Lowry Ineligible Candidate for BOE

[Guest blah blah blah]

There is never a "non-precedent setting" negotiation with a labor union without a price to pay.

You're still try to defend a candidacy for office that should NOT have occurred. You ignored the language on her petition: "NO BOARD MEMBER SHALL BE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ANY CONTRACT WITH THE BOARD". Ms. Lowry signed and filed her petition on June 6, 2012. Why?

I'm not trying to defend anything. As for candidacies that "should NOT have occurred", there's too many of them to count!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Stop Spinning It]

If that's true, it's a very good question. But I also wonder why the five stooges jumped on this only after she won. After all, each of them had to circulate the same petition for themselves. And they certainly knew who Debbie is, and how recently she retired. So they must have known that she was involved in a contract with the Board. So why did they let the election happen, let the people vote, and then move to have Debbie declared ineligible after it was too late for those of us who voted for her to choose someone else? That's a good question too.

Here's another good question. Should the five stooges be allowed to profit from their own wrong? If they sat on this, knowing that Debbie was ineligible, should we have to worry that one of them is going to be appointed to the seat, after Castelli and Campbell both got clobbered by the people in the election?

And where was the "number one school board attorney in New Jersey" when all this was going on?

The most important question is: what about the people of Kearny? What about our kids and their education? What about our right to be represented by the people we want, and to have the Board behave in the way we want it to behave? Shouldn't those be the most important considerations? I would like to see a whole lot less drama and a whole lot more positive action from our BOE than we saw under the five stooges. Let's hope we don't have to put up with another year of their nonsense.

All very interesting questions without answering mine. You can try to project blame, but only Lowry made a sworn, signed statement that she was not involved in a contract with the board. Why?

[Guest Deb Supporte]

All very interesting questions without answering mine. You can try to project blame, but only Lowry made a sworn, signed statement that she was not involved in a contract with the board. Why?

Very simply because she did not interpret her deferred payments as a current contractual agreement since it was negotiated in a contract which had since expired. Debra Lowry did not purposely attempt to decieve the people of Kearny. Anyone who knows her, knows that she just doesn't behave that way.

[Guest Guest]

Lowry was retired, with an expired contract. She was no longer involved in a contract to pay her for work rendered. Her ties to the district as an employee were over. Obviously everyone including the number one school board attorney was unaware of the conflict (legal term) between sick leave benefits and the collective bargaining agreement until it was researched by said attorney because he was told to do so by the upstanding former board president (being facetious).

Since this type of contract technicality was an obscure point that was news to all who heard it, why in the world should anyone think Lowry intentionally signed the petition to be devious. Those who know her believe in her integrity and those who criticize her obviously believe what they want to regardless of what anyone says.

[Guest Give it a rest]

All very interesting questions without answering mine. You can try to project blame, but only Lowry made a sworn, signed statement that she was not involved in a contract with the board. Why?

Just speculation, but maybe she thought that because she was no longer an employee and retired that it didn't actually constitute a "contract"? Maybe the fact that the agreement she was being compensated for was a years-ago, previously-negotiated amount of $$$ for days that she earned during her previous 30 years of employment? Maybe she thought once she walked away from her job she was no longer connected to the Kearny BOE? Some might say that the State of NJ and its stringent "ethics" regulations are a little over the top, considering what legislators and other politicians are able to get away with. I just wish you would stop trying to paint Debbie Lowry as some sort of lying, conniving criminal who KNEW that she was trying to get one over on everybody. If you knew her at all, you'd know that just isn't the case. So give it a rest, will you?

[Guest Guest]

All very interesting questions without answering mine. You can try to project blame, but only Lowry made a sworn, signed statement that she was not involved in a contract with the board. Why?

Your demand is unreasonable. I'm not Debbie Lowry. Therefore, I can't answer your question. Ask her.

This isn't about one person. It's about the community and our kids. The other questions are important. So I posted them.

[Guest Guest]

All very interesting questions without answering mine. You can try to project blame, but only Lowry made a sworn, signed statement that she was not involved in a contract with the board. Why?

Wait a minute. You're projecting blame too but you're only focusing on one thing, and it isn't even relevant anymore. She screwed up. It's over. What do you want? A criminal investigation? There's no crime, so you're not going to get that. Do you want an apology? A public reprimand? How about forty lashes? What's the point? Frankly, with your single-minded focus on casting blame and ignoring the issues, you sound like one of the five stooges.

What matters is where we go from here. We now have a BOE split 4-4, which probably won't accomplish a thing for at least another three months. They should try to agree on a replacement to fill the vacant seat. If they don't, the seat will be filled by a county executive but only after the people twist in the wind with no BOE, practically speaking, and no BOE attorney. It's a problem that begs for a solution. If the four remaining stooges gave a damn about anything but their petty little power plays, they'd work out a resolution, considering especially that their faction was trounced in the latest election. They don't respect the people, that's the problem.

[Guest Guest]

Just speculation, but maybe she thought that because she was no longer an employee and retired that it didn't actually constitute a "contract"? Maybe the fact that the agreement she was being compensated for was a years-ago, previously-negotiated amount of $$$ for days that she earned during her previous 30 years of employment? Maybe she thought once she walked away from her job she was no longer connected to the Kearny BOE? Some might say that the State of NJ and its stringent "ethics" regulations are a little over the top, considering what legislators and other politicians are able to get away with. I just wish you would stop trying to paint Debbie Lowry as some sort of lying, conniving criminal who KNEW that she was trying to get one over on everybody. If you knew her at all, you'd know that just isn't the case. So give it a rest, will you?

I agree. The law is the law but in this case it's too restrictive. There's no real conflict here. Meanwhile, people with real conflicts are sitting on the BOE, and Castelli just voted to keep the BOE from resolving the problem, perhaps hoping he would be appointed to the seat he just lost by a huge margin. Talk about a conflict of interest! This is ridiculous but we're stuck with it, so let's move on.

[Guest Stop Spinning It]

Wait a minute. You're projecting blame too but you're only focusing on one thing, and it isn't even relevant anymore. She screwed up. It's over. What do you want? A criminal investigation? There's no crime, so you're not going to get that. Do you want an apology? A public reprimand? How about forty lashes? What's the point? Frankly, with your single-minded focus on casting blame and ignoring the issues, you sound like one of the five stooges.

What matters is where we go from here. We now have a BOE split 4-4, which probably won't accomplish a thing for at least another three months. They should try to agree on a replacement to fill the vacant seat. If they don't, the seat will be filled by a county executive but only after the people twist in the wind with no BOE, practically speaking, and no BOE attorney. It's a problem that begs for a solution. If the four remaining stooges gave a damn about anything but their petty little power plays, they'd work out a resolution, considering especially that their faction was trounced in the latest election. They don't respect the people, that's the problem.

I agree, we have to move forward and the Lowry candidacy is over. But in your prior posting you were projecting blame on the Board faction you disagree with by posing a series of questions. If you want answers to your questions, you have to take responsibility by starting with the initial cause, which was the filing of Ms. Lowry's petition to run for Board back in June.

But if you're ready to move forward, so am I.

[Guest Snap Out of It!]

Very simply because she did not interpret her deferred payments as a current contractual agreement since it was negotiated in a contract which had since expired. Debra Lowry did not purposely attempt to decieve the people of Kearny. Anyone who knows her, knows that she just doesn't behave that way.

If so, why does the Board have to pay her $110,000 in annual installments after her retirement from 2011 to 2014? Is it because the Board of Ed is making a gift to Mrs. Lowry? No. Is it because some law requires that payment? No. is it because 'god' wills it? Doubt it. Or is it because of the labor contract with school administrators?

[Guest Guest]

I agree, we have to move forward and the Lowry candidacy is over. But in your prior posting you were projecting blame on the Board faction you disagree with by posing a series of questions. If you want answers to your questions, you have to take responsibility by starting with the initial cause, which was the filing of Ms. Lowry's petition to run for Board back in June.

But if you're ready to move forward, so am I.

I don't have to take responsibility for it, because I didn't do it. I have every right to put the lion's share of the blame where I think it belongs, and that is with the five stooges, who turned the Kearny BOE into a cheap circus and a long-running bad joke. It's unfortunate that more of them weren't up for re-election. If they had been, we wouldn't be facing more problems. The five stooges are still relevant because four of them are still on the BOE.

[Guest Stop Spinning It]

I don't have to take responsibility for it, because I didn't do it. I have every right to put the lion's share of the blame where I think it belongs, and that is with the five stooges, who turned the Kearny BOE into a cheap circus and a long-running bad joke. It's unfortunate that more of them weren't up for re-election. If they had been, we wouldn't be facing more problems. The five stooges are still relevant because four of them are still on the BOE.

You can blame whomever you wish. The fact remains that the flaw in the Lowry candidacy began with the Lowry candidacy when she filed her petition.

[Guest Lowry Responsible, NoT BOE]

I don't have to take responsibility for it, because I didn't do it. I have every right to put the lion's share of the blame where I think it belongs, and that is with the five stooges, who turned the Kearny BOE into a cheap circus and a long-running bad joke. It's unfortunate that more of them weren't up for re-election. If they had been, we wouldn't be facing more problems. The five stooges are still relevant because four of them are still on the BOE.

Amazing how someone screws up, and by accounts around town by people close to the false information provider, knew from the start she was ineligible but didn't think anyone would do anything about it. She ran with an attorney, who claims to know law and a current board member who has filled out the same forms she had to fill out. Now the "blame" is put on Board members? Pretty lame to pass the blame!!!!

The burden of proof does not lie with the BOE, due diligence does not lie with the BOE. Do the right thing and don't try to get over on people and none of this would have been a topic !!!!

[Guest Guest]

You right wing zealots are as disgusting in Kearny as you are everywhere else in this country. You act just like the five stooges on the BOE. In fact, for all we know, maybe you are one of them. Only now there are only four of them on the BOE because we, the people, didn't like what they did. They never paid attention to the things that mattered. Everything was all about drama and blaming everyone but themselves. Which explains why they never got anything done. It also explains what you're doing here.

Stop saying things you don't know to be true; it's called lying. When you direct the lie toward other people, it's called bearing false witness. You have not one shred of evidence that Debbie or anyone else did this deliberately. Most people would not realize that the rule covers guaranteed payments for work done in the past. If your standard is that high, then the five stooges are equally to blame for saying nothing about until after the election.

Focus on what matters going forward. That way, maybe we can have a competent BOE that serves our needs and the needs of our students. Which doesn't seem to be your concern in the least.