Mangin's Ethics Questions

[Guest A. Realist]

Well Jim I guess you struck a nerve, but as you know taxes and bonding are the real issue here. This ethics posting has the Mayors finger prints all over it. Just keep telling the truth your getting to them. Now lets talk about conflicts, how about the board president being the Mayors aid? Maybe the state ethics board should check that out. Is everybody happy with their tax bill? Hang in Jim your right and they know it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, Jimbo, you're really stirring things up. That's why the November Election is so hotly contested--'cause the residents are sooooo dissatisfied. Yeah, you're really "getting to them"--they all look soooooo worried!

If it's fair to say that the "ethics posting" has the Mayor's finger prints all over it, then I guess you could say CR's postings are dripping with "Manginisms".

PS Nobody is ever happy with a tax bill--including the Mayor & Council. But then, life is full of little inconveniences, isn't it?

[Guest MangWarp3]

You can't post it here because it's too long?? That is so not believable, Jim. It's real easy Jim, just scan in your letters and the decisions. It can't be any longer than these long-winded non-answers that you give. You're dodging the issue.

Contact you directly? All of a sudden this board is not good enough for a discussion because it deals with you? Don't be a dodgy chicken, just post them!

Spin. Warp. Lying.

[Guest CouncilGadfly]

The posting below by Councilman Mangin is full of classic Jimmy-spins. He avoids the issue at hand, responds with with untruths and glaring omissions, and attacks others all in the process of not answering. Here's just a few of the more egregious statements from his posting below. Let's call them Jimmy-spinisms (it sounds nicer than lies).

I didn't say they would "exonerate" me. I said they would offer an opinion, which they did.

You said you did not have a conflict of interest, that it was an entirely political attack by the mayor and town attorney. You sought the opinion to prove your point. You failed miserably.

I missed the Council meeting of May 25 (my son's birthday). That was the 1st Council meeting I missed in 2004. For the record, Mike Landy and Jose Torres missed three Council meeting before the June primary.

Untrue. In January 2004 alone you missed 3 meetings. One of them you missed to attend a Nick Sacco political fund-raiser. Remember now? Classic Jimmyisms: attack others in defending yourself (Landy and Torres) and try shamelessly for the sympathy points.

I never refused to make the decision public. I stated that the Advisory Opinion was that yes, there was a conflict of interest.

After Jimmy accused the town attorney (a former judge) of being political, the town attorney put his full legal opinion in the record and in the minutes of the meeting. Jimmy refused (and still refuses) to place the decision he received in the town record. Jimmy refused to apologize to the town attorney. Jimmy also spurned the town attorney's requests for the decision. Classic Jimmyism: Make it up as you go along if circumstances change against you.

I received the letter on May 12, 2004.

There's a classic glaring omission. Then why didn't Jimmy disclose that before his election? He had over 3 weeks.

I never sought to find out how much money the developer had. Everyone knows Bruce Ratner is a bazillionaire.

Untrue. To the point of Jimmy telephoning the developer directly. It's not how much Ratner has but how much he would spend in Kearny. Jimmy knew that all too well. (The use of "bazillionaire" combines a weak attempt at humor with the classic avoiding the question tactic.)

I can't post it here. It's too long.

Too long for Jimmy?? So spin, spin, spin. You are a complete phony.

[Jim Mangin]

Why is that no one ever mentions that Mr. Mangin's wife is employed by the Board of Ed. and that  John Pinho who posts here under several aliases served as attorney for one of the boards and was also nominated at one time by his "sister" former councilwoman Alves to be town attorney? Just wondering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since this topic is about conflicts of interest, and since you've brought up my wife's job as a Kindergarten aide, let me explain how she got that job. In the Spring of 1998 circumstances involving our son changed and wife told me that she wanted to try and get a job as an aide working with handicapped kids. As the mother of an autistic son she was perfect for it. I was on the Board of Education at the time and I told her I would make a phone call.

She was furious. She said she didn't need me to get her a job, she was qualified enough. I told her that I knew that, but people were going to think I got her the job anyway. So, she wouldn't take the job because she didn't want people to think I got it for her.

Instead, the next month I decided not to run for re-election to the BOE. She applied for the job and was hired the following Sept.

Anyone who knows my wife (and many people do) knows that she is completely non-political. That's probably why "no one ever mentions that Mr. Mangin's wife is employed by the Board of Ed".

Next question.

Jim Mangin

[Guest Guest]

Why is that no one ever mentions that Mr. Mangin's wife is employed by the Board of Ed. and that  John Pinho who posts here under several aliases served as attorney for one of the boards and was also nominated at one time by his "sister" former councilwoman Alves to be town attorney? Just wondering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, I don't know what Mr. Pinho or Ms. Alves has to do with the present members of the Council influence peddling and getting their kids jobs. If it's confusing, no wonder..... we'll take it slow. Pettigrew got her son a job in the DPW. Sherry got her daughter a clerical job for the KMUA, (both would have difficulty getting a job elsewhere); Doyle got her son a job for the Bd. of Ed, and her husband was made judgeand her son in law made vice-principal; Bd. of Ed. members were busy too. Former members while on the board such as Stevenson got his wife a job in Special Services (secty.);Dyl got his wife a nurse job; and it goes on and on. I know it's hard to keep track, and there's more.

[JohnPinho]

Why is that no one ever mentions that Mr. Mangin's wife is employed by the Board of Ed. and that  John Pinho who posts here under several aliases served as attorney for one of the boards and was also nominated at one time by his "sister" former councilwoman Alves to be town attorney? Just wondering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Councilman Mangin, you must have struck a nerve. It was not enough to mention your wife but he/she threw in Pinho and Alves for a little spice. Not bad company. Jim, almost nobody understands the bonding issue. People are to busy working to pay their taxes to stop and figure out what the Mayor and Council are getting them into. They must not want you to voice your opinion on the bonding or write any details about it because they have dragged out your "ethics issue" to draw attention away from the issue: How much did it cost to bond? Did we really need to do it? The Answers: A lot and No.

[Guest Guest]

Anyone who knows my wife (and many people do) knows that she is completely non-political. That's probably why  "no one ever mentions that Mr. Mangin's wife is employed by the Board of Ed".

Next question.

Jim Mangin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And so is Mrs. Sherry's daughter, but that never stopped posters on this site from trying to discredit her!

[Guest CR]

Yeah, Jimbo, you're really stirring things up. That's why the November Election is so hotly contested--'cause the residents are sooooo dissatisfied. Yeah, you're really "getting to them"--they all look soooooo worried!

If it's fair to say that  the "ethics posting" has the Mayor's finger prints all over it, then I guess you could say CR's postings are dripping with "Manginisms".

PS Nobody is ever happy with a tax bill--including the Mayor & Council. But then, life is full of little inconveniences, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It got to you.

PS, Maybe they should try to control spending, But, I know that's one of lifes lnconveniences.

[Guest There is a God!]

The posting below by Councilman Mangin is full of classic Jimmy-spins.  He avoids the issue at hand, responds with with untruths and glaring omissions, and attacks others all in the process of not answering.  Here's just a few of the more egregious statements from his posting below.  Let's call them Jimmy-spinisms (it sounds nicer than lies).

I didn't say they would "exonerate" me. I said they would offer an opinion, which they did.

You said you did not have a conflict of interest, that it was an entirely political attack by the mayor and town attorney.  You sought the opinion to prove your point.  You failed miserably.

I missed the Council meeting of May 25 (my son's birthday). That was the 1st Council meeting I missed in 2004. For the record, Mike Landy and Jose Torres missed three Council meeting before the June primary.

Untrue.  In January 2004 alone you missed 3 meetings.  One of them you missed to attend a Nick Sacco political fund-raiser.  Remember now?  Classic Jimmyisms:  attack others in defending yourself (Landy and Torres) and try shamelessly for the sympathy points.

I never refused to make the decision public. I stated that the Advisory Opinion was that yes, there was a conflict of interest.

After Jimmy accused the town attorney (a former judge) of being political, the town attorney put his full legal opinion in the record and in the minutes of the meeting.  Jimmy refused (and still refuses) to place the decision he received in the town record.  Jimmy refused to apologize to the town attorney.  Jimmy also spurned the town attorney's requests for the decision.  Classic Jimmyism:  Make it up as you go along if circumstances change against you.

I received the letter on May 12, 2004.

There's a classic glaring omission.  Then why didn't Jimmy disclose that before his election?  He had over 3 weeks.

I never sought to find out how much money the developer had. Everyone knows Bruce Ratner is a bazillionaire.

Untrue.  To the point of Jimmy telephoning the developer directly.  It's not how much Ratner has but how much he would spend in Kearny.  Jimmy knew that all too well.  (The use of "bazillionaire" combines a weak attempt at humor with the classic avoiding the question tactic.)

I can't post it here. It's too long.

Too long for Jimmy??  So spin, spin, spin.  You are a complete phony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone else knows Jimblow for what he is.......Thank you Jesus!

[Guest Guest]

mangin is a con artist and this town is way better for not having him on the council

[Guest Guest]

Yeah, Jimbo, you're really stirring things up. That's why the November Election is so hotly contested--'cause the residents are sooooo dissatisfied. Yeah, you're really "getting to them"--they all look soooooo worried!

If it's fair to say that  the "ethics posting" has the Mayor's finger prints all over it, then I guess you could say CR's postings are dripping with "Manginisms".

PS Nobody is ever happy with a tax bill--including the Mayor & Council. But then, life is full of little inconveniences, isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not dissatisfied, they just don't care.

[Jim Mangin]

You can't post it here because it's too long??  That is so not believable, Jim.  It's real easy Jim, just scan in your letters and the decisions.  It can't be any longer than these long-winded non-answers that you give.  You're dodging the issue. 

Contact you directly?  All of a sudden this board is not good enough for a discussion because it deals with you?  Don't be a dodgy chicken, just post them!

Spin.  Warp.  Lying.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're whining again.

Jim Mangin

[Jim Mangin]

Councilman Mangin, you must have struck a nerve. It was not enough to mention your wife but he/she threw in Pinho and Alves for a little spice.  Not bad company.  Jim, almost nobody understands the bonding issue.  People are to busy working to pay their taxes to stop and figure out what the Mayor and Council are getting them into.  They must not want you to voice your opinion on the bonding or write any details about it because they have dragged out your "ethics issue" to draw attention away from the issue:  How much did it cost to bond?  Did we really need to do it? The Answers: A lot and No.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

Not bad company at all. There is also the "Bennet Ave connection," but no one's figured that one out yet.

Jim Mangin

[Guest CR]

Nobody is talking about the taxes and the bonding issue, not to mention the conflict in the Mayors office. Mr. Magin admits his conflict, will the Mayor do the same. Now all these personal attacks,for the purpose of spin I might add, are moving us from the real issues. Hey, how about those taxe bills. Come on lets talk ethics.

[JoeW]

John,

Not bad company at all. There is also the "Bennet Ave connection," but no one's figured that one out yet.

Jim Mangin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow...that must be a "very" important connection. You put it in quotes and italics.

JW

[Guest CR]

Mr. Mangin don't even try to answer these posts it's all spin. Just keep banging away at the taxes and the bonding issues. Stay on track. Tax bills don't lie. They can say what they want but you are shaking their tree, (With the truth). Now, the issue of family members on the public pay roll. There are council members and board members that have family working for the board or the town. That's nothing new and really I'm not concerned with that as long as they do their job. So Mayor what are you doing about your conflict?

[Guest Ivy st resident]

Nobody is talking about the taxes and the bonding issue, not to mention the conflict in the Mayors office. Mr. Magin admits his conflict, will the Mayor do the same. Now all these personal attacks,for the purpose of spin I might add, are moving us from the real issues. Hey, how about those taxe bills. Come on lets talk ethics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again another tax increase and what is Santos and his puppets doing about it ?Nothing. Now Santos gives Town jobs to all family members. Its a slap in our faces.What is the Council members doing? I have NEVER seen all council members agree with a Mayor all the time except this crew.

[Guest Guest]

And so is Mrs. Sherry's daughter, but that never stopped posters on this site from trying to discredit her!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You still dont get it. The 2nd ward councilmembers themseselves have the ethics problem, ot their children. They didn't need another guy in the DPW, (despite the hiring freeze) and there was no need, or has there ever been a second clerical person working for the KMUA. These jobs were CREATED for their kids with taxpayers money. That's a conflict.

[Guest Guest]

At least Councilman Mangin answered the question about his conflict of interest. What is there excuse? They won't answer any hard questions. Where are they? We know they are reading!

[Guest EQ]

At least Councilman Mangin answered the question about his conflict of interest. What is there excuse? They won't answer any hard questions. Where are they? We know they are reading!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They won't answer because they can't. Magins right about the bonding, it will cost tax payers big time in the future. As far as conflicts are concerned the town is loaded with them. But, again I must ask the Mayor to explain the conflict in his office.This also involves large amounts of tax dollars. Ethics apply only when they may be used to his advantage. Keep all these conflicts in mind and then look at your tax bill, how ethical is that? Wait until the next one comes. Think!

1

[Guest EQ]

They won't answer because they can't. Magins right about the bonding, it will cost tax payers big time in the future. As far as conflicts are concerned the town is loaded with them. But, again I must ask the Mayor to explain the conflict in his office.This also involves large amounts of tax dollars. Ethics apply only when they may be used to his advantage. Keep all these conflicts in mind and then look at your tax bill, how ethical is that? Wait until the next one comes. Think!

1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess we don't want to continue this topic? The silence says more then you realize. Truth is hard to deal with huh? That's OK, Your excused.

[Guest Where's the answer?]

Still no reply from Mangin to the earlier post. What does that mean from the usual talkative Jim? (The Mangin statements are italicized)

* * *

The posting below by Councilman Mangin is full of classic Jimmy-spins. He avoids the issue at hand, responds with with untruths and glaring omissions, and attacks others all in the process of not answering. Here's just a few of the more egregious statements from his posting below. Let's call them Jimmy-spinisms (it sounds nicer than lies).

I didn't say they would "exonerate" me. I said they would offer an opinion, which they did.

You said you did not have a conflict of interest, that it was an entirely political attack by the mayor and town attorney. You sought the opinion to prove your point. You failed miserably.

I missed the Council meeting of May 25 (my son's birthday). That was the 1st Council meeting I missed in 2004. For the record, Mike Landy and Jose Torres missed three Council meeting before the June primary.

Untrue. In January 2004 alone you missed 3 meetings. One of them you missed to attend a Nick Sacco political fund-raiser. Remember now? Classic Jimmyisms: attack others in defending yourself (Landy and Torres) and try shamelessly for the sympathy points.

I never refused to make the decision public. I stated that the Advisory Opinion was that yes, there was a conflict of interest.

After Jimmy accused the town attorney (a former judge) of being political, the town attorney put his full legal opinion in the record and in the minutes of the meeting. Jimmy refused (and still refuses) to place the decision he received in the town record. Jimmy refused to apologize to the town attorney. Jimmy also spurned the town attorney's requests for the decision. Classic Jimmyism: Make it up as you go along if circumstances change against you.

I received the letter on May 12, 2004.

There's a classic glaring omission. Then why didn't Jimmy disclose that before his election? He had over 3 weeks.

I never sought to find out how much money the developer had. Everyone knows Bruce Ratner is a bazillionaire.

Untrue. To the point of Jimmy telephoning the developer directly. It's not how much Ratner has but how much he would spend in Kearny. Jimmy knew that all too well. (The use of "bazillionaire" combines a weak attempt at humor with the classic avoiding the question tactic.)

I can't post it here. It's too long.

Too long for Jimmy?? So spin, spin, spin. You are a complete phony.

[A. Realist]

They won't answer because they can't. Magins right about the bonding, it will cost tax payers big time in the future. As far as conflicts are concerned the town is loaded with them. But, again I must ask the Mayor to explain the conflict in his office.This also involves large amounts of tax dollars. Ethics apply only when they may be used to his advantage. Keep all these conflicts in mind and then look at your tax bill, how ethical is that? Wait until the next one comes. Think!

1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Talk about "beating a dead horse"! How many times do we have to discuss bonding before you can wrap your little mind around the concept? Bonding is not some underhanded, fly-by-night scheme formulated in a smoke-filled back room to bilk an unsuspecting public. It is, and has long been, the installment plan by which towns are able to get what they need, when they need it. (If you have an alternate method to pay for road repairs, sewer separations, replacement of equipment and vehicles, etc., I'm sure the administration would be delighted to hear it.) Bonding is a legal, legitimate and responsible source of revenue which must meet strict criteria. Got it?

All this talk about conflicts really gets ridiculous. In a small town like Kearny, if you dig deep enough, you'll probably find a "conflict" surrounding every town employee. You antis complain if the town employs outsiders, but cry nepotism if a local is hired. Guess there's just no pleasing unpleasant people.

Taxes? A fact of life. The cost of goods and services hasn't come DOWN anywhere. Try comparing Kearny to neighboring communities. It's the same everywhere.

[Guest guest]

Talk about "beating a dead horse"! How many times do we have to discuss bonding before you can wrap your little mind around the concept? Bonding is not some underhanded, fly-by-night scheme formulated in a smoke-filled back room to bilk an unsuspecting public. It is, and has long been, the installment plan by which towns are able to get what they need, when they need it. (If you have an alternate method to pay for road repairs, sewer separations, replacement of equipment and vehicles, etc., I'm sure the administration would be delighted to hear it.) Bonding is a legal, legitimate and responsible source of revenue which must meet strict criteria. Got it?

All this talk about conflicts really gets ridiculous. In a small town like Kearny, if you dig deep enough, you'll probably find a "conflict" surrounding every town employee. You antis complain if the town employs outsiders, but cry nepotism if a local is hired. Guess there's just no pleasing unpleasant people.

Taxes? A fact of life. The cost of goods and services hasn't come DOWN anywhere. Try comparing Kearny to neighboring communities. It's the same everywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay AL REALIST the puppet show is calling you. Go now enough of your as* kis***g ways.

[Guest Q&A]

Talk about "beating a dead horse"! How many times do we have to discuss bonding before you can wrap your little mind around the concept? Bonding is not some underhanded, fly-by-night scheme formulated in a smoke-filled back room to bilk an unsuspecting public. It is, and has long been, the installment plan by which towns are able to get what they need, when they need it. (If you have an alternate method to pay for road repairs, sewer separations, replacement of equipment and vehicles, etc., I'm sure the administration would be delighted to hear it.) Bonding is a legal, legitimate and responsible source of revenue which must meet strict criteria. Got it?

All this talk about conflicts really gets ridiculous. In a small town like Kearny, if you dig deep enough, you'll probably find a "conflict" surrounding every town employee. You antis complain if the town employs outsiders, but cry nepotism if a local is hired. Guess there's just no pleasing unpleasant people.

Taxes? A fact of life. The cost of goods and services hasn't come DOWN anywhere. Try comparing Kearny to neighboring communities. It's the same everywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes bonding is legal and conflicts do exist. But how much interest will we pay out for this bonding, not to mention the legal fees that are involved with the bonding process. Also the conflict in the mayors office is far from common, it includes large amounts of tax payer dollars every April. This is not a simple matter of ones imagination, it's a very real issue. An issue that will be realized every quater.