2010 Town Council Candidate Debate Details

[dfx]

All -

As many of you are aware, this year's Town Council candidate public debate has once again collapsed. Today the Asbury Park Press published an article in which the local GOP stated that they never agreed to a debate date and that the local Democratic party wanted to "deny the press the opportunity to report."

Check out Kim's article here:
www.app.com/article/20101028/POLITICS02/10280328/Freehold-candidates-will-not-meet-for-debate

However what the GOP probably did not account for was that the Democrats have copies of all communications (sent via certified mail) detailing the whole debate challenge - from the initial debate challenge letter the Democrats sent out on July 29th to the response letter where the GOP accepted the proposed debate dates (complete with misspellings). What's more, these back and forth communications will prove that the notion of "denying the press the opportunity to report" is a complete and utter fabrication.

Obviously this kind of "You said/I said" finger pointing ultimately undermines the public's trust in both parties, so in the spirit of 100% transparency I will be posting these back & forth communications in their entirety over the next few days. In addition copies of these communications have already been sent to both the Asbury Park Press and News Transcript for publication.


dfx

[BrianSullivan]

I think it is very unfortunate that a debate about the debate has made its way to the public arena. It really does not serve the interest of the general public. It never should have happened last year ( yes I was a guilty party) and I had hopes that lessons would be learned and it would not occur again this year. Granted, things are more civil this year. To repeat from another thread, I am not blaming either side for the debate that was never going to happen this year, nor do I care to. But my smile grows by the day. ;D

Anyway, Dan, this post was a bit of a surprise. I know you are a Dem committee person, but are also involved with the campaign and debate arrangements?

[dfx]

Oct 28, 2010 15:45:54 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

Anyway, Dan, this post was a bit of a surprise. I know you are a Dem committee person, but are also involved with the campaign and debate arrangements?

YES

[dfx]

2010 Debate Correspondence Log

Debate Challenge Letter (8/20/10 response deadline)
- Date sent: 7/29/10
- Received/signed for by Ted Miller via certified mail: 7/31/10
- Received/signed for by Patricia Mitchell-Scarfi via certified mail: 8/3/2010

Republican Committee Acceptance (via email)
- Date sent: 8/19/10
- Email received by K.Kane/J.Sims: 8/19/10

Open Letter to Republican Candidates (10/15/10 response deadline)
- Theme: to ensure previously agreed upon date/time/conditions of public debate were still applicable even with a new Republican candidate
- Date sent: 10/8/10
- Received/signed for by Ted Miller via certified mail: NEVER SIGNED FOR
- Received/signed for by Linda Alba-Lichardi via certified mail: 10/9/2010

Republican Committee Response
- Theme: Proposal of new debate date of October 20th - only 5 days after receiving letter. (Republicans were given 90 days to prepare for a debate. Democrats were given 5 days to prepare.)
- Date sent: 10/14/10
- Received/signed for by K.Kane via certified mail: 10/15/10
- Received/signed for by J.Sims via certified mail: 10/15/10

Final Response to Republicans
- Date sent: 10/16/10
- Received/signed for by Ted Miller via certified mail: NEVER SIGNED FOR
- Received/signed for by Linda Alba-Lichardi via certified mail: 10/19/2010

Republican Committee Response (email)
- Date sent: 10/21/10
- Email received by K.Kane/J.Sims: 10/21/10

Democrat Committee Response (email)
- Date sent: 10/21/10
- Email received by T.Miller/L.Lichardi: 10/21/10


EXACT CONTENT OF COMMUNICATIONS TO COME...

[dfx]

Debate Challenge Letter
(Sent from the Freehold Democrats to the Freehold Republicans on July 29, 2010)

Dear Mr. Miller and Ms. Scarfi,

We are formally inviting you both to take part in a debate as part of our election campaigns for Freehold Borough Council.

We welcome the opportunity for a responsible and respectable civil debate. As you know, this is a tool that has tremendous benefit for the voters who will appreciate the opportunity to hear our views, side by side.

We propose this debate take place on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 or Thursday, October 28, 2010 at Freehold Borough Hall, and moderated by a member of the non-partisan League of Women Voters.

We are requesting a response from you no later than Friday, August 20, 2010. Following receipt of your response, should you consent to a debate, we will work out a meeting for just the four candidates to discuss the details.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[signature]
Kevin A. Kane
Freehold Borough Councilman

[signature]
Jaye s. Sims
Freehold Borough Councilman


Cc: Roya Rafei, Freehold Bureau Chief, Asbury Park Press
Mark Rossman, Managing Editor, News Transcript

[BrianSullivan]

Dan, thank you for all of your input, you make me happier than you will ever know and have backed me up quite a bit. ;D (no sarcasm there) This is all quite interesting.

[dfx]

Oct 29, 2010 5:04:39 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

you make me happier than you will ever know and have backed me up quite a bit.

Call me paranoid, but is this a good or bad thing?

To be completely honest, it was because of my involvement with the debate that I had not previously posted anything in regard to it - much like topics having to do with the schools. I did not feel I could be viewed as impartial due to my relationship with involved parties.

(I'd be lying if I said the Democrats weren't somewhat expecting yet another debate pullout - hence the reason everything was documented this year.)


dfx



PS.
Stay tuned for the subsequent debate communications to be posted throughout the day...

[richardkelsey]

Oct 29, 2010 6:18:32 GMT -5 dfx said:

Oct 29, 2010 5:04:39 GMT -5 BrianSullivan said:

you make me happier than you will ever know and have backed me up quite a bit.

Call me paranoid, but is this a good or bad thing?

To be completely honest, it was because of my involvement with the debate that I had not previously posted anything in regard to it - much like topics having to do with the schools. I did not feel I could be viewed as impartial due to my relationship with involved parties.

(I'd be lying if I said the Democrats weren't somewhat expecting yet another debate pullout - hence the reason everything was documented this year.)


dfx



PS.
Stay tuned for the subsequent debate communications to be posted throughout the day...

This juror would like to see the correspondence from the candidates accepting the dates and format.

That would be d**ning. Without that -- you have a disagreement over the dates and format of a debate -- which is consistent with the both party's actions for years.

As a side note -- I can think of no reason why a challenger would NOT want a debate in a race where the challengers are clearly the underdogs. It makes little sense to me.


Having said that -- a debate that takes place after the Transcript can publish the results is a debate of little value to a prospective challengers. This is a point I made last year -- and the year before.

The last time I ran for office, I debated 18 times from September 1 until election day. My opponents and I had NO roll -- none -- in the debate dates, times, format or location. We either chose to show up -- or the show went on without us -- and the host group or community would have eaten our lunch with its membership. My opponents had no reason to show up -- they were HEAVY favorites in a jurisdiction that is not merely democrat -- but radically left and had not elected a republican in 35 years. By showing up, they only risked taking a beating. Now -- mind you -- they got a beating, all 18 times. (The local papers declared me the winner of every debate.) Of course, it had little effect in the end.

My only point is this -- if you can't get your message out in a debate to a broader audience than those in the room -- usually a fixed crowd with no undecided voters -- then the value of such a debate is limited indeed. In fact, in a town like Freehold, you can probably win more votes using the debate prep and debate time knocking on doors. (Assuming that is being done)

To me -- the debate issue is a black mark on Borough Politics. They should schedule 3 debates, each year, hosted by a bipartisan committee. (there is no such thing as a non-partisan committee).

The debates should be 1 in mid September, one in the first week in October, and one in the 3rd week of October.

The two parties ought to agree to such a framework BEFORE the political season -- and not try to turn a local debate into some political tug of war session over the details of format and sponsors. If you can't stand and answer questions from anyone on issues -- you should not be running for the seat -- period.

All the rest of this is just political theater -- and I am the absolute master of that -- so i get it completely. In this year, the academy award goes to the Dems.

Next year -- maybe we can have real debate.

[dfx]

Mr. Kelsey -

Your idea of holding multiple debates might just be the ticket as it would each party to achieve their desired goals.

- GOP could have a debate early enough so that it's covered by the News Transcript

- The Democrats could have a later debate so that each candidates views/positions are fresh in the minds of the voting public

Why is it that the simplest ideas are always the ones that are overlooked???



dfx


NOTE: Though I am a member of the Freehold Borough Democrats, please keep in mind that I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the entire organization. The statements I am making above are my personal opinion.

[lisas84]

You'll never see a debate when you have two candidates with no confidence.

[dfx]

Republican Committee Acceptance (via email)


Dear Mr Kane and Mr Sims

With respect to your letter dated July 29th, 2010, we are anxious to participate in a candidates debate that will include active participation with the voters of Freehold Borough.

We wish to assure voters that all candidates have a fair-and-square opportunity in an unbiased venue to respectfully hear the concerns of voters, to honorably talk about a variety of municipal issues, their respective views and solutions for Freehold Borough.

The integrity candidates debates are assured through the coordination and hosting by a nonpartisan-non-affiliated citizens group, partnered with the league or [sic] woman [sic] voters. You should agree, that such a nonpartisan, non-affiliated group is best suited to impartially organize and host a candidates debate.

Our local print media and their wholly-owned electronic media affiliates must also be included as an interested nonpartisan party, willing to assist in the coordination of a Freehold Borough Municipal Candidates debate, ready to respectfully be an impartial communication source to our voters.

It is a time-honored practice that all discussions regarding the term [sic] of a political debate are keep [sic] confidential amongst all parties, and we expect that this esteemed covenant is preserved.

We hope you will join us in productive, cooperative discussions that lead to an honest and timely candidates debate hosted by a nonpartisan, non-affiliated citizens group.


Respectfully

Ted Miller

Patricia Mitchel Scarfi

Cc: Roya Rafei; Freehold Bureau Chief, Asbury Park Press
Mark Rossman; Managing Editor, The News Transcript

[dfx]

Oct 29, 2010 9:17:36 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

You'll never see a debate when you have two candidates with no confidence.

I want it known for the record that I have nothing against Linda or Ted on a personal level - I simply disagree with the current Republican philosophy as it pertains to social issues. (Social issues aside, I believe in a fiscally conservative policy.)

That said, I've stated numerous times that I believe Linda is a very good person who is a tremendous asset to our town. I do not know Ted on quite such a personal level, but his repeated candidacy for the Town Council and his community activism also leads me to believe that he too cares deeply about Freehold Borough.



dfx

[lisas84]

Neither do I, Dan -- I am just calling the situation as I see it! That's the only reason to reject a debate that makes sense to me.

[dfx]

Oct 29, 2010 9:57:55 GMT -5 lisas84 said:

Neither do I, Dan -- I am just calling the situation as I see it! That's the only reason to reject a debate that makes sense to me.

Ah yes, I agree with you that the perception is not good right now.

dfx

[richardkelsey]

Oct 29, 2010 9:40:36 GMT -5 dfx said:

Republican Committee Acceptance (via email)


Dear Mr Kane and Mr Sims

With respect to your letter dated July 29th, 2010, we are anxious to participate in a candidates debate that will include active participation with the voters of Freehold Borough.

We wish to assure voters that all candidates have a fair-and-square opportunity in an unbiased venue to respectfully hear the concerns of voters, to honorably talk about a variety of municipal issues, their respective views and solutions for Freehold Borough.

The integrity candidates debates are assured through the coordination and hosting by a nonpartisan-non-affiliated citizens group, partnered with the league or [sic] woman [sic] voters. You should agree, that such a nonpartisan, non-affiliated group is best suited to impartially organize and host a candidates debate.

Our local print media and their wholly-owned electronic media affiliates must also be included as an interested nonpartisan party, willing to assist in the coordination of a Freehold Borough Municipal Candidates debate, ready to respectfully be an impartial communication source to our voters.

It is a time-honored practice that all discussions regarding the term [sic] of a political debate are keep [sic] confidential amongst all parties, and we expect that this esteemed covenant is preserved.

We hope you will join us in productive, cooperative discussions that lead to an honest and timely candidates debate hosted by a nonpartisan, non-affiliated citizens group.


Respectfully

Ted Miller

Patricia Mitchel Scarfi

Cc: Roya Rafei; Freehold Bureau Chief, Asbury Park Press
Mark Rossman; Managing Editor, The News Transcript

So -- now we get to the meat of the question at hand.

Issue: Did the Republican Candidates agree to the debate and dates as set forth in the invitation by the Dem Candidates:


Short Answer: No, not based on this communication.

Discussion:

This letter agrees to a "a debate." It then sets out the requirements of the debate format and the hosts. It makes no mention of accepting the dates as proposed.

At best, it constitutes a willingness to debate and a counter-offer setting out additional requirements. They then invite the dems to further discussions to plan an "honest and timely candidates debate hosted by a nonpartisan, non-affiliated citizens group."

How did those discussions go? Is there more to this. Because -- from this -- I see no agreement to debate, but rather a proposal to discuss a debate.

Now -- don't get me wrong - they should have pushed hard for a debate, but from this it cannot be claimed that they agreed to the dem debate and then backed out.


I assume there is more correspondence?

[dfx]

Open Letter to Republican Candidates (10/15/10 response deadline)

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 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 alternative date of Thursday, October 28th, also at 7:00 p.m.

We look forward to your response by Friday, October 15th.

Freehold Borough Councilmen Kevin Kane and Jaye Sims
[K.Kane signature]
[J.Sims signature]



___________________________________
NOTE FROM DAN: As indicated in the 2010 Debate Correspondence Log, this communication was sent on 10/8/10. Until this point (60+ days into the planning calendar), only 2 dates had ever been identified as the timing when the proposed debate would take place. It's also important to note that the Republican candidates had in no way mentioned/indicated that either of these proposed dates wouldn't work for them nor had either Republican candidates suggested exploring alternate dates.

[dfx]

More to come, stay tuned....

[dfx]

At best, it constitutes a willingness to debate and a counter-offer setting out additional requirements. They then invite the dems to further discussions to plan an "honest and timely candidates debate hosted by a nonpartisan, non-affiliated citizens group."

How did those discussions go?

At no time did the Republicans pick up the phone/proactively reach out in any way to the Democrats for further debate planning/discussion as they indicated a desire to do back in August. Say what you will, but until this point the only party actively seeking/pursuing any form of a public debate had been the Democrats.


dfx

[richardkelsey]

Oct 29, 2010 12:41:58 GMT -5 dfx said:

At best, it constitutes a willingness to debate and a counter-offer setting out additional requirements. They then invite the dems to further discussions to plan an "honest and timely candidates debate hosted by a nonpartisan, non-affiliated citizens group."

How did those discussions go?

At no time did the Republicans pick up the phone/proactively reach out in any way to the Democrats for further debate planning/discussion as they indicated a desire to do back in August. Say what you will, but until this point the only party actively seeking/pursuing any form of a public debate had been the Democrats.


dfx

First -- I want to say -- and be clear about this -- I am not here to defend the absence of a debate -- nor is it my job or obligation -- or even desire to defend the republican ticket. My opinions on the debate are well fleshed out.

I can only say this -- the correspondence you have shared so far has shown no agreement -- explicit or implicit, as to the time of a debate.

While the second Dem letter talks about the republicans agreeing to debate -- there is no agreement. The republican letter back sets out their willingness to discuss a timely debate based on a forum as they describe.

Now -- you say "the only party actively seeking/pursuing any form of a public debate had been the Democrats." Well --that's more a matter of perspective. The truth -- as I have seen from this correspondence is:

A. Dems sent letter suggesting debate and dates
B. Republicans responded inviting discussion on a debate and suggesting a type of format and a "timely" debate.
C. Dems sent follow up letter saying -- hey, you agreed to a debate, we assume you are still doing it.

The C letter appears to be incorrect political posturing. There clearly was no agreement as to time, place and manner. That is indisputable based on the correspondence you have shared so far. Like I said, you got something else, I am happy to give it fair treatment.

Now -- apparently, the GOP sent a letter suggesting other dates -- this has been discussed here. Those dates, earlier dates allowing press coverage, i.e. timely -- did not work for the dems. Fair enough.

The dems started the debate discussion. Credit for them.
The Gop responded, and did so timely and with an invitation to discuss such a debate. Good for them.

After that -- no one appeared to take any action until mid-October. That's on both parties.


In my mind -- and I am not playing favorites here - so far you seem to have proved conclusively that the parties never reached an agreement to debate, and that each was sufficiently happy not to debate and claim it was the fault of the other. That's how I read the correspondence. I have to say, however, no fair reading can make the original GOP letter an acceptance of the debate days or format. Not on the correspondence you have shared so far.

Again -- the Dems took the initiative. This same pair would not debate the last time they ran -- so in that regard they ought to get credit for taking the initiative and for following up. What they can't get fair credit for is the claim that the GOP "accepted" and then back-out.

[dfx]

The dems started the debate discussion. Credit for them.
The Gop responded, and did so timely and with an invitation to discuss such a debate. Good for them.

After that -- no one appeared to take any action until mid-October. That's on both parties.


In my mind -- and I am not playing favorites here - so far you seem to have proved conclusively that the parties never reached an agreement to debate, and that each was sufficiently happy not to debate and claim it was the fault of the other. That's how I read the correspondence. I have to say, however, no fair reading can make the original GOP letter an acceptance of the debate days or format. Not on the correspondence you have shared so far.

Again -- the Dems took the initiative. This same pair would not debate the last time they ran -- so in that regard they ought to get credit for taking the initiative and for following up. What they can't get fair credit for is the claim that the GOP "accepted" and then back-out.

Mr. Kelsey -

I think we're going to once again have to agree to disagree. I consider the Republican response of "With respect to your letter dated July 29th, 2010, we are anxious to participate in a candidates debate that will include active participation with the voters of Freehold Borough." as an agreement to debate. Furthermore, I believe the documents I've already posted online thus far prove the Democrats were the party actively trying to organize a public candidates debate. Consider the following:

DEMOCRATS
1. Initiated a debate discussion
2. Proposed a debate format
3. Proposed a debate date/time
4. Proposed an alternative date/time in the event the first date/time was unacceptable
5. Proposed a debate location
6. Confirmed that the debate was still on even after the Republicans switched GOP candidates

REPUBLICANS
1. Agreed to a debate
2. Made no attempt to contact anyone to discuss anything further

The fact that you fault the Democrats for not proactively reaching out to the Republicans in September completely ignores the fact that they DID reach out in both July & August.


Stay tuned for more postings....


dfx

[dfx]

Republican Committee Response

Mr. Kane and Mr. Sims,

The Republican Party candidates' position is resolute. we are committed to a fair and balanced debate. The debate must be put out by the multiple media outlets that cover our borough. In that vein, the [sic] News Transcript and the APP should be given a reasonable opportunity to publish their coverage. Therefore, we suggest the debate be held one week prior to your suggested dates (Wednesday, October 20th or Thursday, October 21st) as The News Transcript, in particular, requires the time to meet their print deadline before the election.

We concur that the debate be held in a neutral venue and moderated by The League of Women Voters. Furthermore, we recommend the below format to promote fairness in this process. We would appreciate a timely response to this letter given the short time frame remaining.

Respectfully,

Ted Miller

Linda Alba-Lichardi

Debate Format

- League of Woman [sic] Voters (LWV) will moderate
- Candidate debate will last 60 minutes
- One 2 minute opening comment by each candidate decided by a coin toss
- Questions will by provided by the audience
- Questions will pertain to Borough municipal issues (no personal questions will be directed at candidates)
- LWV will determine randomly which submitted question will be presented to the candidates
- LWV will determine the order that questions are presented to the candidates
- Each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond
- The opposing candidate will have 45 seconds to rebut
- Finally, there will be one 2 minute closing comment by each candidate in reverse order of opening comments


__________________________________________
NOTE: This communication, the first in which the Republican Party provided any debate format input or registered any concern about the dates originally proposed back on 7/29, was received by the Democrats on 10/15 - less than 3 weeks before the election.

[richardkelsey]

Oct 29, 2010 14:25:51 GMT -5 dfx said:

The dems started the debate discussion. Credit for them.
The Gop responded, and did so timely and with an invitation to discuss such a debate. Good for them.

After that -- no one appeared to take any action until mid-October. That's on both parties.


In my mind -- and I am not playing favorites here - so far you seem to have proved conclusively that the parties never reached an agreement to debate, and that each was sufficiently happy not to debate and claim it was the fault of the other. That's how I read the correspondence. I have to say, however, no fair reading can make the original GOP letter an acceptance of the debate days or format. Not on the correspondence you have shared so far.

Again -- the Dems took the initiative. This same pair would not debate the last time they ran -- so in that regard they ought to get credit for taking the initiative and for following up. What they can't get fair credit for is the claim that the GOP "accepted" and then back-out.

Mr. Kelsey -

I think we're going to once again have to agree to disagree. I consider the Republican response of "With respect to your letter dated July 29th, 2010, we are anxious to participate in a candidates debate that will include active participation with the voters of Freehold Borough." as an agreement to debate. Furthermore, I believe the documents I've already posted online thus far prove the Democrats were the party actively trying to organize a public candidates debate. Consider the following:

DEMOCRATS
1. Initiated a debate discussion
2. Proposed a debate format
3. Proposed a debate date/time
4. Proposed an alternative date/time in the event the first date/time was unacceptable
5. Proposed a debate location
6. Confirmed that the debate was still on even after the Republicans switched GOP candidates

REPUBLICANS
1. Agreed to a debate
2. Made no attempt to contact anyone to discuss anything further

The fact that you fault the Democrats for not proactively reaching out to the Republicans in September completely ignores the fact that they DID reach out in both July & August.


Stay tuned for more postings....


dfx

Well -- this juror remains unconvinced. Moreover -- I sanitized these letters to protect the innocent -- and used them in my law class.

The single question was -- do the parties have an agreement to debate in time, place, or manner?

The vote was 69-0. No agreement. It was a fun exercise -- and many noted that the opening of the GOP letter stating that they "agreed to a debate" could have been a point of confusion had that sentence not been followed with additional requirements, and the failure to assent to a specific date. The absolute killer for the 'agreement' in the minds of the students was the last sentence which, in the view of all students showed that the letter was intended to start a negotiation on a debate.

So -- there's a few outside opinions for you.

I have another section -- maybe we can find you a vote. Even better -- if you can post some more correspondence, I can update the fact-pattern.

[lisas84]

They didn't get that far to nail down the date/time -- the Republicans' second response was too late, as Dan pointed out. If they really wanted the debate, they would have tried harder and been more proactive in reaching out to communicate with the Dems to work out the details.

That's just what I gather from reading Dan's posts.

[dfx]

Final Response to Republicans

October 15, 2010

Dear Mr. Miller and Mr. Alba-Lichardi,

We are in receipt of your letter dated October 14, 2010 in response to our letter dated September 23, 2010 regarding a debate. Our first letter to you, setting forth the proposed dates for the debate was dated July 29, 2010. You letter proposes a debate date of October 20th or October 21st, amounting to six days notice.

We have blocked off the dates set forth in our original letter sent to you back in July and September. Jaye Sims will be out of town on the dates you proposed. You have been aware of our proposed dates for months. Your counter-proposal on the dates, giving only six days notice is not acceptable.

As to your proposed debate format, please be advised as follows:

Debate Format

- League of Woman [sic] Voters (LWV) will moderate AGREED, AS WE PROPOSED
- Candidate debate will last 60 minutes AGREED
- One 2 minute opening comment by each candidate decided by a coin toss AGREED
- Questions will by provided by the audience TEN QUESTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED BY EACH SIDE. THE MODERATOR WILL RANDOMLY PICK FIVE QUESTIONS FROM EACH SIDE. EACH CANDIDATE WILL RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION.
- Questions will pertain to Borough municipal issues (no personal questions will be directed at candidates) PERSONAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY RELATING TO MUNICIPAL ISSUES ARE ACCEPTABLE
- LWV will determine randomly which submitted question will be presented to the candidates AGREED
- LWV will determine the order that questions are presented to the candidates QUESTIONS WILL GO EVERY OTHER SIDE
- Each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond AGREED
- The opposing candidate will have 45 seconds to rebut AGREED
- Finally, there will be one 2 minute closing comment by each candidate in reverse order of opening comments AGREED

Sincerely,

Councilman Kevin Kane

Councilman Jaye Sims

[dfx]

I will post the thrilling conclusion emails on Monday...



Have a great weekend!



dfx

[BrianSullivan]

I am really enjoying this. After the election I will have some wonderful comments. Dan, to answer your earlier question, there is nothing for you ( or anybody) to be paranoid about.

[dfx]

Oct 29, 2010 14:56:53 GMT -5 dfx said:

- Questions will by provided by the audience TEN QUESTIONS WILL BE PROVIDED BY EACH SIDE. THE MODERATOR WILL RANDOMLY PICK FIVE QUESTIONS FROM EACH SIDE. EACH CANDIDATE WILL RESPOND TO EACH QUESTION.
- Questions will pertain to Borough municipal issues (no personal questions will be directed at candidates) PERSONAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY RELATING TO MUNICIPAL ISSUES ARE ACCEPTABLE

I hate to post messages over the weekend, but I just realized that I neglected to post this message yesterday...

Aside from The News Transcript publication schedule, the Republicans claim that the Democrat format does not allow for public questions. This is not true, however I can understand how the wording in the first bullet of the Democrats response may have been misinterpreted.

The Democrats proposed both sides be allowed to review the questions and then pick 5 to enter into a sort of "question pool". This would give the moderator a total of 10 publicly-submitted questions that each candidate - regardless of party - would have to answer. The idea behind this was to avoid having a debate filled with softball questions since presumably each side would pick 5 questions of substance for the other to answer. (i.e. A popular Tea/Republican talking point is that government "needs to get smaller and reduce taxes". However it would be interesting to hear a Tea/Republican candidate explain exactly how they would do this. I have a feeling if a question like that were publicly submitted the Democrats would have selected it as 1 of their 5, but I digress...) The point is nobody wants a debate filled with softies where candidates can track every one of their answers back to a party "talking point" - essentially turning a debate into a series of short speeches.

I admit the wording in the bullet above was not entirely clear, but to publicly claim that the Democrat's proposed format did not allow for public questions is simply not true. Maybe this could have easily been cleared up had the Republicans even attempted to contact ANY member of the Freehold Borough Democrats, but as we are seeing they were not in the mood to help this election cycle.

Bullet 2 is as straight forward as it appears.




dfx

(Everyone have a safe and happy Halloween!)

[Mike Rosseel]

Here's my question...

What can Miller and the "fill in the blank" canidate do to better Freehold more then Sims and Kane? What are they planning? I have recieved a few pieces of propaganda from them with no ideas just open promises. How are they going to make our code enforcement better? what are they going to do about our taxes? Its nice to send a piece of paper out with your concerns but how can you change this? it seems to me, Miller and "fill in the blank" are again wasting Freehold Boros time which is sad! Let people run that want to make a difference, let people run that are doing it without a hidden agenda or ego! I can have a few people at my house and call it a meet and greet too! Come up with a plan, Miller has never done this and thats his biggest problem. Hes alot like Obama, promise the world and have no plan on how to fix or change it!

IMHO, there will be no race this year, Sims and Kane will win by a landslide and Miller will probaly run again. I ask the GOP supporters that comment on here, dont you think its time for a change? Isnt it time Miller stops running year after year? Its getting old. Does anyone agree with me? Its not a personal attack on him, its just realistic do us all a favor and walk away and let good people try there hand in town! The GOP needs new life, Miller isnt the answer!

[dfx]

Republican Committee Response (email)
- Date sent: 10/21/10
- Email received by K.Kane/J.Sims: 10/21/10

Dear Mr. Sims and Mr. Kane,

We are committed to providing voters with a debate forum offering candidates answers to constituent questions. The format that you assert does not allow for that. Further, we want to the electorate to be informed about their candidates' debate by timely reporting through local media. Sadly, it does not appear that you will commit to engaging the voters and answering questions of accountability. It is with regret that we cannot meet and debate in a voter centric forum accurately reported on by the local news media - this election season.

Respectfully,

Ted Miller/Linda Lichardi


___________________________________
NOTE FROM DAN:
We are committed to providing voters with a debate forum offering candidates answers to constituent questions. The format that you assert does not allow for that.

This is incorrect. The format the Democrats recommended DID allow for the answering of public questions.

Further, we want to the electorate to be informed about their candidates' debate by timely reporting through local media.

The Republican claim that they wanted the debate reported via local media channels completely ignores the fact it WOULD be covered in print by the Asbury Park Press (the highest circulating publication in both Monmouth County and Freehold Borough) as well as countless online venues (app.com, numerous Freehold-focused Facebook websites, the Freehold Voice, etc.).

Sadly, it does not appear that you will commit to engaging the voters and answering questions of accountability.

This statement has no merit and is based on claims that have already been debunked.

It is with regret that we cannot meet and debate in a voter centric forum accurately reported on by the local news media - this election season.

The opportunity to meet under these very conditions WAS presented to the local Republican party. However they chose not to participate.

[dfx]

Democrat Committee Response (email)
- Date sent: 10/21/10
- Email received by T.Miller/L.Lichardi: 10/21/10

October 21, 2010

Dear Mr. Miller and Mrs. Lichardi:

We were disappointed to receive your correspondence today advising us that you will not meet and debate. The residents of Freehold Borough deserve to hear from the candidates regarding their views and positions on topics important to the the voters.

We had hoped that the more-than-adequate notice given to you back on July 29, 2010 (in our letter requesting a debate), would have permitted you to resolve any outstanding issues you may have had. In fact, by letter of August 19, 2010, Mr. Miller and then-candidate Patricia Mitchel Scarfi accepted our offer to participate in the debate.

After Ms. Scarfi withdrew from the campaign and Mrs. Lichardi filled her spot, we again renewed by letter our request to debate on October 8, 2010. On October 14, 2010 we received our first notice notice that the original date of October 26, as first set forth in our July 29th letter, was not acceptable to you. You proposed alternate dates of October 20th or October 21st. Regrettably, not only was the notice inadequate (being only six days), but Mr. Sims was out of town on the 20th and we had a previously-scheduled event for the 21st. Your letter also contained demands for the format of the debate, and we agreed to the vast majority.

Rather than contacting us to attempt to work out the minor changes in format or date, you chose not to engage in any form of debate. Certainly, that is your right; however, we regret that your decision will deprive our residents of the opportunity to meet and hear from all the candidates for Borough Council.

Respectfully,

Kevin A. Kane

Jaye S. Sims