in the sand, but thats better then four people standing on there SOAP BOX! Facts are facts, theres a right way and a wrong way of handlling these things, this was 100% the wrong way! Elections dont lie Mr Defonzo, people are happy in town, maybe in your eyes there wrong but in there own eyes there not!

[adefonzo]

Once again, someone decides that questioning the town's governing body is the same as setting out to "destroy the town's image".

Brian and Rich have explained why they did not ask these questions at a meeting, let me explain why I support their actions.

My family has been in Freehold Boro for over 35 years. We have been involved in a number of different organizations and bodies in town from the Little League to the Board of Education, to Freehold Beautiful and others. Over the years, on a number of different occasions, I have seen someone from our family, neighbors, friends, and others get up at a Town Council meeting to express concerns over some issue or another that we felt was hurting the town's image. And time and time again, I have watched as they were ignored, dismissed, talked over, or had their words twisted in such a way as to make is sound like they were the problem rather than the issue they were raising.

I have witnessed their methods of discrediting and dragging through the mud, people who dare to run against them in town elections, and the degrees to which they will go in order to do so.

I have experienced first hand the way our governing body leans on people who dare to question them and the way they are doing things. I will not discuss details publicly on here, but let me simply say it centered around my time on the school board.

Because of this history from our governing body, I refuse to subject myself to their condescending and dismissive behavior by standing before them to ask my questions.

To answer your question, if I have an issue with the company I work for, I do not write to the papers, I go through the proper "in-house" channels...but that is because when I do, I am shown some level of respect, and my questions, thoughts, or ideas are regarded in a professional manner. I don't always get what I want as an end result, but at least the manner in which they deal with me is respectful and professional, and because of that, I continue to use the protocol that is established.

If our town's governing body showed the same respect and professionalism, I would have no issue with standing before them to air my questions and ideas. But they do not, and so I will not bow down before them to kiss their feet.

As elected officials, I feel it is their responsibility to have the ability and the patience to take criticism and deal with it in a respectable manner. Maybe I'm just wrong.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 20, 2010 22:56:33 GMT -5 adefonzo said:

Once again, someone decides that questioning the town's governing body is the same as setting out to "destroy the town's image".

Brian and Rich have explained why they did not ask these questions at a meeting, let me explain why I support their actions.

My family has been in Freehold Boro for over 35 years. We have been involved in a number of different organizations and bodies in town from the Little League to the Board of Education, to Freehold Beautiful and others. Over the years, on a number of different occasions, I have seen someone from our family, neighbors, friends, and others get up at a Town Council meeting to express concerns over some issue or another that we felt was hurting the town's image. And time and time again, I have watched as they were ignored, dismissed, talked over, or had their words twisted in such a way as to make is sound like they were the problem rather than the issue they were raising.

I have witnessed their methods of discrediting and dragging through the mud, people who dare to run against them in town elections, and the degrees to which they will go in order to do so.

I have experienced first hand the way our governing body leans on people who dare to question them and the way they are doing things. I will not discuss details publicly on here, but let me simply say it centered around my time on the school board.

Because of this history from our governing body, I refuse to subject myself to their condescending and dismissive behavior by standing before them to ask my questions.

To answer your question, if I have an issue with the company I work for, I do not write to the papers, I go through the proper "in-house" channels...but that is because when I do, I am shown some level of respect, and my questions, thoughts, or ideas are regarded in a professional manner. I don't always get what I want as an end result, but at least the manner in which they deal with me is respectful and professional, and because of that, I continue to use the protocol that is established.

If our town's governing body showed the same respect and professionalism, I would have no issue with standing before them to air my questions and ideas. But they do not, and so I will not bow down before them to kiss their feet.

As elected officials, I feel it is their responsibility to have the ability and the patience to take criticism and deal with it in a respectable manner. Maybe I'm just wrong.

Mr Defonzo,

My family too has been involved in this town for more then 40 years now. My mother and father but ran for council and mayor in this town. My mothers bid was not successful but my fathers was for council and later he lost for a bid at mayor. And to make it clear, both ran as republicans. After all this disagreements between my father and the mayor, and if you have been around long enough, you know there were plenty of battles, they always had a beer and left it at town hall. Why you ask, because it was done with respect and class! Thats a time when the GOP in Freehold was classy and actually made positive noise in this town. Mr Kelsey should know this first hand.

I find your comments to be laughable. "I refuse to subject myself to their condescending and dismissive behavior by standing before them to ask my questions.", really! I saw MEN in the fire department stand up and speak out against the council, they werent and will not be treated without respect. You, Brian and Rich make speaking out in front of council like going in front of a firing squad, like there gonna come to your house in the middle of the night and kick your dog, come on! Its also laughable how you Brian and Rich always have examples which you dont care to make public, why not make them public? why not let people know how you were bullied and mistreated?

Mr Defonzo, its sad that in 2010, with all the problems in the world and in NJ, you guys are using bullying! Like I said and most people agree, be man enough to come to the meeting and discuss this face to face, internet heros never do anything good for a town!

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 16, 2010 17:17:26 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

You have every right to have asked these questions and they really are good ones, in my opinion. But my question too is – in three years why didn’t anyone just get up and ask – try to get some insight if this whole thing is that important?

I always endeavor to go straight to the source when I need the info.

The approved media read every year at reorg is the APP, NT and Star-Ledger, not the Freehold Voice. I say this because I see that part of the whole thing is that they never responded to these questions – the only place they were asked these questions was on the FV. Civil as this discussion is, compared to other forums, again, the FV is not approved media and frankly, hasn’t earned much respect by the current governance except one.

I would also say that if one is a bit too shy to get up in public and ask the questions, asking the council liaison Jaye Sims or even the borough attorney after any of the meetings in the past three years would probably have evoked some answers too.

Again, going straight to the source would likely have garnered you answers -- you may not have liked the answers you received, but at least the effort would have been made.

OK. Your editorial has been published and you both stand by it. If you do get some flack for it, that’s part of the ballgame, as is any praise you may have received. Now let’s move forward.

AS I mentioned in another post today, I am playing catch up on my site reading as well as the chatter on other sites. Lisa's post provides a very nice starting point due to the fact that she is, as usual, the voice of sanity.

As far as why I did not just go to a meeting, I already answered that so there is little point in me continuing that discussion. AS per Lisa's post, I will start from the bottom up.

She is right about flack we may get. Rich and I were under no illusion that we would indeed catch flack, mostly from the same cast of characters as always. It does come with the territory and I am good with it.

Lisa asked why I did not go to the HRC council liaison Jaye Sims. AS a matter of fact, Jaye and I did talk. ( That talk was after the letter was submitted) There was actually a lot of good things said between us and it is a shame that it was not a part of then public dialog. Jaye is a good guy with a very good head on his shoulders. But, what was said between us stays between us, which is what should be done with private discussions.

Lisa also mentioned that the FV is not a recognized media source for the council. She is 100 percent correct. While we welcome everybody and anybody to this site , including the Mayor, there was no expectations that there would be any official response submitted here.

Last but, not least, Lisa gets the most important point- this is simply an issue of people asking questions and nothing else. This is relevant in context of chatter I have seen on other sites. Some misguided individuals are claiming that this is a partisan silly season issue. That could not be further from the truth and the people making those claims are desperate people who would rather deflect that answer simple questions.

If this were silly season nonsense, then why was Sims and Kane not mentioned? They were not, the questions are placed squarely on the shoulders of the mayor.

Also, and most importantly, the local GOP was not aware of this letter nor did they have any hand in it. Ted and his republicans can speak their own minds. I will speak mine. It is already well established that I am not active in the GOP. I know that fact is not convenient for some kool ade drinkers.

So yes, this is a matter of asking elected officials questions. It happens all the time. We even see elected officials questioned on their appointments at higher levels of government. There is nothing abnormal or out of line about that.

Lisa ends her post by saying lets move forward. Exactly! These questions are relevant in moving forward. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with a representative of the immigrant community being on the HRC. I have written that many times and will do so again.

I believe it would be expected and right for the mayor to fill that void on the HRC. My question is, who will he place there? Will he go running to the outside interests who do not live here to fill that void? Or can we find someone who lives in this town, cares about this town and does not associate with radical groups with crazy agenda's? I think those are fair questions and it really should not be difficult for the mayor to define his policies. He had his chance in the past when this issue hit the NT. Will he finally open up a little more?

[BrianSullivan]

The following post is a cut and paste from the archives of this site. I wrote this on October 30, 2007. After reading it, I stand by every word I wrote back then. It is relevant because people are asking why this is coming back up. This post provides a very nice history of events with facts. Anybody who ( wrongly) thinks that Rich and I are dragging this town through the mud by asking simple and fair questions should really pay attention.

The many threads pertaining to the Juan Reyes appointment are interesting. I have stayed out of those discussions because I was curious as to what participants would think and find out on their own. In my opinion, and with what I am aware of, most of the information is true. After reading all of the posts, I think most participants get the picture as to what happened. Now it is my turn. I knew about this appointment quite some time ago. I went from being open minded to it to being dead set against it. I believe the Mayor made a very bad choice for all the wrong reasons. For me to give my reasons for my opinions, I have to go back several months and point to several events and experiences.

I have to start at the settlement and give a quick reminder of events. When that settlement was signed, I believe it should have been viewed as a point for our town to put it behind us and move ahead. I say that with respect to all beliefs on all sides. Before the ink was dry on that settlement, the LLA and Casa Freehold people went on the attack. In no time flat, we saw Casa Freehold mouth piece Tom Baldwin receive press coverage, attacking our elected leaders and asking for them to resign. To this day, he still goes into council meetings and attacks.

We had the rental recommendations finally come out. These issues mean a great deal to the lawful residents of our town who want a good quality life here. Before the recommendations were made public an LLA appointee to that committee ran to the papers and took the wind out of the sails of that committee. In doing so he put our governing body on the defence, a trap which they fell for hook line and sinker.

Of course there was the March 6 rally at the town council meeting. I will get back to this in a bit. The bottom line is the pattern of attacking our town continued by radical groups who to this day have never shown an ounce of respect in any public forum for the thousands of legal residents who live here and have very valid concerns. Of course, let us not forget that the Asbury Park Press published an editorial that was not favorable toward Casa Freehold. They are some of the the extremists that councilman Kevin Kane mentioned being stuck in the middle of not too long ago in an interview with local papers.


Now, I mentioned the settlement and the real need to push our town in the right direction. Our town did do something that had great value. Councilman Marc LeVine brought a group of us up to Maplewood to take a look at a program called Fund for an open Society ( FfOS). At least four of us who participate on this site were delegates as well as Frank Freyre from the Latino Leadership Alliance and a few other good people from our town. This is an interesting program and I know all of us who went learned a few good things. The program helps towns, who are diverse, to promote racial harmony.

It was at Maplewood that I first heard the concept of putting a day laborer on the Human Relations Committee. At the time I was luke warm but open minded to the concept. FfOS believed in having everyone at the table. In spirit, I thought that was fair. Even being open minded to it, I still had a few questions about it. The FfOS is a very racially charged program. When asked about illegal immigration specifically, they had only had a little experience in dealing with a small Haitian population. They had no experience in dealing with a large population of any one group of illegal aliens. I gathered that they also viewed our illegal immigration issue as a race based one, something I disagree with. I do not consider illegal immigration to be an issue of race.

The second question in my mind at the time was, why a day laborer? The HRC already had supporters of the illegal alien population sitting on it so I could not, and still can not, figure out what a day laborer would offer that the current members could not. That tells me that the members who are sitting on that committee are not doing their job if there is a need to have another appointee to speak for that population.

Even with the above questions in my mind, I thought the FfOS was a good initiative well worth keeping in mind. Little did we know as we sat at that table, that Frank and his colleagues had a nice reward for Marc and our town just a couple of weeks later.

That reward of course was the March 6 event which I found myself in the middle of because of this web site. Here again, it is important to highlight that the people who came to our town were mostly outside agitators who do not care about this town or the people in it. This was of course Casa Freehold and the LLA among others.

During that time, I was in contact with a number of people which did include the LLA, the APP, and Marc. Most people are well aware of the "outrage" at Marc's comments and the objections to the rental recommendations, but there was more to that rally. The comments Marc made were known about well in advance by the LLA. They used months old comments to boost their cause. This was a well orchastrated and planned attack, not an issue of genuine concern over the commnents. The LLA used Marc as an excuse to put our town on the defence, again, because they had demands. They succeeded in putting our town on the defence with the use of hostility. As always, with no regard to the other people in this town.

At this time I became aware that the LLA had the following demands.

1. Meetings with the Mayor

2. Latino Festival moved to Main Street

3. Two Latinos appointed to Human Relations Committee

4. For the rental recommendations to be torn up and diminished.

So again, the appointment of a day labor was mentioned during this time. It would be again mentioned in the April Human Relations Committee meeting by Frank Freyre, which is when it was first mentioned on this site.


The above is the recap of my awareness of putting a day laborer on the Human Relations Committee. After reading the posts from readers, I am glad to see that I am not alone in thinking this was a very bad move. There are four issues with this as I see it.

1. Juan is Casa Freehold

2. He does not live in our town

3. He is possibly an illegal alien, but no one is sure

4. He is appointed by Frank Freyre of the LLA.

If he is an illegal alien, that is the least of my concerns. I know several readers will disagree with me, but the Human Relations Committee is supposed to represent all who live in our town. The FfOS model of putting everybody at the table is not wrong, IMO. Some people do not like to hear it, but the illegal population has to be dealt with by our governing body, police department, schools etc. I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to deal the illegals. Right now I am seeing the wrong way. That will be a discussion I will not take part in on this web site.

I believe the appointment was wrong because of what Juan represents and how he got there. I do not know the guy, nor will I. He, as a person, is not the issue. For all I know he could be a great person and turn out to be my best friend.

Juan represents people who are largely outside agitators who have NEVER shown any respect to our town. Outside agitators who should never be given a voice at the table. He is a part of radical groups and does not even live here. He does not belong on our committees. They do not have value for our town.

He got to that committee not by good will, but by way of a continued pattern of hostility toward our town and elected leaders. When we look at the continued pattern of hostility, it has paid off for those people who employed it. They got their reward and they should not have.

If our Mayor and Council really wanted to put a day laborer on that committee, they should have done it themselves without the assistance of the LLA or Casa Freehold. What they have done is validate and sanction the years of hostility that our town has been on the receiving end of. By making that appointment, our Mayor and council slapped every one of us in the face who showed up on March 6 to defend not only a good councilman, but a good town.

Many readers have wanted answers to this appointment. I can think of no good reason why it was done. I am not sure I would want to hear an answer. There is no good one.

The appointment of a day laborer was an idea that once had merit, but it went wrong.

Juan Reyes is a part of a movement that has never shown our town respect. They had the chance many times and the hostility only continued as it will in the future.

Juan Reyes is a tainted appointment. He is the wrong person, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons.

[lisas84]

Brian, thank you so very much for the sweet compliment.

I hope that through this experience, Mr. Reyes does everything he can to attain legal status; he is also a really good man.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 21, 2010 7:26:04 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

Brian, thank you so very much for the sweet compliment.

I hope that through this experience, Mr. Reyes does everything he can to attain legal status; he is also a really good man.

No problem with the comp, it is earned. And again you bring up a good point about Juan as a person. For me, he is not the issue as a person. AS I wrote in October 07---

I do not know the guy, nor will I. He, as a person, is not the issue. For all I know he could be a great person and turn out to be my best friend.

Also, as an aside, there is one very important point that is not found in this thread. Colleen from FinNJ did some follow up and posted the following:

"Wilson said the Council asked Reyes to resign as soon as they knew that he was in the country illegally."

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 21, 2010 7:24:15 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

The following post is a cut and paste from the archives of this site. I wrote this on October 30, 2007. After reading it, I stand by every word I wrote back then. It is relevant because people are asking why this is coming back up. This post provides a very nice history of events with facts. Anybody who ( wrongly) thinks that Rich and I are dragging this town through the mud by asking simple and fair questions should really pay attention.

The many threads pertaining to the Juan Reyes appointment are interesting. I have stayed out of those discussions because I was curious as to what participants would think and find out on their own. In my opinion, and with what I am aware of, most of the information is true. After reading all of the posts, I think most participants get the picture as to what happened. Now it is my turn. I knew about this appointment quite some time ago. I went from being open minded to it to being dead set against it. I believe the Mayor made a very bad choice for all the wrong reasons. For me to give my reasons for my opinions, I have to go back several months and point to several events and experiences.

I have to start at the settlement and give a quick reminder of events. When that settlement was signed, I believe it should have been viewed as a point for our town to put it behind us and move ahead. I say that with respect to all beliefs on all sides. Before the ink was dry on that settlement, the LLA and Casa Freehold people went on the attack. In no time flat, we saw Casa Freehold mouth piece Tom Baldwin receive press coverage, attacking our elected leaders and asking for them to resign. To this day, he still goes into council meetings and attacks.

We had the rental recommendations finally come out. These issues mean a great deal to the lawful residents of our town who want a good quality life here. Before the recommendations were made public an LLA appointee to that committee ran to the papers and took the wind out of the sails of that committee. In doing so he put our governing body on the defence, a trap which they fell for hook line and sinker.

Of course there was the March 6 rally at the town council meeting. I will get back to this in a bit. The bottom line is the pattern of attacking our town continued by radical groups who to this day have never shown an ounce of respect in any public forum for the thousands of legal residents who live here and have very valid concerns. Of course, let us not forget that the Asbury Park Press published an editorial that was not favorable toward Casa Freehold. They are some of the the extremists that councilman Kevin Kane mentioned being stuck in the middle of not too long ago in an interview with local papers.


Now, I mentioned the settlement and the real need to push our town in the right direction. Our town did do something that had great value. Councilman Marc LeVine brought a group of us up to Maplewood to take a look at a program called Fund for an open Society ( FfOS). At least four of us who participate on this site were delegates as well as Frank Freyre from the Latino Leadership Alliance and a few other good people from our town. This is an interesting program and I know all of us who went learned a few good things. The program helps towns, who are diverse, to promote racial harmony.

It was at Maplewood that I first heard the concept of putting a day laborer on the Human Relations Committee. At the time I was luke warm but open minded to the concept. FfOS believed in having everyone at the table. In spirit, I thought that was fair. Even being open minded to it, I still had a few questions about it. The FfOS is a very racially charged program. When asked about illegal immigration specifically, they had only had a little experience in dealing with a small Haitian population. They had no experience in dealing with a large population of any one group of illegal aliens. I gathered that they also viewed our illegal immigration issue as a race based one, something I disagree with. I do not consider illegal immigration to be an issue of race.

The second question in my mind at the time was, why a day laborer? The HRC already had supporters of the illegal alien population sitting on it so I could not, and still can not, figure out what a day laborer would offer that the current members could not. That tells me that the members who are sitting on that committee are not doing their job if there is a need to have another appointee to speak for that population.

Even with the above questions in my mind, I thought the FfOS was a good initiative well worth keeping in mind. Little did we know as we sat at that table, that Frank and his colleagues had a nice reward for Marc and our town just a couple of weeks later.

That reward of course was the March 6 event which I found myself in the middle of because of this web site. Here again, it is important to highlight that the people who came to our town were mostly outside agitators who do not care about this town or the people in it. This was of course Casa Freehold and the LLA among others.

During that time, I was in contact with a number of people which did include the LLA, the APP, and Marc. Most people are well aware of the "outrage" at Marc's comments and the objections to the rental recommendations, but there was more to that rally. The comments Marc made were known about well in advance by the LLA. They used months old comments to boost their cause. This was a well orchastrated and planned attack, not an issue of genuine concern over the commnents. The LLA used Marc as an excuse to put our town on the defence, again, because they had demands. They succeeded in putting our town on the defence with the use of hostility. As always, with no regard to the other people in this town.

At this time I became aware that the LLA had the following demands.

1. Meetings with the Mayor

2. Latino Festival moved to Main Street

3. Two Latinos appointed to Human Relations Committee

4. For the rental recommendations to be torn up and diminished.

So again, the appointment of a day labor was mentioned during this time. It would be again mentioned in the April Human Relations Committee meeting by Frank Freyre, which is when it was first mentioned on this site.


The above is the recap of my awareness of putting a day laborer on the Human Relations Committee. After reading the posts from readers, I am glad to see that I am not alone in thinking this was a very bad move. There are four issues with this as I see it.

1. Juan is Casa Freehold

2. He does not live in our town

3. He is possibly an illegal alien, but no one is sure

4. He is appointed by Frank Freyre of the LLA.

If he is an illegal alien, that is the least of my concerns. I know several readers will disagree with me, but the Human Relations Committee is supposed to represent all who live in our town. The FfOS model of putting everybody at the table is not wrong, IMO. Some people do not like to hear it, but the illegal population has to be dealt with by our governing body, police department, schools etc. I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to deal the illegals. Right now I am seeing the wrong way. That will be a discussion I will not take part in on this web site.

I believe the appointment was wrong because of what Juan represents and how he got there. I do not know the guy, nor will I. He, as a person, is not the issue. For all I know he could be a great person and turn out to be my best friend.

Juan represents people who are largely outside agitators who have NEVER shown any respect to our town. Outside agitators who should never be given a voice at the table. He is a part of radical groups and does not even live here. He does not belong on our committees. They do not have value for our town.

He got to that committee not by good will, but by way of a continued pattern of hostility toward our town and elected leaders. When we look at the continued pattern of hostility, it has paid off for those people who employed it. They got their reward and they should not have.

If our Mayor and Council really wanted to put a day laborer on that committee, they should have done it themselves without the assistance of the LLA or Casa Freehold. What they have done is validate and sanction the years of hostility that our town has been on the receiving end of. By making that appointment, our Mayor and council slapped every one of us in the face who showed up on March 6 to defend not only a good councilman, but a good town.

Many readers have wanted answers to this appointment. I can think of no good reason why it was done. I am not sure I would want to hear an answer. There is no good one.

The appointment of a day laborer was an idea that once had merit, but it went wrong.

Juan Reyes is a part of a movement that has never shown our town respect. They had the chance many times and the hostility only continued as it will in the future.

Juan Reyes is a tainted appointment. He is the wrong person, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons.

Brian why did this VERY IMPORTANT issue for you and Rich sit idle from 2007 until 2010? FYI- read it and still thing you tried to drag the town through the mud!

[adefonzo]

Jun 21, 2010 6:13:41 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

Mr Defonzo,

My family too has been involved in this town for more then 40 years now. My mother and father but ran for council and mayor in this town. My mothers bid was not successful but my fathers was for council and later he lost for a bid at mayor. And to make it clear, both ran as republicans. After all this disagreements between my father and the mayor, and if you have been around long enough, you know there were plenty of battles, they always had a beer and left it at town hall. Why you ask, because it was done with respect and class! Thats a time when the GOP in Freehold was classy and actually made positive noise in this town. Mr Kelsey should know this first hand.

I find your comments to be laughable. "I refuse to subject myself to their condescending and dismissive behavior by standing before them to ask my questions.", really! I saw MEN in the fire department stand up and speak out against the council, they werent and will not be treated without respect. You, Brian and Rich make speaking out in front of council like going in front of a firing squad, like there gonna come to your house in the middle of the night and kick your dog, come on! Its also laughable how you Brian and Rich always have examples which you dont care to make public, why not make them public? why not let people know how you were bullied and mistreated?

Mr Defonzo, its sad that in 2010, with all the problems in the world and in NJ, you guys are using bullying! Like I said and most people agree, be man enough to come to the meeting and discuss this face to face, internet heros never do anything good for a town!

I'm glad you are finding my comments laughable, at least now I do not feel so bad about laughing on my end as well. I particularly like the way you discreeting enjoy calling out the manhood of those who choose not to speak to the Mayor and Council directly. Amusing, then, to think that 3-4 people (who's "man-li-ness" is obviously in question in your mind) are able to "bully" a well entrenched and by your own admissions, well supported (since they keep getting re-elected every year) Mayor and Town Council.

It's funny, I didn't realize that talking about issues and raising questions are what take away from a town or a state or a country's a bad image, I always thought it was the fact that these problems actually do exist that shines the negative light.

Perhaps if we all keep our mouths shut, and don't let anything out of Boro Hall, people who come to our town who are potential home buyers won't notice all the day laborers scattered throughout downtown (or maybe we should simply tell the potential buyers that they have no right to say or think anything negative about these folks because they are simply gathering in a legal manner to look for work...yeah, I'm sure that would smooth things over).

If we don't write to the papers anymore, maybe people with young children won't do the research to find out that our schools are overcrowded and underfunded.

Maybe what we should do is not just stop writing to the newspapers as concerned residents, but also ban any media from entering Freehold Boro, this way they won't do any reporting on any of the negative things that we're trying to keep "in-house". But wait...that won't be necessary...because according to most folks, it's not the media reporting on actual events and situations that gives this town a "negative image", it's folks like myself, Brian, Rich, Ted and our fellow "internet heroes"....right?

I wonder what you said to Stephen Pullen, Reggie Sims, and Michael Burtt after their letter to the Transcript about the Fire Dispatchers? Yes, they stood up in front of the Council to air their grievances...but why wasn't that enough, Mr Rosseel? Why did these men have to go and write a letter to the papers airing Freehold's dirty laundry?? I trust you had a few stern words for them as well about how they are sullying the good name of Freehold Boro....right???

Or is it only ok to go to the media if you also make your point at a Council meeting??

And it seems to me that in your own defense of the Fire Department in other threads, you mentioned that it was the manner in which they were treated that bothered you the most, "I just think the communication to our fire department, in plain english sucked!". Heck, even in a post about Casa Freehold's efforts to clean up along Throckmorton you said, "Maybe, just maybe, these groups were mistreated by our mayor and council and thats what caused the fighting." But it's obviously too much of a far-flung stretch to make the assumption that the Mayor and Town Council have acted this way or worse to others.

Laughable...yeah...you hit it right on the head!!!

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 21, 2010 23:37:40 GMT -5 adefonzo said:

Jun 21, 2010 6:13:41 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

Mr Defonzo,

My family too has been involved in this town for more then 40 years now. My mother and father but ran for council and mayor in this town. My mothers bid was not successful but my fathers was for council and later he lost for a bid at mayor. And to make it clear, both ran as republicans. After all this disagreements between my father and the mayor, and if you have been around long enough, you know there were plenty of battles, they always had a beer and left it at town hall. Why you ask, because it was done with respect and class! Thats a time when the GOP in Freehold was classy and actually made positive noise in this town. Mr Kelsey should know this first hand.

I find your comments to be laughable. "I refuse to subject myself to their condescending and dismissive behavior by standing before them to ask my questions.", really! I saw MEN in the fire department stand up and speak out against the council, they werent and will not be treated without respect. You, Brian and Rich make speaking out in front of council like going in front of a firing squad, like there gonna come to your house in the middle of the night and kick your dog, come on! Its also laughable how you Brian and Rich always have examples which you dont care to make public, why not make them public? why not let people know how you were bullied and mistreated?

Mr Defonzo, its sad that in 2010, with all the problems in the world and in NJ, you guys are using bullying! Like I said and most people agree, be man enough to come to the meeting and discuss this face to face, internet heros never do anything good for a town!

I'm glad you are finding my comments laughable, at least now I do not feel so bad about laughing on my end as well. I particularly like the way you discreeting enjoy calling out the manhood of those who choose not to speak to the Mayor and Council directly. Amusing, then, to think that 3-4 people (who's "man-li-ness" is obviously in question in your mind) are able to "bully" a well entrenched and by your own admissions, well supported (since they keep getting re-elected every year) Mayor and Town Council.

It's funny, I didn't realize that talking about issues and raising questions are what take away from a town or a state or a country's a bad image, I always thought it was the fact that these problems actually do exist that shines the negative light.

Perhaps if we all keep our mouths shut, and don't let anything out of Boro Hall, people who come to our town who are potential home buyers won't notice all the day laborers scattered throughout downtown (or maybe we should simply tell the potential buyers that they have no right to say or think anything negative about these folks because they are simply gathering in a legal manner to look for work...yeah, I'm sure that would smooth things over).

If we don't write to the papers anymore, maybe people with young children won't do the research to find out that our schools are overcrowded and underfunded.

Maybe what we should do is not just stop writing to the newspapers as concerned residents, but also ban any media from entering Freehold Boro, this way they won't do any reporting on any of the negative things that we're trying to keep "in-house". But wait...that won't be necessary...because according to most folks, it's not the media reporting on actual events and situations that gives this town a "negative image", it's folks like myself, Brian, Rich, Ted and our fellow "internet heroes"....right?

I wonder what you said to Stephen Pullen, Reggie Sims, and Michael Burtt after their letter to the Transcript about the Fire Dispatchers? Yes, they stood up in front of the Council to air their grievances...but why wasn't that enough, Mr Rosseel? Why did these men have to go and write a letter to the papers airing Freehold's dirty laundry?? I trust you had a few stern words for them as well about how they are sullying the good name of Freehold Boro....right???

Or is it only ok to go to the media if you also make your point at a Council meeting??

And it seems to me that in your own defense of the Fire Department in other threads, you mentioned that it was the manner in which they were treated that bothered you the most, "I just think the communication to our fire department, in plain english sucked!". Heck, even in a post about Casa Freehold's efforts to clean up along Throckmorton you said, "Maybe, just maybe, these groups were mistreated by our mayor and council and thats what caused the fighting." But it's obviously too much of a far-flung stretch to make the assumption that the Mayor and Town Council have acted this way or worse to others.

Laughable...yeah...you hit it right on the head!!!

Andrew, you really beat me to the punch line. I was going to ask Mike the same questions and I am glad that you brought up his quotes on the dispatch issue.

First, since when is it a crime to ask our government reasonable questions?

Second, I have to ask Mike, why the change of heart? All Rich and I did with our letter was asked questions and we have disagreed with the way the mayor handled things. You did too on another issue. Add those two issues with what is going on with the landlord group. They deserve answers too, whether people like them or not. And I mean civil, open and honest answers. So why is it OK for you to disagree with the mayor and not others, Mike? AS far as this Reyes issue, the only reason it is at the point it is, is because of the way the mayor handled himself to begin with.

There is a pattern emerging this year. I have said many times that this town needs open discussions on many things. That may not be convenient for some people, but it is true.

[BrianSullivan]

The letter from Rich and I finally got the attention of the APP. They did a nice and fair job. The qotes from Jaye Sims are good ones and are points that have value and need to be respected.


www.app.com/article/20100621/NEWS/6210346/Howell-immigrant-advocate-quits-Freehold-panel-after-illegal-status-revealed


Howell immigrant advocate quits Freehold panel after illegal status revealed
Freehold panel member in U.S. illegally


By KIM PREDHAM • FREEHOLD BUREAU • June 21, 2010


FREEHOLD — A Mexican native living in this country illegally has resigned from the borough's Human Relations Committee after his immigration status was revealed.




Juan Reyes of Howell stepped down from the committee June 7 following an Asbury Park Press report that referred to him as undocumented.

Reyes had served about three years on the committee, he said.

"I didn't want to make it bigger," Reyes said after the Borough Council accepted his resignation.

Reyes' work with the committee was "exemplary," said Council President Jaye Sims, the council's liaison to the Human Relations Committee.

Reyes was always helpful with the committee's various projects, Sims said.

"While he served on the committee, he was a valuable asset. . . . I'm sorry to see him go," Sims said.

The revelation of Reyes' immigration status sparked a flurry of debate on the Freehold-centric Internet forum Freehold Voice, with several posters questioning why he was appointed to the committee.

Brian Sullivan, an administrator of the site, said recently that his complaint is not so much that Reyes is in this country illegally. The committee should have someone who represents the town's immigrant community, he said.

Rather, Sullivan said his problem is with Reyes' affiliation to Casa Freehold, a local immigrant advocacy group. Reyes is a coordinator with the group.

Casa Freehold has, at times, come under fire for its efforts in the borough.

In 2003, some current members of Casa Freehold — which had not yet formed — were part of a class action lawsuit brought against the town after officials decided to close down a laborer muster zone on Throckmorton Street.

Casa Freehold later joined the suit, which was settled in 2006 when the Council agreed to pay up to $278,000 toward plaintiffs' legal fees and a fund set up to reimburse fines assessed against day laborers. The rights of day laborers to look for work in public places was also reaffirmed.

Casa Freehold, says Sullivan, is an outsider group that has dragged Freehold's reputation through the mud.

Referring to Reyes' appointment, Sullivan said, "Why not just get someone (who lives) in this town and doesn't associate with these groups?"

Casa Freehold coordinator Rita Dentino could not be reached for comment Monday.

Reyes was appointed to the committee because he expressed interest in serving, and the decision to resign was his own, Sims said.

Mayor Michael Wilson said in a published interview last week that he and the Borough Council asked for Reyes' resignation once his immigration status was revealed. Wilson could not be reached for further comment Monday.
Kim Predham: 732-308-7752 or [e-mail]

[Mike Rosseel]

"I wonder what you said to Stephen Pullen, Reggie Sims, and Michael Burtt after their letter to the Transcript about the Fire Dispatchers? Yes, they stood up in front of the Council to air their grievances...but why wasn't that enough, Mr Rosseel? Why did these men have to go and write a letter to the papers airing Freehold's dirty laundry?? I trust you had a few stern words for them as well about how they are sullying the good name of Freehold Boro....right???"


Once again your 100% wrong Mr Defonzo. Myself, like the rest of this town, supported these gentlemen and APPLAUDED them for speakig up at the meeting and following the proper avenues before writting to the press. These FINE examples of people speaking out against the council did it with respect and unlike you all, had the guts to speak up at the meetings! Plain and simple, you all could learn alot from the COURAGE and DESIRE our Fire Department Members had and have!

Your right, I do think the Mayor and council was wrong in how they handled the issue with the Fire Department. I do not think they communicated properly with them. Thats why I supported the Fire Department every step of the way. And they did the right thing!

Dont tell me what I thought about these men! Dont tell me I had stern words! These gentlemen DO GOOD for this town, THATS WHY EVERYONE CAME TO SUPPORT THEM! You have some nerve Mr Defonzo putting words and thoughts in peoples minds who dont bow down to you and your thoughts. You have quite and ego to stroke! Come back to town and run for offical instead of writting essays on here and not changing anything, come back and run so you CAN have the same success as Miller!

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 22, 2010 6:48:27 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

The letter from Rich and I finally got the attention of the APP. They did a nice and fair job. The qotes from Jaye Sims are good ones and are points that have value and need to be respected.


www.app.com/article/20100621/NEWS/6210346/Howell-immigrant-advocate-quits-Freehold-panel-after-illegal-status-revealed



Howell immigrant advocate quits Freehold panel after illegal status revealed
Freehold panel member in U.S. illegally


By KIM PREDHAM • FREEHOLD BUREAU • June 21, 2010


FREEHOLD — A Mexican native living in this country illegally has resigned from the borough's Human Relations Committee after his immigration status was revealed.




Juan Reyes of Howell stepped down from the committee June 7 following an Asbury Park Press report that referred to him as undocumented.

Reyes had served about three years on the committee, he said.

"I didn't want to make it bigger," Reyes said after the Borough Council accepted his resignation.

Reyes' work with the committee was "exemplary," said Council President Jaye Sims, the council's liaison to the Human Relations Committee.

Reyes was always helpful with the committee's various projects, Sims said.

"While he served on the committee, he was a valuable asset. . . . I'm sorry to see him go," Sims said.

The revelation of Reyes' immigration status sparked a flurry of debate on the Freehold-centric Internet forum Freehold Voice, with several posters questioning why he was appointed to the committee.

Brian Sullivan, an administrator of the site, said recently that his complaint is not so much that Reyes is in this country illegally. The committee should have someone who represents the town's immigrant community, he said.

Rather, Sullivan said his problem is with Reyes' affiliation to Casa Freehold, a local immigrant advocacy group. Reyes is a coordinator with the group.

Casa Freehold has, at times, come under fire for its efforts in the borough.

In 2003, some current members of Casa Freehold — which had not yet formed — were part of a class action lawsuit brought against the town after officials decided to close down a laborer muster zone on Throckmorton Street.

Casa Freehold later joined the suit, which was settled in 2006 when the Council agreed to pay up to $278,000 toward plaintiffs' legal fees and a fund set up to reimburse fines assessed against day laborers. The rights of day laborers to look for work in public places was also reaffirmed.

Casa Freehold, says Sullivan, is an outsider group that has dragged Freehold's reputation through the mud.

Referring to Reyes' appointment, Sullivan said, "Why not just get someone (who lives) in this town and doesn't associate with these groups?"

Casa Freehold coordinator Rita Dentino could not be reached for comment Monday.

Reyes was appointed to the committee because he expressed interest in serving, and the decision to resign was his own, Sims said.

Mayor Michael Wilson said in a published interview last week that he and the Borough Council asked for Reyes' resignation once his immigration status was revealed. Wilson could not be reached for further comment Monday.
Kim Predham: 732-308-7752 or [e-mail]

Isnt that always what you wanted, name reconization for this site and yourselves. Can anyone say EGO STROKE!!! Brian you help colleen get this published, since you guys are VERY close!

[lisas84]

Andrew, you have pegged Mike Rosseel totally wrong. He is without a doubt one of the most authentically righteous people I have been graced to become friends with. He always stands for what he feels is right. He has been quite critical of the council for what he feels was not the best handling of the dispatcher situation. And he makes a pertinent point: several members of the Fire department have indeed stood up and expressed their concerns, their anger at a couple of council meetings. This was before they wrote their editorial.

If you read all of Mike's posts on here -- you will see consistency in the expression of passion about what he feels is right -- and wrong -- in the town. He never says what people want to hear, he says the truth as he feels and sees it.