dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Sept 27, 2010 13:28:58 GMT -5
Apparently those publicly blasting our incumbent Town Council members for "not wanting to debate" were clearly misinformed since both Mr. Sims and Mr. Kane had already challenged their Republican counterparts to a public debate way back on July 29th.
That said, check out the latest confirmation letter from the Democratic candidates below...
____________________________________________ Open Letter to Freehold Borough Republican Candidates:
Several weeks ago the Freehold Borough Democratic Committee invited you, the Republican Council candidates Ted Miller and Patricia Mitchell Scarfi to a public debate to better inform Borough residents of our positions on a variety of topics. We proposed that the debate would be held at a neutral location and be moderated by a member of the non-partisan League of Women Voters. You emailed your acceptance of our debate proposal.
We now assume that the switching of the Republican candidate from Patricia Mitchell Scarfi to Linda Alba-Lichardi will not change your previous commitment to participate in this public debate. Therefore, we are acknowledging that your previous commitment still stands. And we are thus proposing that the debate be held at Freehold Borough Hall on Tuesday, October 26th at 7:00 p.m., or if this date conflicts with your scheduling, we will be willing to accommodate an alternate date of Thursday, October 28th,also at 7:00 p.m.
We look forward to your response by Monday, October 11th.
Freehold Borough Councilmen Kevin Kane and Jaye Sims ____________________________________________ A new Freehold Borough Democrat website, a "Meet Your Councilman Night", a public awareness campaign (door-to-door meet/greets & the posting of lawn signs), and a public debate challenge (with multiple dates)...it looks like the Democrats have been pretty busy.
dfx
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Sept 27, 2010 14:14:06 GMT -5
This is a very positive development for our democracy. I applaud Councilman Jay Simms for his proactive approach to ensure that a debate takes place this year. I hope that the Republican candidates will follow through on their previous acceptance, as has been reported, so the issues that matter can take center stage.
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Sept 27, 2010 14:45:28 GMT -5
Good for them. I posted the original question asking when they would debate. In looking at that thread, I also posted what I would do if they didn't debate.
Looking at DFX's post here -- it appears they are willing to debate, and the GOP at some undisclosed time agreed to that debate. All that is good.
I will say this, however, the GOP was foolish to accept those dates -- which they did not want just last year. The proposed debates mean that any news coverage by the Transcript will not come out until readers have already cast their votes. In essence, almost nothing can happen in that debate that would be advantageous to either party.
Thus -- the dems adroitly answer the call -- look proactive -- and avoid any possible pitfalls. That's good politics right there.
I have no idea at all what is going on in this race. Last year, while I certainly wasn't living in Freehold, there was a palpable sense that something was moving in that campaign.
You Freehold folks can tell me -- what is happening out there? As far as I can tell, the dems are out of the gate strong. They took the debate initiative. They have their own candidate forum scheduled, and they are apparently doing the work of small town campaigning that is a MUST to win. It appears the Yankees are no longer assuming they will win another crown. That's good news for Freehold.
As for the GOP -- they have appear to have squandered an opportunity here. Admittedly, winning either seat would have been very hard. However, they needed to be out strong, out early, and out often. They needed strong candidates, a new sense of purpose, and tremendous issue advocacy and follow-up on a host of issues they easily could have exploited. Moreover, the general mood of the country remains anti-incumbent and anti-dem. This was an opportunity to again come out of the margins in a town where everything must align perfectly for a win. Admittedly, they did not have a super-weak, unpopular, candidate as an opponent this year. The Dems are running people that people like. Also, while the republicans have a general mood at their back, they have no tiger at the top of a ticket like Christie.
All in all -- however -- I actually expected to see or hear about a more vibrant campaign.
The GOP had to know that the dems would not be caught flat-footed again.
Councilman Newman appears to be getting very high marks for the job he has done -- so failing to capitalize on that is a real shame.
Just one last question.
In New Jersey -- how long must one live in the jurisdiction before being eligible to run for office?
hmm -- Mayor Kelsey -- that's change even I can believe in. LOL
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Sept 27, 2010 15:27:32 GMT -5
This is good news! I hope the two parties can actually get this done. For now, I wish them all the best of luck.
|
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Sept 27, 2010 16:28:47 GMT -5
I will say this, however, the GOP was foolish to accept those dates -- which they did not want just last year. The proposed debates mean that any news coverage by the Transcript will not come out until readers have already cast their votes. In essence, almost nothing can happen in that debate that would be advantageous to either party. Thus -- the dems adroitly answer the call -- look proactive -- and avoid any possible pitfalls. Point of clarification: The Republicans have not yet accepted a date for the debate. That said, potential debate dates were probably selected in order to ensure the event would take place as close to the election as possible so voters would have each candidate's views fresh on their minds prior to entering the booth - much like a national election. I highly doubt the publication schedule of the News Transcript had any bearing on the date selection. (I mean let's face the reality of today's political environment. In this age of 24-hour electronic media coverage - app.com, freehold.injersey.com, freeholdvoice.com, the new Freehold Democrat site, countless Freehold-specific facebook pages, etc. - I'm not even sure how many people rely on their free local weekly paper as their primary source of news. Take for example those who are reading this very message board!) One more point - if looking "pro-active" was the primary goal of the Democrats, why wasn't the initial debate challenge letter (issued on July 29th) publicized? The Democrats could have easily issued the challenge via both electronic and printed media outlets to maximize their exposure. Just my thoughts... dfx
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Sept 28, 2010 7:58:05 GMT -5
I will say this, however, the GOP was foolish to accept those dates -- which they did not want just last year. The proposed debates mean that any news coverage by the Transcript will not come out until readers have already cast their votes. In essence, almost nothing can happen in that debate that would be advantageous to either party. Thus -- the dems adroitly answer the call -- look proactive -- and avoid any possible pitfalls. Point of clarification: The Republicans have not yet accepted a date for the debate. That said, potential debate dates were probably selected in order to ensure the event would take place as close to the election as possible so voters would have each candidate's views fresh on their minds prior to entering the booth - much like a national election. I highly doubt the publication schedule of the News Transcript had any bearing on the date selection. (I mean let's face the reality of today's political environment. In this age of 24-hour electronic media coverage - app.com, freehold.injersey.com, freeholdvoice.com, the new Freehold Democrat site, countless Freehold-specific facebook pages, etc. - I'm not even sure how many people rely on their free local weekly paper as their primary source of news. Take for example those who are reading this very message board!) One more point - if looking "pro-active" was the primary goal of the Democrats, why wasn't the initial debate challenge letter (issued on July 29th) publicized? The Democrats could have easily issued the challenge via both electronic and printed media outlets to maximize their exposure. Just my thoughts... dfx In reference to the highlighted part, I am not saying this about the debate, but just in general. Even with all the other media out there, I still have a strong preference for the News Transcript every week. I always thought they do the best job of local reporting on any given topic. They may be slow compared to most, but well worth the wait. (not an intended insult toward any other publications, just my thoughts on the NT) As far as the debate is concerned, Dan, keep us informed if it is to happen. We the people will keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.
|
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Sept 28, 2010 8:39:28 GMT -5
As far as the debate is concerned, Dan, keep us informed if it is to happen. We the people will keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.
The challenge is out there and the Republicans did initially agree to it, so I'm optimistic they will agree to it again and this year's debate will happen. (The only reason I can see them not agreeing to a debate is if they don't have confidence in their new candidate Linda Alba-Lichardi . That said, I've met Mrs. Lichardi several times and I have nothing but the utmost respect for both her and her husband Mike - so I highly doubt this will be an issue.)
dfx
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Sept 28, 2010 9:12:25 GMT -5
I will say this, however, the GOP was foolish to accept those dates -- which they did not want just last year. The proposed debates mean that any news coverage by the Transcript will not come out until readers have already cast their votes. In essence, almost nothing can happen in that debate that would be advantageous to either party. Thus -- the dems adroitly answer the call -- look proactive -- and avoid any possible pitfalls. Point of clarification: The Republicans have not yet accepted a date for the debate. That said, potential debate dates were probably selected in order to ensure the event would take place as close to the election as possible so voters would have each candidate's views fresh on their minds prior to entering the booth - much like a national election. I highly doubt the publication schedule of the News Transcript had any bearing on the date selection. (I mean let's face the reality of today's political environment. In this age of 24-hour electronic media coverage - app.com, freehold.injersey.com, freeholdvoice.com, the new Freehold Democrat site, countless Freehold-specific facebook pages, etc. - I'm not even sure how many people rely on their free local weekly paper as their primary source of news. Take for example those who are reading this very message board!) One more point - if looking "pro-active" was the primary goal of the Democrats, why wasn't the initial debate challenge letter (issued on July 29th) publicized? The Democrats could have easily issued the challenge via both electronic and printed media outlets to maximize their exposure. Just my thoughts... dfx DFX Sorry -- I was not trying to imply that the dems initialized the challenge for the purpose of looking pro-active. However, that is the result. And, given their position over the last few years, they actually did need to look pro-active -- even if that was not the driving motivation. As I read the original post -- they accepted the challenge to debate. I assumed that meant that they accepted the proposed dates as well. I found this a bit surprising, for the reasons I mentioned re: coverage. At this point, however, they need to accept because the moment has been lost for them. That was the advantage of the dems seizing the initiative. The fact that the original letter was not made known to the public at the time it was sent is of no event. No one wastes political stories on July 29, when America doesn't care. It is far better to get that news out to the public in late September -- through a party insider -- when the notion of paying attention to campaigns is possible. (Though the average American only thinks about politics for 7 minutes a day -- or less. And, that same average American, is thinking about 6 of those minutes about national issues --- according to research) So -- getting the public's attention is not now nor has it ever been an easy task. Most political activities start to focus post labor day -- and really with more intensity post Columbus day in small races. Having said that -- I think you can win a town like Freehold by walking it -- which could start int he spring. I digress -- a debate is long over-due --and the dems have seized the advantage. For that -- I give them credit. Can we use a pinch hitter in the debate? How about a designated hitter? The Yankees do play in the American league. :-) Have bat -- will travel. :-)
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Sept 28, 2010 9:24:53 GMT -5
Mr. Kelsey! You wrote -- "(Though the average American only thinks about politics for 7 minutes a day -- or less. And, that same average American, is thinking about 6 of those minutes about national issues --- according to research)"
The reason why the average American only thinks about politics 7 minutes a day is because the rest of the time they're thinking about sex!
Plus, y'all keep mentioning the Yankees. I'd like to say, "How about dem JETS?"
Seriously, a debate would be enjoyable to attend in order to hear the various ideas and approaches to challenges.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Sept 28, 2010 15:40:05 GMT -5
I will say this, however, the GOP was foolish to accept those dates -- which they did not want just last year. The proposed debates mean that any news coverage by the Transcript will not come out until readers have already cast their votes. In essence, almost nothing can happen in that debate that would be advantageous to either party. Thus -- the dems adroitly answer the call -- look proactive -- and avoid any possible pitfalls. Point of clarification: The Republicans have not yet accepted a date for the debate. That said, potential debate dates were probably selected in order to ensure the event would take place as close to the election as possible so voters would have each candidate's views fresh on their minds prior to entering the booth - much like a national election. I highly doubt the publication schedule of the News Transcript had any bearing on the date selection. (I mean let's face the reality of today's political environment. In this age of 24-hour electronic media coverage - app.com, freehold.injersey.com, freeholdvoice.com, the new Freehold Democrat site, countless Freehold-specific facebook pages, etc. - I'm not even sure how many people rely on their free local weekly paper as their primary source of news. Take for example those who are reading this very message board!) One more point - if looking "pro-active" was the primary goal of the Democrats, why wasn't the initial debate challenge letter (issued on July 29th) publicized? The Democrats could have easily issued the challenge via both electronic and printed media outlets to maximize their exposure. Just my thoughts... dfx Mr xavier. I find it laughable that you challenge or even ask why something wasnt done or publicized!! Why dont you ever answer questions reguarding our schools in a public forum? why do you always request all question be asked via email?
|
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Sept 28, 2010 16:15:48 GMT -5
Mike -
As I already mentioned in a previous posting I will not publicly respond to specific questions regarding the school district in this forum as I would not want it misconstrued that I am authorized to speak on behalf of the entire Board of Education. (Doing so could be interpreted as a possible ethics violation and grounds for my dismissal from the Board of Education.)
Additionally, many items in the realm of education are of a very personal/highly-sensitive nature - individual test scores, incidents involving specific students, etc. - and cannot legally be disclosed. (Doing so could be also be interpreted as a possible ethics violation and grounds for my dismissal from the Board of Education as well as legal action.)
I'm sorry, but the law is the law.
dan
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Sept 29, 2010 5:01:54 GMT -5
Mike - As I already mentioned in a previous posting I will not publicly respond to specific questions regarding the school district in this forum as I would not want it misconstrued that I am authorized to speak on behalf of the entire Board of Education. (Doing so could be interpreted as a possible ethics violation and grounds for my dismissal from the Board of Education.) Additionally, many items in the realm of education are of a very personal/highly-sensitive nature - individual test scores, incidents involving specific students, etc. - and cannot legally be disclosed. (Doing so could be also be interpreted as a possible ethics violation and grounds for my dismissal from the Board of Education as well as legal action.) I'm sorry, but the law is the law. dan I agree with Dan here. Elected folks do have to use caution in any public forum for both legal and ethical reasons. It is great to have people like Dan and John participating on this site, ( as well as other elected officials), and while they can have a very nice role here, there are boundaries for them that the rest of us do not have to follow. I ask that all readers and participants respect that.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Sept 29, 2010 7:23:28 GMT -5
Mike - As I already mentioned in a previous posting I will not publicly respond to specific questions regarding the school district in this forum as I would not want it misconstrued that I am authorized to speak on behalf of the entire Board of Education. (Doing so could be interpreted as a possible ethics violation and grounds for my dismissal from the Board of Education.) Additionally, many items in the realm of education are of a very personal/highly-sensitive nature - individual test scores, incidents involving specific students, etc. - and cannot legally be disclosed. (Doing so could be also be interpreted as a possible ethics violation and grounds for my dismissal from the Board of Education as well as legal action.) I'm sorry, but the law is the law. dan I agree with Dan here. Elected folks do have to use caution in any public forum for both legal and ethical reasons. It is great to have people like Dan and John participating on this site, ( as well as other elected officials), and while they can have a very nice role here, there are boundaries for them that the rest of us do not have to follow. I ask that all readers and participants respect that. Brian what are the boundaries? Didnt we the public elect them and shouldnt they answer the questions? Im not saying tell me joe publics test results, im talking about information about our schools as a whole. To me, IMHO, the BOE doesnt answer questions because they dont want to face all the truths, our test results are horrible! Thats a fact no matter how you spin it or twist it!
|
|
|
Post by admin on Sept 29, 2010 16:09:56 GMT -5
Mike wrote:
Brian what are the boundaries? Didnt we the public elect them and shouldnt they answer the questions? Im not saying tell me joe publics test results, im talking about information about our schools as a whole. To me, IMHO, the BOE doesnt answer questions because they dont want to face all the truths, our test results are horrible! Thats a fact no matter how you spin it or twist it!
Aahh... I get your point, Mike. I am a big fan of open, civil, and honest discusions. That is the purpose of this site.
I can tell you from experience, when it comes to bad news things, elected folks do not like to talk too much unless they are doing something specific to address a problem. Outside of dealing with solutions, for an elected person to get into that discussion on an open Internet forum can spell trouble for that person. The other side I see here is what PR is the respective board doing? Is the requested info something that can be put out? Is that specific body able to do so at that time? ( I say that in general)
Just looking locally, I cannot imagine an elected official coming here and saying any of the following:
We have the third highest major crime rate in Monmouth County.
we have overcrowded schools. Our test scores are not good.
We have four know gangs operating here.
The Rug Mill has been a problem since it opened its doors.
and so on. Yet every one of those things are facts.
Politically, that kind of discussion can be very dangerous territory for an elected person. That is why the media is the way it is. Sort of like a watch dog. Politicians will be guarded, it is the nature of their job. It is up to the rest of us to challenge things in a civil and healthy way for the sake of the right kind of progress.
|
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Sept 30, 2010 13:16:35 GMT -5
We have the third highest major crime rate in Monmouth County. we have overcrowded schools. Our test scores are not good. We have four know gangs operating here. The Rug Mill has been a problem since it opened its doors. and so on. Yet every one of those things are facts.
I think this is a perfect example of why public officials are so guarded. While each of the above statements may be true, very few people have the patience to learn all of the details behind these situations.
Take for example the first claim above: "We have the third highest major crime rate in Monmouth County."
The first solution someone will most likely say is that we need to vote out the current Town Council. (That would be ignoring the fact that the Town Council has nothing to do with the crime rate. The Town Council may - I'm not sure - select the town's Police Chief, but that's about as much direct control as they have in this arena.)
Someone might also say "we need more police officers to combat the problem". (That's a good suggestion, but an expanded police force means increased budgets=higher taxes.)
Someone might also say "take police off 'trivial tasks' (i.e. school crossing guard duties) and have them on constant patrol". (That's a good suggestion until someone blows through a traffic light and hits a child. At that point the town would likely be sued by the parent of the child.)
What few people WILL do is take the time to learn why the major crime rate in Freehold Borough is what it is. Could the crime rate have something to do with the fact that we are one of the most densely populated areas in Monmouth County? Could the fact that Freehold Borough is the County Seat - and therefor home to many social services that other areas do not house - be a contributing factor to the socioeconomic demographic make-up of our town? (And what role - if any - does this demographic have in relation to our town's crime rate?) To measure Freehold Borough against a town like Farmingdale - whose population is 1/4 our size - is totally ridiculous. I can literally go on and on, but the point is most people will simply ignore this.
If you want an actual example, check out the time I tried to explain to a message poster about how it's not possible to truly compare test rates from a for-profit school to a non-profit public school on app.com. After detailing an exhaustive list of differences between the two institutions, the message poster responded by dismissing the answer and accused me of being an "overpaid bureaucrat" who couldn't even answer a "simple question"! (I really had to laugh at this considering Board of Education members are unpaid volunteers made up of taxpaying community members, but I digress.)
The point is that today's society wants quick/easy/pain-free solutions. Look at the Tea Party: they want to "cut spending and reduce the size of government". But perhaps you've noticed that very few of them will detail exactly how they would do this once getting into office. The reason is because nothing is as simple as it appears to be....
dfx
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Sept 30, 2010 14:17:20 GMT -5
Dan, I just read that and thought -- it's simply the Republican's platform.
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Sept 30, 2010 15:51:30 GMT -5
Dan, I just read that and thought -- it's simply the Republican's platform. Lisa! You are taking our off topic topic, off topic. ( say that three times fast) ;D I did not put those examples up there as any body's platform. But, you do lead another very valid concern that elected people may have- opponants trying to set them up for a public ambush. One more reason why elected people do have to be careful and other participants have to respect that rightful caution. Dan, Your response to my post is pretty good and I agree with most of your intent. Without me getting into the actual issues that I cited as mere examples, ( they are for another thread)you illustrate the challenges in a good way. Your challenge to the crime stat is very good and you are right to do so. We could easily go back and forth with point counterpoint, but we would really be off topic. I have said it many times that stats, polls, and studies always have to be challenged. Many are not as easy as they appear and more importantly, and in general, are biased or used in a biased way to support one view or another when used for political purposes. I think we have said enough about the challenges for elected people on the Internet. This off topic topic should take place elsewhere. So to get back on topic, any updates on the debate?
|
|