Jim Mangin

More like 3,000 signatures are needed. A recall drive is not something to be taken lightly by either side. The voter apathy in Kearny recently is great. Getting one fourth of the registered voters to sign a recall petition would be a mammoth effort. On the other side of the coin, I don't think any elected official should dismiss a recall effort with a wave of the hand as if "it'll never happen." Just the fact that people are angry enough to attempt a recall should prompt elected officials to act. A recall drive could potentially dismiss the entire sitting Mayor and Town Council in just one election. The power of the people in a recall election is enormous, and that's just how it should be. Personally, I'm not involved in this recall effort although in my opinion I think it's a good idea. First, it gets people talking about issues and that can only be a good thing. Second, remember Kearny always held its elected officials accountable through two years terms. Every year there was an election in Kearny and we've seen majority shifts and entire Town Councils turn over in just two years. We no longer have that accountability. A recall effort restores, somewhat, that accountability. Especially since the people of Kearny had no say in the switch to four year terms. Third, it gives people an avenue to get involved in the political process. Kearny boasts about its ethnic diversity, but what happened to its historic political diversity? That's why Kearny broke with Harrison 140 years ago. Kearny always showed political independence from Hudson County, but not any more. Do the people in Kearny now think that Hudson County is good for Kearny? I don't think so. But there's no mechanism to channel their feelings into political action. And this is exactly what a recall drive does. Again, just my opinion - a recall effort in Kearny is good for Kearny. Jim Mangin

An intelligent discussion of the issues in Kearny would be refreshing. I've watched the tapes of Kearny Town Council meetings and I haven't seen one single discussion of any issue. Of course, some people like it when everyone agrees. For example . . . "I like Al Santos because he acts like a professional, and so I'm inclined to believe him. I watched him take control of a town council that used to look like a mud-wrestling troup and turn it into a respectable, functioning body." For me, I think it's more productive when the governing body takes on the tough issues, or at the very least discusses them in public. This is also my opinion (and yours, or so I thought) of the Board of Education. Jim Mangin (former mud-wrestler)

I don't have all the answers. Nobody does. I do have lots of opinions and I'm not afraid to ask the questions. Just like I'm not afraid to post my name. Jim Mangin

I've submitted a letter to the editor regarding the Mayor's call for a debate on taxes. Let's see if it gets published. I don't have any reason to believe it won't. Jim Mangin

Paul, My interest in this is the same as everyone else's. I do think the charges against the Mayor are fair and I'll site all the statistics, documentation and alternatives you'd like to prove the point. You say you want specifics and I'll be happy to provide it. Ask me a specific question or my opinion on a specific topic and I'll give you a specific answer. One point though - as a veteran of this board I've learned (the hard way) that posts should be kept short. I'm glad to see you contributing to this board. You make my long-winded posts seem like abbreviations. Jim Mangin

Paul, It's been a while since I've posted on this board, but lately I'm finding the increasing amount of mis-information to be disturbing. Not just here. Frankly, I'm very concerned about distortions of the truth in taxes, bonding, "binding arbitration," "debt leveling off," and a host of other false statements that are going unchallenged. I'm going to have start challenging them again. Now, to your statement. There is no cost to the taxpayers in a recall election if the recall is held during the November general election. If the recall election is a special election, there would be a cost to the taxpayers. That cost would have to be identified and made part of the recall petition and told to the voter before they signed. The decision as to whether the recall is held in November or at a special election is made by the recall committee. No one else. Bottom line - extra cost to the taxpayer is a non-issue in deciding if a recall is justified. Facts. They're a beautiful thing. Jim Mangin

"T'is but a scratch! OK, we'll call it a draw!"

I really have a problem with the way Eileen Eckel and Mayor Santos try to justify their actions on this one. I don't blame them for checking my nominating petition. But before you go to such drastic steps as filing a challenge, and accusing a constituent of forgery, shouldn't you at least check to make sure you're right first? Why wouldn't you make that phone call to the Supt. of Elections to see if those people were registered or not? Is it arrogance? Intimidation? Personally, I just think it's sad. I'd rather talk about the issues. Jim Mangin

"NONTHING" to offer? You must be new to this board. ". . . can't think for himself" You must've never gone to a Town Council meeting. Sorry, I just refuse to sit back and watch what this Town is turning into. Jim Mangin

First, you're not even close to being the first to say "I told ya so." Second, if my campaign gets one member of the public to ask a question at a meeting, or for that matter, gets even one member of this Town Council to question one thing this Mayor does, then I've already won. In that light, I can't lose. Jim Mangin

Thanks for the boost! I'll try not to let you down. Jim Mangin

Well, what happened was Mayor Santos and Councilwoman Eckel tried to pull a "Hudson County fast one" on the people of Kearny. They scrutinized every single signature on my petition . . . If they scrutinized their own budget the way they scrutinized my petition - I probably wouldn't be running! Then they went to see the County Clerk. They brought a lot of phony claims, trumped-up charges, there was probably a lot of whining and pleading and finally, the Mayor threatened to hold his breath until my name was taken off the ballot. The County Clerk (loyal Hudson County Dem, that he is) finally gave in and said, "Oh alright, enough already. Get up off the floor. I'll take him off the ballot." There's just one problem. No one did their homework. No one, not Mayor Santos, not Councilwoman Eckel, not County Clerk Inclan, bothered to check with the Supt. of Elections to see about the registration status of these people that supposedly were not registered. All it took for me was to make one phone call to the Supt's office and *POOF* I'm back on the ballot again. I don't get it. Did they think this would intimidate me into pulling out of the election? Are they that desperate? This is going to be one very interesting election in November. And all of you people have a front row seat! Jim Mangin ps - There's no truth to the rumor that upon learning that I have been reinstated and WILL be on the ballot in November, Mayor Santos blew up so much at Town Hall that they named the hurricaine in Florida after him.

Thanks for the thought. And you're right. I have been very busy lately between the two jobs and "back to school' issues. I don't check this board every day. It's important, but not nearly as important as other issues. Thanks again. Jim Mangin

The only explanation I can offer is simple - I made a mistake. The figure I quoted from Mayor's Santos' campaign report was his total disbursements and not his total campaign expenditures. I was wrong and I should've checked the detail of the report. I won't make that mistake again. As to the fundraiser you mentioned, I'm assuming you meant our first fundraiser and not the one held at the LCC. Those tickets were I think $30 each. At our first fundraiser I had the chance to speak to everyone there (it was a small crowd). And every person there, including Mayor Stack of Union City and Mayor Elwell of Secaucus told me their own person reasons for supporting us. It was a very eye-opening experience. But if your question was did we have a fundraiser where tickets were $500 each, the answer is yes. But you knew that already didn't you? Now that I've answered your question, how about answering mine. Do you honestly think that anyone will believe your explanation that the $1,500 Mayor Santos gave to the HCDO in April 2004 was a "regular annual assesment"? Could you please answer that and then we'll move on. Jim Mangin

Gee, it seems I really hit a nerve with you this time - syntax errors, typo's, and poor grammar. Calm down, will you? Now go check the NJ ELEC website if you don't believe me. And try to relax. Jim Mangin ps - Bernie's not happy with me? With his recent operation I sincerely doubt I'm on his mind. And as much as I wish him well in his recovery, try to imagine how much I care if he's happy with me or not. He's still mad at me for not dropping out the race in 2003.

Are you serious? Do you really expect anyone to believe your explanation. If his $1,500 check was a "regular annual assessment," then why didn't he pay it in 2000? or 2001? or 2002? or 2003? or 2005? Doesn't seem very "annual" to me. Just admit it. Your boy bought the line. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. Jim Mangin

Click on this link to check on campaign reports. Jim Mangin

You want the truth. You can't handle the truth. So, you're saying that after telling me I had the County line, Bernie Kenney met with Al Santos and Al Santos wrote a check to the HCDO for $1,500 - and these two events are not related? Are you a newcomer to Hudson County politics? And speaking of the truth, my so-called ". . . heavily County financed team" was anything but. We didn't receive one dollar from the Hudson County Dems. And we were out-spent by Mayor Santos $59,000 to $34,000. Our money came from fund raising. His money came from emptying his Santos for Senate Campaign Account. Not even Leo Vartan spent that much money to get elected Mayor. Jim Mangin

Did anyone else notice that as soon as the NJ Meadowlands Commission got their hands on a signed agreement from the Town of Kearny to re-open Keegan, they announced that the golf course will not be built in Kearny. The NJMC admits to being responsible for cleaning this landfill. Why won't they admit responsibility for cleaning Keegan as well? (And I mean cleaning it without re-opening it). The NJMC is just one of three "responsible parties" who should have to pay to properly close Keegan without subjecting the people of Kearny to another open landfill. I've said it before - worst policy decision in Kearny in the last 30 years. It even makes the water deal look good by comparison. Jim Mangin

I don’t doubt that County officials are tripping over themselves to make Mayor Santos happy. Why? And I sure as hell know that no County official has been calling me? Why? Same answer to both questions - money. In April 2004 the County Democratic leadership promised me the County line. By the end of the month they had changed their mind and gave the line to Santos’ candidate. Some people think it’s because of the $1,500 check Santos wrote to the Hudson County Dems on April 29, 2004. Sorry. My integrity’s not for sale. I’d rather lose than sell out. Once you sell out your integrity it’s only a matter of time before you sell out your constituents. Like the Mayor and Mary Torres did with the Abbott Rim bill – now there’s a good lesson in Hudson County politics! Jim Mangin ps - It's good to be back.

Joe, You're saying the BOE awarded a contract for this project at the last meeting? You can't accept a bid without awarding a contract. And you can't award a contract without knowing where the money is coming from. I'd check your facts. As for me calling Les, I don't think so. Over the last 10 years I've probably posed more finance questions to School Business Administrator Les Gaulton than anyone else, with the possible exception of Mike Martello. I can honestly say, his answers were always evasive at best and I'd end up checking and researching myself. I did this as a member of the public, as a member of the Board of Ed's Finance Committee and as a member of the Town Council's Finance Committee. I'll tell you what "fits my needs" though - all I've ever asked for is the public to be aware. Be aware of how much we've borrowed. And be aware of what we're spending money on. That's all. If the BOE "finds" the money for the wall project, that's great. But, it will prove my point that they've over-appropriated other accounts to generate more surplus than they need. That's not what I call a bare-bones budget. Jim Mangin ps - You and I have been posting on this board longer than anyone else. The difference between us is that I have no problem offering opinions on issues. You have no problem offering opinions on people.

What happened? No more bonding questions? OK, I'll ask one. Now that the Board of Education has climbed aboard the bonding bandwagon, how many people think that the school bond will pay for the stadium wall that crumbled on Davis Ave? I'll admit it. I thought the bond was to be used to pay for the wall, but it's not. Since the Board of Ed made the decision to not include the wall in the bond they should have money for it elsewhere in the budget. But do they? Is there an extra $750,000 in the budget to fix the wall? I'm not so sure. If there is why hasn't anything happened yet with this project? Even I would have supported the notion that bonding is a proper financing vehicle to fix the wall. The improvements will last much longer than 5 years (unlike the shirts and pants the Town bonded for). And a Bond Anticipation Note could be used to get the BOE money for the wall immediately while preparing for a bond sale. Instead the wall stays down. Is there money for this project or not? Stay tuned. I feel another bond coming! We haven't maxed out our credit cards yet. Jim Mangin

And isn't this exactly what I said? Insurance protects investors and helps municipalities by allowing them to offer their bonds with the highest ratings in order to lower borrowing costs. Like I said, it's a tool used to save money. Next question. Jim Mangin

I promised a response to the rest of your tirade. Here y'go . . . For the sake of honest debate (your words), I told you what my budget cuts were. Here's the link to my post of Dec. 12, 2003 at 8:36 p.m. (I hope it works) As for the Town Council's response, they were opposed. But you knew this already, didn't you? As for the Town Auditor, he wasn't at the meeting when the budget cuts were discussed. You'd have to ask him for his response. For the umpteenth time (pay attention A. Realist, Al Santos, Barbara Sherry, et al) - the $1.2 million can be used for non-UEZ projects simply be ammending the bond ordinance. Even the Town Auditor admitted this. The Zone Assistance Fund pays for our UEZ projects, not bond ordinances. We bond because we get the money faster - that's all. If we had used the $1.2 million in capital surplus instead of a new bond we would've saved $240,000 in administrative costs AND we would still be eligible for "$1.2 million plus interest of free debt payments from the State." How? Just by applying to the ZAF, like we did for every other UEZ project. I questioned the Auditor and Bond Counsel because they said it was OK to bond for station wear in the Fire Dept - and didn't know that station wear consists of shirts and pants. Do you take a bank loan for your clothes? Of course not. Why not? Because it's ridiculous to pay for something for 20 years that only last 1-2 years. For the rates they charge those two deserved the punk slaps they got. On the Debt Statement errors - Yes, the $10 million mistake was the debt authorized for sewer seaparation work, but not actually borrowed. But that's what the Annual Debt Statement is supposed to show! At the Aug 2004 meeting Mayor Santos announced that our Debt Statement was filed on Aug 10, 2004, showing that our total debt was $1 million lower than the previous year. The next day I sent a memo showing that it was actually $10 million higher. A corrected Debt Statement was then quietly filed on Aug. 26. The next time you're in Town Hall, ask to see the two copies. Or e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of my memo. Let me know if you want to hear about the $10 million error in 2003. There, did I miss anything? You'll let me know, won't you? Jim Mangin ps - as always, if anyone would like a copy of the documents I've cited just e-mail at jimmangin@aol.com.

I quoted a newspaper article verbatim and I'm accused of half-truths? C'mon, even you have to admit, that doesn't make sense. Speaking of trying to make sense, from your post we learn this: - Hoboken's rating is supported by its state aid. - Bayonne's rating was downgraded to the same as Kearny's in 2004 (I said the article I was citing was from 2003). - A bond rating of Baa is not bad. (But you have to admit - Baa2 is better than Baa3, and Baa is better than Baa2) - We learned that no other municipality in Hudson County has a bond rating lower than Kearny. - IN YOUR OPINION, the municipalities without a rating ( Harrison, Union City and Weehawken) must have ratings below Kearny, because they bought insurance for their bonds. Bond insurance has nothing to do with a municipality's financial status. Insurance is a tool used to achieve a more attractive rate and save money. But, you probably don't believe that because I said it, right? "Municipalites have also been able to reduce their interest costs by having their bonds insured. Municipal bond insurance is a 'voluntary cost of issuance,' which assures payment in case of default. . . Even municipalities with an Aaa rating may find it attractive to purchase bond insurance." Municipal Financial Administration in New Jersey. Robert Benecke pg IV-16. Still don't believe me? Santosian blindness is curable. Again, if you'd like - e-mail me at jimmangin@aol.com and I'll be happy to send you a copy of the analysis the Jersey Journal did on municipal bond ratings in 2003. And since Michaelangelo Conte thought enough of what he wrote to put his name to it, I'm sorry but I'll believe him over you. If you'd prefer, you can take up this argument with him - mconte@jjournal.com Jim Mangin ps - as for East Newark - the recent bond ordinance for the combined sewer overflow project is being financed by the Envinronmental Infrastrcuture Trust Fund. There's no need to bond, and so, no need to seek a new bond rating. Keep the questions coming!