Answers needed in Freehold

[richardkelsey]

Jun 22, 2010 8:22:59 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

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.

Lisa -- this is a nice post on Mike's behalf.

My only question to you is -- why is it that Mike's "passion" and righteousness is honored and assumed to be pure of heart and devoid of agenda -- but the dissent expressed by anyone else is for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, ego, personal grudge, and with malice toward the town?

I have no problem with passion. But let's not make it absent reason. Mike's deleted posts along with his undeleted posts are laced with vicious personal attacks and allegations that are laughable.

How many times are we seriously going to have to hear the word courage and coward? Does anyone here seriously believe that Brian Sullivan -- the guy who runs this site -- the guy who has weathered withering attacks from political opponents lacks courage? Saying that exposes a person as either a complete fool -- or as an attack dog doing the work a political appointee and lackey would do for the person who appointed him.

The greatest irony of this debate is that people most outraged at Brian and me are current and former political appointees of the Mayor. No wonder they take deep umbrage at the suggestion that the appointment process is broken.

Now -- I have been a bit busy -- but let me post what I planned to post this morning after catching up with my reading late last night -- and before reading the latest back and forth on what is NOT the ISSUE. Brian is not the issue. I am not the issue. Our courage is not the issue.

My post:

Wow -- there is a lot of stuff in here.

I can't hit it all -- nor do I feel the need too.

First -- the concerns about the Reyes appointment have been public for more than 3 years. While this site may not be a "recognized media outlet" by the Mayor or anyone -- it's a public forum. For three years the machine has stonewalled and attacked. Now it's been exposed.


Second -- the notion that the only place to make a complaint or raise a question about the legitimacy of government action is at a Council meeting is a strawman -- hoisted on its own petard. In fact, making such a complaint or statement would no more keep the issue "in-house" than writing a letter. The only thing making such a statement at that meeting can do is produce news and allow for control of the agenda by council persons. Of course, if I wanted to do a dog and pony show, I would follow the lead of other organizations and pack the room with strong questioners in order to make it a media event. I have been invited to do so by one mayoral appointee -- expenses paid.

Third, the suggestion that someone who has run for office, run campaigns, run political organizations, advised Presidential candidates, appears on radio and TV, and has been a trial lawyer, is unwilling or somehow afraid to appear before the Borough Council to ask tough questions is not a serious suggestion. Trust me when I tell you, the Mayor does not want me coming up there to ask questions at public comment.

Likewise, having a Mayor's political appointee tell people how, where, and when they should voice dissent or opposition rings a bit hollow. This is particularly true when that political appointee is the sworn enemy of political opposition in the town.

As for smearing the town. This is an absurdity on its face. Heck, I was the one who came up with the slogan for the Freehold Neighborhood Pride Committee. Borough Pride is Revolutionary. Revolutions are healthy when a free people are free to question a government in any way they choose. The essence of healthy government is crisp debate.

The New Transcript is the paper that ripped Casa Freehold and said the Council should never give them legitimacy -- not me. Who gave them legitimacy -- not me. Who are fighting legitimate questions and trying to rip the town apart by tearing down the opponents of Casa Freehold -- not me.

The overwhelming majority of legal Freehold residents -- all of whom love Freehold and have pride in it -- are opposed to illegal immigration. While I don't doubt for one minute that residents would be somewhat split on the inclusion of a day laborer on a committee, I am very confident that the overwhelming majority would oppose the appointment of an illegal alien. Moreover, honest, concerned, non-partisan, citizens who do not owe an allegiance as a political appointee have no problem with getting answers to how a purportedly staunch opponent of illegal immigration -- the Mayor -- made the decision to appoint an illegal alien with ties to a radical group to a town committee.

Raising the issue of how, when, why, and by what due diligence a self-professed undocumented alien aligned with a leftist organization received an appointment by the Mayor does not mean I lack pride in my hometown. It means I still care enough to raise these questions, and I am still strong enough to put my name on those questions and take heat from people who are either uninformed, bias, or ill-willed. Obviously, Brian is a resident, a community servant, a leader, and completely intertwined into the community.

So far, the only vitriolic, knee-jerk, anger driven response to the letter has been by current and former Mayoral appointees.
Team Le Vine has its own obvious bias toward this site and its political axes to grind, and their participation in any way defending the Mayor - hurts the Mayor (IMHO). Obviously, Marc must defend the appointment, he approved it.

Mike Rosseel, like anyone is entitled to his opinions, which on this site have not been deleted, in anyway but site administrators. He is a fan of the Mayor and an appointee of the Mayor to the CIC. He has a sworn blood feud with Ted Miller, his Constitutional right to do so, and so it is not surprising that he wants to defend the Mayor. His tactics so far have been to attack the questioners rather than defend the Mayor's appointment process. It's easy to take the side of people on a popular issue such as the fire department dispatcher issue, it is much harder to attack an appointment process that was used by him to get an appointment.

All of this personality and bravado stuff is subterfuge.

If others can somehow make this dispute about a false grudge between the Mayor and me, or about the apparent lack of manhood Brian and I have for not appearing at a council meeting, or about some laughable accusation that I want to hurt Freehold Borough, than the political appointees and friends of the Mayor can deflect from the real issues. That's politics 101.

Those real issues remain the same. The questions remain unanswered. As long as they remain unanswered, every other argument only helps us. How did Mayor Wilson find Mr. Reyes? What due diligence did he do on the appointment? What conversations, if any, did he have with the appointee prior to the appointment? What conversations did he have with others about the appointee, prior to the appointment? What role if any did Casa Freehold or any of its members play in the appointment? The list of possible questions is endless.

The Mayor appointed this guy -- not me.

If Freehold has an illegal alien serving on a committee appointed by the Mayor -- how did I falsely create this circumstance? How did I or Brian turn this into the "silly season?" We are powerless to make the Mayor answer questions -- so we are clearly powerless to force him to appoint apparent illegal aliens.

I promise you -- I had no role in his appointment. No one asked me. Brian -- did the Mayor ask you?

Oh - then this entire matter is solely of the Mayor's making. (Well, his making and those with and in whom he confided)

So -- boiling it down -- the anger of the 3 people mad about this letter is not the illegitimacy of the questions, its their feeling that no one, particularly non-members of the machine should:



1) raise legitimate issues about a bad appointment of an illegal alien unless you do so at a council meeting.

2) raise any negative issue that puts Freehold in a bad light.(An interesting position for one of the three)

3) raise legitimate issues unless they live in Freehold.


Number 1 is dumb -- as previously addressed. Once raised in public the issue goes public.

Number 3 has always been dumb. The legitimacy of questions are determined by the facts and questions, not the geography of the questioner. One does not need to serve in Afghanistan to ask legitimate questions about our policies there.

Number 2 is the only complaint with the air of legitimacy. That is, there are those who believe that Freehold's image is so tarnished that it is better to allow for a broken government process that permits illegal aliens from radical groups to be appointed than to ask questions about it. I don't subscribe to that opinion. Indeed, Mike does not either, as he supports dissent against the council on popular issue.

The Mayor and Council are not Freehold. They are the servants of Freehold. They are there to serve and to answer just such questions as posed by Brian. If an illegal alien from a radical group has been appointed to a Borough Committee -- the black eye on the Borough is not inflicted by those who question the appointment, it is inflicted by those who MAKE the appointment.

The suggestion that we keep it all silent and quiet is not for the benefit of Freehold -- it is for the benefit of those who politically rule Freehold. The distinction is quite different.

[lisas84]

Hi, Rich! I hope all is well with you and your family.

What I meant is very simple: Mike Rosseel is passionate about Freehold Borough and what is right and wrong!

[Mike Rosseel]

"Mike Rosseel, like anyone is entitled to his opinions, which on this site have not been deleted, in anyway but site administrators. He is a fan of the Mayor and an appointee of the Mayor to the CIC. He has a sworn blood feud with Ted Miller, his Constitutional right to do so, and so it is not surprising that he wants to defend the Mayor. His tactics so far have been to attack the questioners rather than defend the Mayor's appointment process. It's easy to take the side of people on a popular issue such as the fire department dispatcher issue, it is much harder to attack an appointment process that was used by him to get an appointment."

Rich if I am this huge mayor supporter you say I am, why did I go to the council meetings when asked by Fire Department members to stand behind them and agree with them. Why did I post anti-council messages on how they handled the situation. Yes, those fine gentlemen of the Fire Department did go to the press, after MEN like Mike Burtt and Reggie stood up at the meeting and spoke there mind!

You see Rich once again, your trying to paint a picture. I am not a huge mayor supporter! I am a Freehold resident who believes the council as a whole does a good job! And yes I do not support nor like Miller, in the near future you will all be seeing and hearing why! Thats neither here nor there, the fact is, isnt Brian a former mayor appointee as well? Yes, Im on the CIC, yes thats a fact(congrats on presenting one of those), this does not make me a mayor supporter, it makes me a Freehold resident~ Rich, You had questions, you wanted answers, not an issue your right! You write a letter to the paper, painting a picture, wrong! Go to the meeting ask the questions and then if you dont get answers go to the paper, just follow the right avenues, thats all!

[richardkelsey]

Jun 22, 2010 9:12:00 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

Hi, Rich! I hope all is well with you and your family.

What I meant is very simple: Mike Rosseel is passionate about Freehold Borough and what is right and wrong!

I agree that he has passion -- that's for sure. I actually quite like that about Mike.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 22, 2010 9:18:28 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

"Mike Rosseel, like anyone is entitled to his opinions, which on this site have not been deleted, in anyway but site administrators. He is a fan of the Mayor and an appointee of the Mayor to the CIC. He has a sworn blood feud with Ted Miller, his Constitutional right to do so, and so it is not surprising that he wants to defend the Mayor. His tactics so far have been to attack the questioners rather than defend the Mayor's appointment process. It's easy to take the side of people on a popular issue such as the fire department dispatcher issue, it is much harder to attack an appointment process that was used by him to get an appointment."

Rich if I am this huge mayor supporter you say I am, why did I go to the council meetings when asked by Fire Department members to stand behind them and agree with them. Why did I post anti-council messages on how they handled the situation. Yes, those fine gentlemen of the Fire Department did go to the press, after MEN like Mike Burtt and Reggie stood up at the meeting and spoke there mind!

You see Rich once again, your trying to paint a picture. I am not a huge mayor supporter! I am a Freehold resident who believes the council as a whole does a good job! And yes I do not support nor like Miller, in the near future you will all be seeing and hearing why! Thats neither here nor there, the fact is, isnt Brian a former mayor appointee as well? Yes, Im on the CIC, yes thats a fact(congrats on presenting one of those), this does not make me a mayor supporter, it makes me a Freehold resident~ Rich, You had questions, you wanted answers, not an issue your right! You write a letter to the paper, painting a picture, wrong! Go to the meeting ask the questions and then if you dont get answers go to the paper, just follow the right avenues, thats all!

Mike, I too will say that you are passionate about your town and thought we may not agree on some things, I respect your views.

I do have to say something in my defense about going to a council meeting vs. not going. I did reply earlier with my answer and if you do not agree or like it is fine by me.

AS far as courage that you mention, in a big sense I think what me and Rich did took more guts than going to a meeting. That letter was going to be read by far more people than what would have been in a meeting. As a result, both Rich and I fully expected a very nasty backlash. There is no question that we put ourselves right into the fire.

God knows, Mike, over the past year or so I have been thrown under the bus hard and lied about for reasons that I did not deserve. I fuly expect it will happen again for the asking simple questions.

[Mike Rosseel]

To Rich and Brian,

I certainly am not saying you dont have rights to ask questions. I am saying, IMHO, there are proper avenues to follow, and I dont feel you took them. Thats all I am saying! As it is only my opinion, which certainly doesnt mean Im right, just what I believe! Rich, I have known you for many years, I too do respect your passion, thats that! Nothing more to you guys nothing less, thats all Im saying.

[lisas84]

I need to ask, Brian, when you wrote: "That letter was going to be read by far more people than what would have been in a meeting."

Was the point to have had these questions answered to the best of knowledge/ability by the mayor-council -- or was the point to let as many people know that you felt something was rotten in the state of New Jersey?

This to me seems to be a key factor in much of the discontent expressed about the letter being published.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 22, 2010 10:02:47 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

I need to ask, Brian, when you wrote: "That letter was going to be read by far more people than what would have been in a meeting."

Was the point to have had these questions answered to the best of knowledge/ability by the mayor-council -- or was the point to let as many people know that you felt something was rotten in the state of New Jersey?

This to me seems to be a key factor in much of the discontent expressed about the letter being published.

Excellent point!!! Kinda shot himself in the foot with that one! Defonzo made the point only 8-10 people go to meetings, I guess this is why a letter to the paper is better, you can reach more people. Makes you think, are the answers important or having people see it more important?

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 22, 2010 10:02:47 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

I need to ask, Brian, when you wrote: "That letter was going to be read by far more people than what would have been in a meeting."

Was the point to have had these questions answered to the best of knowledge/ability by the mayor-council -- or was the point to let as many people know that you felt something was rotten in the state of New Jersey?

This to me seems to be a key factor in much of the discontent expressed about the letter being published.

Lisa, It is a good question. But, it has to be read in context. Is writing a letter really the cowardly approach? Rich and I opened a door to many more people who may get ticked at us. That is the context. If people misread the intent, so be it. That happens all the time.

IF I had more faith that a council meeting was the way to go, I would have gone that way. But I don't and didn't. I have mentioned in the past that I have spoken at council meetings with very poor results.

In the end, going to the council meeting would have been for the convenience of the council. This issue has been floating around for years and Rich, me and others have been subjected to nasty attacks from the little attack puppies. With that the above in mind, why do what is convenient for the council? They had their chance in the public arena in the past and blew it.

Going the way we did will push more public dialog- the very thing this site has been dedicated to for many years. I have said many times that I am very dedicated to open and honest dialog and more that welcome different view points.

I hope this answers your question, Lisa.

[lisas84]

I have read many of teh comments inspired by the publication of this letter. And I see it has sparked several debates:

1. Immigration enforcement
2. Politics (questioning the motivation)

Debate is good. Debate is healthy. Debate sparks innovation and forward movement. A society without debate is a stagnant society.

[lisas84]

PS: Brian, really, thanks for commenting about your motivations. I am on a self-guided mission to continue to better in seeking to understand rather than seeking to agree. As a professional writer, when I take the first approach, my writing becomes much more powerful -- and that keeps my paychecks flowing!

[ess0350]

After readng the posts here, it seems everyone is concerned about Freehold Boro and how this issue affects the town. I don't see where dragging individuals who have served or have run for elective office serves any purpose along with members of this site. I think we all are looking at very hard questions and issues here in the Boro. I too have questions regarding this issue along with others. I have also asked questions at town council meetings and have felt that I was "talked down to" regarding questions or statements I asked. I felt that I was treated as a pesky fly. I am not saying this to promote any ill will towards the town council, just saying that was my personal impression and feelings regarding the above statements.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 22, 2010 14:05:00 GMT -5 ess0350 said:

After readng the posts here, it seems everyone is concerned about Freehold Boro and how this issue affects the town. I don't see where dragging individuals who have served or have run for elective office serves any purpose along with members of this site. I think we all are looking at very hard questions and issues here in the Boro. I too have questions regarding this issue along with others. I have also asked questions at town council meetings and have felt that I was "talked down to" regarding questions or statements I asked. I felt that I was treated as a pesky fly. I am not saying this to promote any ill will towards the town council, just saying that was my personal impression and feelings regarding the above statements.

ESS,

the admin of this site brought the entire CIC down with the debate last year and he didnt mind that, sadly it happens in town alot. Dis you discuss how you felt with anyone, like a council member or they mayor himself? Was the mayor in attendance at the meeting you spoke up at?

[dfx]

All -

I would suggest submitting any questions you have for the town council, board of education, a state representative or senator, etc. in writing prior to an in-person meeting so the person being questioned has time to properly research the facts prior to responding.

With today's "gotcha" journalism, public officials are often intentionally misquoted - hence their hesitancy to answer on the spot. As a result, people who attend these public forums often feel ignored when the people they are addressing do not answer immediately.

(This message is not being posted on behalf of anyone other than myself.)


dan x.

[adefonzo]

Jun 22, 2010 7:57:51 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

"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!

I don't wish to continue this debate with you Mr. Rosseel, it is deteriorating quickly, and I am not going to get baited into a back and forth where words are taken out of context and twisted and turned to suit the others point of view.

I want to make crystal clear, however, that I never doubted the strength and courage of the members of the Fire Department in Freehold Boro, or anywhere else for that matter. Having been a volunteer fireman for a short time in my own life, I have a very fond admiration and understanding of what these volunteers are willing to sacrifice for the members of their community. To suggest otherwise would be putting words into my mouth which did not come from me.

Lisa, I have no doubt that Mr. Rosseel has passion about his beliefs, I don't think anyone that participates on this site lacks passion in their beliefs. Sometimes, our passions can get the best of us and lead us away from open and honest debate, and into the realm of harsh words and personal attacks. This is why I will refrain from continuing this debate with Mr. Rosseel, because I can sense that both of our passions are starting to get a bit out of control. If you feel he is one of the most authentically righteous people you have met, fine...that is your opinion of him, and one that I would think he takes pride in hearing.

[BrianSullivan]

Jun 22, 2010 16:13:33 GMT -5 dfx said:

All -

I would suggest submitting any questions you have for the town council, board of education, a state representative or senator, etc. in writing prior to an in-person meeting so the person being questioned has time to properly research the facts prior to responding.

With today's "gotcha" journalism, public officials are often intentionally misquoted - hence their hesitancy to answer on the spot. As a result, people who attend these public forums often feel ignored when the people they are addressing do not answer immediately.

(This message is not being posted on behalf of anyone other than myself.)


dan x.

Dan,
Sage advice! You could easily start a very nice thread with this line of thinking. The concern for elected officials is certainly a valid one. Understandably, they do not want to be misquoted or ambushed. A thread on how to also make the council meetings more " customer friendly" could be a good idea.

[BrianSullivan]

Lisa mentioned that this topic has certainly sparked many discussions. That is not a bad thing and is both good and healthy for the town. On that same note, the NT ran a letter from Tom Baldwin:

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-23/Letters/Civil_rights_of_all_in_US_should_be_protected.html

He somewhat goes off topic of the original letter, but that is OK. The bigger point, I would love to see him sign up and participate here. I do believe he has an account but has not activated it.

I know that at least Tom and I would not agree on some things, but we do not have to. What I do like about him is that he is civil in his communications. That is all I ever ask for from anybody, regardless of views. For tha reason alone, he would be a welcome addition. Besides, he lives in the borough, cares about the town and is not a one trick pony.

[richardkelsey]

Jun 23, 2010 6:58:57 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

Lisa mentioned that this topic has certainly sparked many discussions. That is not a bad thing and is both good and healthy for the town. On that same note, the NT ran a letter from Tom Baldwin:

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-06-23/Letters/Civil_rights_of_all_in_US_should_be_protected.html

He somewhat goes off topic of the original letter, but that is OK. The bigger point, I would love to see him sign up and participate here. I do believe he has an account but has not activated it.

I know that at least Tom and I would not agree on some things, but we do not have to. What I do like about him is that he is civil in his communications. That is all I ever ask for from anybody, regardless of views. For tha reason alone, he would be a welcome addition. Besides, he lives in the borough, cares about the town and is not a one trick pony.

This is actually one of Mr. Baldwin's better letters.

Where Mr. Baldwin and I disagree is on a fundamental concept of "civil rights."

American citizens deserve all the rights provided by the US Constitution. Mr. Baldwin knows far better than me what it is like to live in a society where Americans are denied basic Constitutional rights based solely on skin color.

I believe there is no permanent cure for the ignorance of racism. Education is the only inoculation against that. I also believe that this country as a government and as a majority has moved well-passed institutional racism in large part due to the passion and fighting of people willing to stand up for the rights of Americans.

Where Mr. Baldwin and I -- and indeed other "legal scholars" part company -- is that I do not believe people who are NOT American citizens have "Constitutional Rights." I absolutely believe they are entitled to "due process." That is, any non-citizen charged with a crime should be afforded due process. That due process needs to meet the minimum protections to allow people to defend themselves, or must conform to any treaties we sign.

I do not believe, however, that illegal aliens have US Constitutional rights. Those sacred rights and protections belong to the people of the United States. They are a benefit and privilege and Right of citizenship. To confer them on non-citizens is to devalue the right of citizenship.

[jefffriedman]

Rich,
Due process requires some Constitutional rights, therefore even illegal immigrants have limited Constitutional Rights.

[richardkelsey]

Jun 23, 2010 12:06:05 GMT -5 jefffriedman said:

Rich,
Due process requires some Constitutional rights, therefore even illegal immigrants have limited Constitutional Rights.

To the extent due process rights overlap with Constitutional rights -- I can't disagree with that. Indeed, much of the universally accepted due process rights are very generous -- and offer foreign nationals sufficient due process as they should.

I am only saying that where those rights overlap -- they get them because they should get due process -- not because they have a Constitutional right to Constitutional rights.

[BrianSullivan]

The following was in interesting find from "Da Truth Squad," a blog out of Manalapan. If memory serves me, that site has stirred its own controversies. I have to admit I enjoyed reading this piece from a person who has a sympathetic ear to lend.

datruthsquad.blogspot.com/2010/06/anonymous-bloggers-again-make-their.html

Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Anonymous Bloggers Again Make Their Voices Clear For All Da Right Reasons
It really doesn't matter what side of da immigration issue you are on when it comes to this interesting tidbit that comes from our TruthTellers in Freehold, New Jersey.

It seems that a gentleman names Juan Reyes has been serving for da last 3 years on da borough's Human Relations Committee. Apparently he's served in his position with some distinction. Da Freehold Borough's council president called Reyes' work on da committee "exemplary" - obvious high praise. In addition, that same council president said Reyes was "always helpful with the committee's various projects" and "While he served on the committee, he was a valuable asset" according to quotes from da Asbury Park Press newspaper.

Only one minor teensy little "problema" with Mr. Reyes. Despite all of his "exemplary" work in Freehold Borough, he's not exactly a resident of Freehold Borough.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident of Freehold, or Manalapan, or any other town in Monmouth County.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident of New Jersey, or any other state east of da Mississippi River.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident in good standing of da United States of America.

Reyes, who is living in Monmouth County, and apparently not even in Freehold Borough, is from Mexico living in this country illegally, or as da newspaper called him, "undocumented."

Now, to be fair, this is a little different from, hypothetically speaking of course, someone saying they're a Mets fan who cheers on the Yankees, or someone who hypothetically runs for political office claiming they live in one town while they mysteriously spend a lot of time in another.

Reyes also was a part of a group, Casa Freehold, that won a very big judgment in court against da town of Freehold Borough in da infamous "muster zone" incident, a place where many men and women illegally in this area went to get picked up by business owners or others to do day labor, despite being undocumented workers.

Were any background checks done on this guy, or were there any background checks performed on any of the members of committees in Freehold Borough?

Can anyone in the United States, legal or not, serve on any boards in Freehold Borough?

Even though daTruthSquad isn't a legal resident of Freehold Borough, does that make us eligible to become mayor?

How could his residency status not be known, or quite possibly hidden, for 36 months? It seems as if sometimes you have to give a blood sample or jump through flaming hoops just to buy a car in this country. However, serving people in a town, you apparently don't even have to be a resident of da town, da state or da nation??

Much like websites like daTruthSquad, MoreMonmouthMusings who has recently proved beyond any doubt that indeed Rush Holt ripped the microphone away from Manalapan TruthTeller Rhoda Chodosh, our friends we support in Bordentown and others, it was a website chock full of anonymous bloggers that yet again opened up da doors of reality and started to shine a very bright light of daTruth on this situation with Mr. Reyes.

Now, if Freehold Borough's finest had simply checked out the website called "Freehold Voices," they would have read postings from anonymous bloggers that Mr. Reyes may in fact be someone who entered this great nation not through the proper gate, but either under or over the fence. We are also not saying that Mr. Reyes is a bad or good person.

DaTruth is, Mr. Reyes served for three years on a committee in (A) a town he didn't live in, (B) he isn't even a legal resident of da United States, and (C) the Freehold Borough folks didn't even bother to check up on this guy, even after it was made public on a blog 3 years ago that this guy could be in this nation illegally! Obviously, his position with the committee raises serious questons, and a byproduct of those questions could be more visits by ICE into a place that is becoming known as an illegal's haven.

Of course, none of this probably would have seen da light of day if it were not for da anonymous bloggers of "Freehold Voices," who let their anonymous voices be known - and which, to be fair, gets a trainload more postings and views than its Manalapan counterpart - a similar point also made crystal clear by MoreMonmouthMusings. There are those who either don't like or appreciate anonymous bloggers. That is their choice. However, any student of history will tell you that anonymous blogging has been around since even before this great nation was founded.

Just ask Mrs. Silence Dogood, or Publius, or any of the other people who wrote the Federalist Papers (one of whom became the nation's first Supreme Court Chief Justice, or even daTruthSquad. Anonymous bloggers are here to stay, and we're not leaving, unless we decide to for our own reasons - not anyone else's.

And that's daTruth.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 24, 2010 5:37:55 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

The following was in interesting find from "Da Truth Squad," a blog out of Manalapan. If memory serves me, that site has stirred its own controversies. I have to admit I enjoyed reading this piece from a person who has a sympathetic ear to lend.

datruthsquad.blogspot.com/2010/06/anonymous-bloggers-again-make-their.html

Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Anonymous Bloggers Again Make Their Voices Clear For All Da Right Reasons
It really doesn't matter what side of da immigration issue you are on when it comes to this interesting tidbit that comes from our TruthTellers in Freehold, New Jersey.

It seems that a gentleman names Juan Reyes has been serving for da last 3 years on da borough's Human Relations Committee. Apparently he's served in his position with some distinction. Da Freehold Borough's council president called Reyes' work on da committee "exemplary" - obvious high praise. In addition, that same council president said Reyes was "always helpful with the committee's various projects" and "While he served on the committee, he was a valuable asset" according to quotes from da Asbury Park Press newspaper.

Only one minor teensy little "problema" with Mr. Reyes. Despite all of his "exemplary" work in Freehold Borough, he's not exactly a resident of Freehold Borough.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident of Freehold, or Manalapan, or any other town in Monmouth County.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident of New Jersey, or any other state east of da Mississippi River.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident in good standing of da United States of America.

Reyes, who is living in Monmouth County, and apparently not even in Freehold Borough, is from Mexico living in this country illegally, or as da newspaper called him, "undocumented."

Now, to be fair, this is a little different from, hypothetically speaking of course, someone saying they're a Mets fan who cheers on the Yankees, or someone who hypothetically runs for political office claiming they live in one town while they mysteriously spend a lot of time in another.

Reyes also was a part of a group, Casa Freehold, that won a very big judgment in court against da town of Freehold Borough in da infamous "muster zone" incident, a place where many men and women illegally in this area went to get picked up by business owners or others to do day labor, despite being undocumented workers.

Were any background checks done on this guy, or were there any background checks performed on any of the members of committees in Freehold Borough?

Can anyone in the United States, legal or not, serve on any boards in Freehold Borough?

Even though daTruthSquad isn't a legal resident of Freehold Borough, does that make us eligible to become mayor?

How could his residency status not be known, or quite possibly hidden, for 36 months? It seems as if sometimes you have to give a blood sample or jump through flaming hoops just to buy a car in this country. However, serving people in a town, you apparently don't even have to be a resident of da town, da state or da nation??

Much like websites like daTruthSquad, MoreMonmouthMusings who has recently proved beyond any doubt that indeed Rush Holt ripped the microphone away from Manalapan TruthTeller Rhoda Chodosh, our friends we support in Bordentown and others, it was a website chock full of anonymous bloggers that yet again opened up da doors of reality and started to shine a very bright light of daTruth on this situation with Mr. Reyes.

Now, if Freehold Borough's finest had simply checked out the website called "Freehold Voices," they would have read postings from anonymous bloggers that Mr. Reyes may in fact be someone who entered this great nation not through the proper gate, but either under or over the fence. We are also not saying that Mr. Reyes is a bad or good person.

DaTruth is, Mr. Reyes served for three years on a committee in (A) a town he didn't live in, (B) he isn't even a legal resident of da United States, and (C) the Freehold Borough folks didn't even bother to check up on this guy, even after it was made public on a blog 3 years ago that this guy could be in this nation illegally! Obviously, his position with the committee raises serious questons, and a byproduct of those questions could be more visits by ICE into a place that is becoming known as an illegal's haven.

Of course, none of this probably would have seen da light of day if it were not for da anonymous bloggers of "Freehold Voices," who let their anonymous voices be known - and which, to be fair, gets a trainload more postings and views than its Manalapan counterpart - a similar point also made crystal clear by MoreMonmouthMusings. There are those who either don't like or appreciate anonymous bloggers. That is their choice. However, any student of history will tell you that anonymous blogging has been around since even before this great nation was founded.

Just ask Mrs. Silence Dogood, or Publius, or any of the other people who wrote the Federalist Papers (one of whom became the nation's first Supreme Court Chief Justice, or even daTruthSquad. Anonymous bloggers are here to stay, and we're not leaving, unless we decide to for our own reasons - not anyone else's.

And that's daTruth.

Isn't it interesting that "DA" three sites mentioned on here are all GOP sites. MMM, Da truth and the voice, did you guys have a GOP website meeting and come up with protecting eachother? Da truth is, this all seems alittle racist to me(Da Truths post), these people have rights too. Brian didnt you say to me several weeks back that its not issue that people that dont live in Freehold serve on committees, actually didnt you call that "normal"?

If you can answer 1 question for me Brian its why did you wait from 2007 until today? Thats all!

[lisas84]

As a professional writer and editor who cherishes the English language, I have a major problem with this. I cannot stand anyone who purposefully mangles our language. The overuse of "da" for "the" is beyond irritating. I recognize it is part of his identity branding, but each "da" is like a resounding clunker note in a symphony.

[adefonzo]

Jun 16, 2010 12:09:10 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

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.

Brian...based on your post above, and after reading the letter again, it appears that both yourself and Rich feel that the issue did not lay dormant from 2007 until now, but rather that the issue was raised, albeit on this website, back when it first occurred. In addition to that, as you clearly state above, your own experiences with standing before the Mayor and Council have led you to believe that doing so would not further the discussion about this issue at all.

The issue then became that the Council and Mayor never responded. Now, it could be argued that the Council and Mayor have no idea what goes on here on this site, since it's not viewed as part of the "official" press that the town deals with.

So...let's say they knew nothing of the issue being raised back then. The issue has been raised now. Whether it was raised three years ago or three minutes ago, the problem, from what I am reading, is that it has never gotten a response from the Mayor and Council, though some will argue that the response was their asking or forcing Juan Reyes to step down from his seat (though even that issue is not clear when you read all that has been printed about this story).

Again, this is just how I am reading this, but it seems to me that the issue was that there was no response from the Mayor and Council until very recently, and even in that response, there is no acceptance of any accountability on the part of the Mayor and the Council for this appointment. I read Jaye's comments, and they are fair for the work that Mr. Reyes has apparently done, but there is no responsibility taken for having appointed him in the first place. It seems to me that if you have to ask or force someone off a committee that you appointed him to, and then re-appointed him to, there might be some explanation and admission of at least some neglect on your part....but again, we see none.

Anyway...it seems like those are the issues that will go unanswered, not the question of why it wasn't brought up 3 years ago in front of the Town Council and Mayor.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 24, 2010 8:05:13 GMT -5 adefonzo said:

Jun 16, 2010 12:09:10 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

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.

Brian...based on your post above, and after reading the letter again, it appears that both yourself and Rich feel that the issue did not lay dormant from 2007 until now, but rather that the issue was raised, albeit on this website, back when it first occurred. In addition to that, as you clearly state above, your own experiences with standing before the Mayor and Council have led you to believe that doing so would not further the discussion about this issue at all.

The issue then became that the Council and Mayor never responded. Now, it could be argued that the Council and Mayor have no idea what goes on here on this site, since it's not viewed as part of the "official" press that the town deals with.

So...let's say they knew nothing of the issue being raised back then. The issue has been raised now. Whether it was raised three years ago or three minutes ago, the problem, from what I am reading, is that it has never gotten a response from the Mayor and Council, though some will argue that the response was their asking or forcing Juan Reyes to step down from his seat (though even that issue is not clear when you read all that has been printed about this story).

Again, this is just how I am reading this, but it seems to me that the issue was that there was no response from the Mayor and Council until very recently, and even in that response, there is no acceptance of any accountability on the part of the Mayor and the Council for this appointment. I read Jaye's comments, and they are fair for the work that Mr. Reyes has apparently done, but there is no responsibility taken for having appointed him in the first place. It seems to me that if you have to ask or force someone off a committee that you appointed him to, and then re-appointed him to, there might be some explanation and admission of at least some neglect on your part....but again, we see none.

Anyway...it seems like those are the issues that will go unanswered, not the question of why it wasn't brought up 3 years ago in front of the Town Council and Mayor.

I apologize if i didnt make who the question was for clear but I was looking for Brians answer to that question!

[richardkelsey]

Jun 24, 2010 7:03:35 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

Jun 24, 2010 5:37:55 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

The following was in interesting find from "Da Truth Squad," a blog out of Manalapan. If memory serves me, that site has stirred its own controversies. I have to admit I enjoyed reading this piece from a person who has a sympathetic ear to lend.

datruthsquad.blogspot.com/2010/06/anonymous-bloggers-again-make-their.html

Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Anonymous Bloggers Again Make Their Voices Clear For All Da Right Reasons
It really doesn't matter what side of da immigration issue you are on when it comes to this interesting tidbit that comes from our TruthTellers in Freehold, New Jersey.

It seems that a gentleman names Juan Reyes has been serving for da last 3 years on da borough's Human Relations Committee. Apparently he's served in his position with some distinction. Da Freehold Borough's council president called Reyes' work on da committee "exemplary" - obvious high praise. In addition, that same council president said Reyes was "always helpful with the committee's various projects" and "While he served on the committee, he was a valuable asset" according to quotes from da Asbury Park Press newspaper.

Only one minor teensy little "problema" with Mr. Reyes. Despite all of his "exemplary" work in Freehold Borough, he's not exactly a resident of Freehold Borough.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident of Freehold, or Manalapan, or any other town in Monmouth County.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident of New Jersey, or any other state east of da Mississippi River.

In fact, he's not exactly a legal resident in good standing of da United States of America.

Reyes, who is living in Monmouth County, and apparently not even in Freehold Borough, is from Mexico living in this country illegally, or as da newspaper called him, "undocumented."

Now, to be fair, this is a little different from, hypothetically speaking of course, someone saying they're a Mets fan who cheers on the Yankees, or someone who hypothetically runs for political office claiming they live in one town while they mysteriously spend a lot of time in another.

Reyes also was a part of a group, Casa Freehold, that won a very big judgment in court against da town of Freehold Borough in da infamous "muster zone" incident, a place where many men and women illegally in this area went to get picked up by business owners or others to do day labor, despite being undocumented workers.

Were any background checks done on this guy, or were there any background checks performed on any of the members of committees in Freehold Borough?

Can anyone in the United States, legal or not, serve on any boards in Freehold Borough?

Even though daTruthSquad isn't a legal resident of Freehold Borough, does that make us eligible to become mayor?

How could his residency status not be known, or quite possibly hidden, for 36 months? It seems as if sometimes you have to give a blood sample or jump through flaming hoops just to buy a car in this country. However, serving people in a town, you apparently don't even have to be a resident of da town, da state or da nation??

Much like websites like daTruthSquad, MoreMonmouthMusings who has recently proved beyond any doubt that indeed Rush Holt ripped the microphone away from Manalapan TruthTeller Rhoda Chodosh, our friends we support in Bordentown and others, it was a website chock full of anonymous bloggers that yet again opened up da doors of reality and started to shine a very bright light of daTruth on this situation with Mr. Reyes.

Now, if Freehold Borough's finest had simply checked out the website called "Freehold Voices," they would have read postings from anonymous bloggers that Mr. Reyes may in fact be someone who entered this great nation not through the proper gate, but either under or over the fence. We are also not saying that Mr. Reyes is a bad or good person.

DaTruth is, Mr. Reyes served for three years on a committee in (A) a town he didn't live in, (B) he isn't even a legal resident of da United States, and (C) the Freehold Borough folks didn't even bother to check up on this guy, even after it was made public on a blog 3 years ago that this guy could be in this nation illegally! Obviously, his position with the committee raises serious questons, and a byproduct of those questions could be more visits by ICE into a place that is becoming known as an illegal's haven.

Of course, none of this probably would have seen da light of day if it were not for da anonymous bloggers of "Freehold Voices," who let their anonymous voices be known - and which, to be fair, gets a trainload more postings and views than its Manalapan counterpart - a similar point also made crystal clear by MoreMonmouthMusings. There are those who either don't like or appreciate anonymous bloggers. That is their choice. However, any student of history will tell you that anonymous blogging has been around since even before this great nation was founded.

Just ask Mrs. Silence Dogood, or Publius, or any of the other people who wrote the Federalist Papers (one of whom became the nation's first Supreme Court Chief Justice, or even daTruthSquad. Anonymous bloggers are here to stay, and we're not leaving, unless we decide to for our own reasons - not anyone else's.

And that's daTruth.

Isn't it interesting that "DA" three sites mentioned on here are all GOP sites. MMM, Da truth and the voice, did you guys have a GOP website meeting and come up with protecting eachother? Da truth is, this all seems alittle racist to me(Da Truths post), these people have rights too. Brian didnt you say to me several weeks back that its not issue that people that dont live in Freehold serve on committees, actually didnt you call that "normal"?

If you can answer 1 question for me Brian its why did you wait from 2007 until today? Thats all!

Personally -- I have never even heard of this blog site, or DA postster.

My only other response this is that this site is an open site. The GOP friendly opinions often expressed here are a reflection of the people who choose to post on the site and follow its rules.

There are obvious exceptions. We have you, a dem appointee. We have Lisa -- a moderator -- who is also not a member of the GOP. Dan posts, and is not a GOP'er -- best I can tell.

So -- I think your characterization of the site as a GOP site "paints" a story that is not entirely accurate, but it seems to fit the story that former site members and some current and former Mayoral political appointees like to paint.

Heck -- one former Mayor appointee, and son of a deposed councilman actually posted somewhere that our site was a racist site under government watch! LOL.

It's just an open site. No denying that the opinions of many who choose to post lean center-right.

[BrianSullivan]

Rich and Andrew, Thanks to both of you for the answers. I wasn't sure if I was going to answer Mike for the simple reason, all of the answers to his questions are already found in this thread. I see no sense in repeating myself.

In the end, Mike is just ticked at me- again. He disagrees and that is his right, I am at peace with it.

AS far as those other sites, I have visited Monmouth Musings only one or twice. Never been to the Borden town site, but have read about it in the papers. I have also seen Da Truth Squad in the papers, but yesterday was my first visit.

With the above in mind, I have no idea what political slant any of them have. I do know that at least two of the three above have had governing bodies trying to shut them down.

As far as the political views on this site, Rich nailed. Out of the people who have logged on recently, he did forget Jeff, who I am sure is not GOP. We also have a new user with unknown political affiliation. What ever that person is, does not matter. If the person is civil, she is very welcome here.

Bottom line, this is an open site. If we get 100 Dems here expressing themselves, or even people who want to talk about non political things, that will be the flavor. People have the power to change this site and make of it what they want.

Speaking of changes..... there will be a very big bomb dropped on this site in the very near future.

[Mike Rosseel]

Jun 24, 2010 9:55:13 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

Rich and Andrew, Thanks to both of you for the answers. I wasn't sure if I was going to answer Mike for the simple reason, all of the answers to his questions are already found in this thread. I see no sense in repeating myself.

In the end, Mike is just ticked at me- again. He disagrees and that is his right, I am at peace with it.

AS far as those other sites, I have visited Monmouth Musings only one or twice. Never been to the Borden town site, but have read about it in the papers. I have also seen Da Truth Squad in the papers, but yesterday was my first visit.

With the above in mind, I have no idea what political slant any of them have. I do know that at least two of the three above have had governing bodies trying to shut them down.

As far as the political views on this site, Rich nailed. Out of the people who have logged on recently, he did forget Jeff, who I am sure is not GOP. We also have a new user with unknown political affiliation. What ever that person is, does not matter. If the person is civil, she is very welcome here.

Bottom line, this is an open site. If we get 100 Dems here expressing themselves, or even people who want to talk about non political things, that will be the flavor. People have the power to change this site and make of it what they want.

Speaking of changes..... there will be a very big bomb dropped on this site in the very near future.

Brian,

Im not ticked at you! You handled things they way you felt were correct! You did it with pure intentions and nothing to gain? I disagree with the way you went about it, certainly not "ticked" you have to live with that not me! How can one get the warning level up on here Brian?

can't wait for Da Bomb!

[admin]

Jun 24, 2010 10:11:42 GMT -5 Mike Rosseel said:

Jun 24, 2010 9:55:13 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

Rich and Andrew, Thanks to both of you for the answers. I wasn't sure if I was going to answer Mike for the simple reason, all of the answers to his questions are already found in this thread. I see no sense in repeating myself.

In the end, Mike is just ticked at me- again. He disagrees and that is his right, I am at peace with it.

AS far as those other sites, I have visited Monmouth Musings only one or twice. Never been to the Borden town site, but have read about it in the papers. I have also seen Da Truth Squad in the papers, but yesterday was my first visit.

With the above in mind, I have no idea what political slant any of them have. I do know that at least two of the three above have had governing bodies trying to shut them down.

As far as the political views on this site, Rich nailed. Out of the people who have logged on recently, he did forget Jeff, who I am sure is not GOP. We also have a new user with unknown political affiliation. What ever that person is, does not matter. If the person is civil, she is very welcome here.

Bottom line, this is an open site. If we get 100 Dems here expressing themselves, or even people who want to talk about non political things, that will be the flavor. People have the power to change this site and make of it what they want.

Speaking of changes..... there will be a very big bomb dropped on this site in the very near future.

Brian,

Im not ticked at you! You handled things they way you felt were correct! You did it with pure intentions and nothing to gain? I disagree with the way you went about it, certainly not "ticked" you have to live with that not me! How can one get the warning level up on here Brian?

can't wait for Da Bomb!

The warning level ahs alwasy been ther, it is just easier for mods to use. We never really did. I am not sure how much we will now.

da bomb is actually a very good thing. I bet you like it. ( no sarcasm)

[BrianSullivan]

I will have fun with this tomorrow........

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2010-07-14/Editorials/Benefits_accrue_in_working_together_toward_progres.html

Benefits accrue in working together toward progress

GUEST COLUMN
ANGEL MATOS
In the June 16, 2010, News Transcript Your Turn opinion piece titled “Answers Needed in Freehold,” co-authored by Freehold Borough resident Brian Sullivan and a Virginia resident named Richard Kelsey, there were a number of defamatory statements directed at Casa Freehold, Freehold Borough Mayor Michael Wilson and other individuals which the authors accuse of “malfeasance.”
The accusations are partly founded on the premise that borough officials somehow “caved in” to “demands” made by Casa Freehold and other advocates in the wake of a $278,000 settlement of a federal civil rights lawsuit against the borough.

Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Kelsey posit that borough officials, especially Mayor Wilson, should be brought to account for allowing an undocumented day laborer to serve as a member of the Freehold Borough Human Relations Committee (HRC). They claim the HRC member is undocumented based on a report published in a daily newspaper in May.

The anti-immigrant duet of Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Kelsey allude to some sort of coercion by Casa Freehold as a qualifier for why borough officials would make such an appointment. They describe Casa Freehold as “ … a radical, open borders group dedicated to the promotion of illegal immigration …” They go on to promote their allegation as a “truism.”

The fact is that many of the assumed truths promoted by the hateful campaign waged by Mayor Wilson, Freehold officials and some residents during the years they mention (2003-2004) have proven to be complete myths rooted in fear-mongering for political purposes and steeped in cultural bias. Some of the negative perspectives still persist, and exhibit A of this ignorance is the Sullivan/Kelsey guest column.

If it were not for Casa Freehold and regional organizations such as the Latino Coalition, United Day Laborers and the clergy, these immigrants would have no recourse against the occasional hatred and intolerance that continues to be directed their way.

In spite of the challenges, cultural progress in Freehold is being made not just because there is a substantial and widespread reaction to the injustices being imposed on the immigrant community. It is because of the recognition by Freehold Borough officials, from the mayor to the police chief, that problems do not get solved by employing heavy-handed tactics.

Unfortunately, it was only after the legal dispute was settled and constant political pressure was applied that earnest efforts to bridge the divide on the part of the officials began. And it was only because of the persistent vigilance by advocates that constructive dialogue and pragmatic approaches began to take shape. One very positive result of this approach was the inclusion of day labor representation on the HRC.

Now, what is the malfeasance Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Kelsey allege? A day laborer was appointed to an advisory position so he could volunteer his time, energy and counsel to benefit Freehold Borough. He provided free advice so the borough could reach an important constituency in the community.

The mayor deserves credit for showing wisdom and political courage in this instance. With direct input from the day laborer segment of the community, the committee was better positioned to understand and mitigate a complete set of impacts that bear on human relations within the borough.




Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Kelsey, the man from Virginia, continue to pick at old wounds. Most people have moved beyond the fights of the past, but not them.

The approach for a better Freehold Borough was articulated by Mayor Wilson on Sept. 19, 2007, in the News Transcript as follows: “We needed to stop talking at each other and start talking to each other,” Wilson said, adding that periodic meetings with representatives from the immigrant community have been a venue to discuss issues pertaining primarily to the safety, health and well-being of all residents.

“The meetings deal with issues that the Latino community may have and issues that we have as well,” the mayor said. “We are opening the lines of communication. There has been a give-and-take on both ends to bring the community to an understanding of the differences in the culture of both groups.”

In the present, the only answers needed from Mayor Wilson are how, as a community, we will collectively continue our progress. The only thing I would add to Mayor Wilson’s statement above is that there are more similarities within our communities than there are differences.

Progress is what we all want for ourselves, our families, and each other. In these economically and politically difficult times, there is much to lose by re-fighting lost battles, and much more to gain by locking elbows, developing mutually beneficial solutions, and answering the call to progress.

Angel Matos is the secretary of the Latino Coalition, Freehold.