Jump to content

Lowry eligible elected member of B.O.E.


Guest Vetted
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest A Smart Kearny Voter

Don't know if anyone touched on this, so if I'm repeating anything I apologies. According to the board attorney this board cannot stop her from taking the seat for which she was elected. They can in a very shady and I think unethical way waste tax payers money to challenge her seat. The board of education should not be spending tax payers money for a polical pissing match, that is not what they were elected to do! If a private citizen had a problem with Debbie being elected and thought her retirement pension would result in a conflict of interest it should be up to them to challenge the election result. Don't spend my money to fight against what the people have asked for, and that is a change from the current majority on this pathetic board! Now Mrs Lowry has put forth in a written letter read and put into the record at the last board meeting two options that would allow the people's elected choice to be seated and save the town exorbitant legal fees, and who makes out on those fees the board of education attorney that's who. First option deferr the payments in question to a time when Mrs Lowry is no longer on the board or second option pay her what she is entitled to in a lump sum, which would kill her in taxes but she is willing to do it. Now will this majority of the board heed to the people's voice or will they play their dirty politics. If they play politics and needlessly spend more taxpayers money making the board attorney rich remember all of this next November! People in Kearny are ALOT smarter than you think!

You didn't mention a third option. She can give up her rights to the remaining $68,000.00 and take the Board seat. Will she do that? Of course not, she isn't walking away from that kind retirement "boat check". (BTW, fortunately for Kearny taxpayers, that ridiculous retirement payout no longer applies for Administrators hired after 2002).

Precisely for this reason is why there is a STATE LAW that a Board of Education member must NOT have an interest in a contract with the Board. Deferring what's owed to her under the contract doesn't change her interest in that money. Only giving it up forever would. If she's really interested in serving the children and representing her voters, then she'd do that. If she wants to get paid first, then she should run for Board of Education in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest One sided

Don't know if anyone touched on this, so if I'm repeating anything I apologies. According to the board attorney this board cannot stop her from taking the seat for which she was elected. They can in a very shady and I think unethical way waste tax payers money to challenge her seat. The board of education should not be spending tax payers money for a polical pissing match, that is not what they were elected to do! If a private citizen had a problem with Debbie being elected and thought her retirement pension would result in a conflict of interest it should be up to them to challenge the election result. Don't spend my money to fight against what the people have asked for, and that is a change from the current majority on this pathetic board! Now Mrs Lowry has put forth in a written letter read and put into the record at the last board meeting two options that would allow the people's elected choice to be seated and save the town exorbitant legal fees, and who makes out on those fees the board of education attorney that's who. First option deferr the payments in question to a time when Mrs Lowry is no longer on the board or second option pay her what she is entitled to in a lump sum, which would kill her in taxes but she is willing to do it. Now will this majority of the board heed to the people's voice or will they play their dirty politics. If they play politics and needlessly spend more taxpayers money making the board attorney rich remember all of this next November! People in Kearny are ALOT smarter than you think!

I agree with one thing you said, they're a lot smarter, that is, a lot smarter than you !! Before you post such crap do your homework and don't believe everything you're fed.

1- Board can not stop her from being seated == Correct.

2- Waste of tax dollars == incorrect, the Board, the whole Board, all 9 members have taken an oath to uphold the Laws of the State of NJ. Lowry's issue was known publicly. They have an obligation to check if this is fact or fiction. Maybe a $100.00 for attorney to send a letter to DOE for an answer, yet what Lowry is asking for will cost thousands of dollars to see if her "payoff" is legal.

3- Defer payments === Illegal, not allowed.

4- Lump sum payment, posible, but spend thousands of taxpayers dollars to get an approval from the State and DOE, if even allowed. But that waste of taxpayers dollars is OK with you because you want Lowry on the Board, not to mention doing it to get around the LAW.

No politics, just doing what MUST be done when faced with a situation that needs to be addressed.

Now if this was a member of the "other" side, you know that terrible group that you don't approved of, Kleenex would be out of tissue from all the crying you and the loyal soldiers would be doing to prevent the person from being seated. It all depends on what foot the shoe is on !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Longevity pay

You didn't mention a third option. She can give up her rights to the remaining $68,000.00 and take the Board seat. Will she do that? Of course not, she isn't walking away from that kind retirement "boat check". (BTW, fortunately for Kearny taxpayers, that ridiculous retirement payout no longer applies for Administrators hired after 2002).

Precisely for this reason is why there is a STATE LAW that a Board of Education member must NOT have an interest in a contract with the Board. Deferring what's owed to her under the contract doesn't change her interest in that money. Only giving it up forever would. If she's really interested in serving the children and representing her voters, then she'd do that. If she wants to get paid first, then she should run for Board of Education in 2016.

You didn't mention a third option. She can give up her rights to the remaining $68,000.00 and take the Board seat. Will she do that? Of course not, she isn't walking away from that kind retirement "boat check". (BTW, fortunately for Kearny taxpayers, that ridiculous retirement payout no longer applies for Administrators hired after 2002).

Precisely for this reason is why there is a STATE LAW that a Board of Education member must NOT have an interest in a contract with the Board. Deferring what's owed to her under the contract doesn't change her interest in that money. Only giving it up forever would. If she's really interested in serving the children and representing her voters, then she'd do that. If she wants to get paid first, then she should run for Board of Education in 2016.

Well would Mr Plaugic or Mr King give up their ridiculous longevity pay us poor towns folk pay them every year? Yea look into that one as I hear it started way back when to bridge the gap in some contract dispute and was supposed to be abolished after the disputes were settled but they go on and on! Since you guys are so worried about the money owed Lowry Will you guys give back longevity pay? You should you all should and I know what I mean when I say all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't mention a third option. She can give up her rights to the remaining $68,000.00 and take the Board seat. Will she do that? Of course not, she isn't walking away from that kind retirement "boat check". (BTW, fortunately for Kearny taxpayers, that ridiculous retirement payout no longer applies for Administrators hired after 2002).

Precisely for this reason is why there is a STATE LAW that a Board of Education member must NOT have an interest in a contract with the Board. Deferring what's owed to her under the contract doesn't change her interest in that money. Only giving it up forever would. If she's really interested in serving the children and representing her voters, then she'd do that. If she wants to get paid first, then she should run for Board of Education in 2016.

That is completely unreasonable, asking a citizen to give up $68,000 for the privilege of serving in an unpaid position and taking abuse from people like you. "Common sense" is right on the money. Let's see if the five stooges play politics or follow the people's will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Baloney on Rye

You didn't mention a third option. She can give up her rights to the remaining $68,000.00 and take the Board seat. Will she do that? Of course not, she isn't walking away from that kind retirement "boat check". (BTW, fortunately for Kearny taxpayers, that ridiculous retirement payout no longer applies for Administrators hired after 2002).

Precisely for this reason is why there is a STATE LAW that a Board of Education member must NOT have an interest in a contract with the Board. Deferring what's owed to her under the contract doesn't change her interest in that money. Only giving it up forever would. If she's really interested in serving the children and representing her voters, then she'd do that. If she wants to get paid first, then she should run for Board of Education in 2016.

Ms. Lowry has an INTEREST in the money she earned during her 32 years of employment with the Kearny Board of Education, and who wouldn't? Can you be serious suggesting that she walk away from that? It seems to me that serving on the board of education is a VOLUNTEER position with no compensation, no benefits, etc. I've never believed that being the beneficiary of your earned money presents any kind of conflict at all. As far as I'm concerned, I don't believe the fact that Ms. Lowry is receiving what is duly owed to her would have any impact at all with her decisions at the table. Why would it? And let's be real here, o.k.? If the only people that ran for the board of ed were "really interested in serving the children and representing their voters", there would be at least 5 empty seats at that table right now. Seriously, give me a break with your holier than thou nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I HATE THE FAB 5 GRR

Does her check for unused sick days say Board of Education on it? Then whether "she earned it" or not is not the question. She is getting paid by the Board of Education. Sick days are given as a part of the contract that teachers and

administrator have with the Board of Education. If you decide NOT to use the sick days, you can bank them for the future. If you save 200 days, you will receive one year's pay as your reward when you retire. Every fifty days more than 200 that you save,

you get another $10,000--the more you save in groups of fifty the more money you get. This pay is spread over a five year period and paid in one lump sum per year--such as $100,000 divided by five equals $20,000--this would be the lump sum

per year for the five years. Call it apples, oranges, or whatever, it is PAY that this person will be getting for five years. It is income that is taxable--Federal and State.

Can you be a part of the Board of Education and be paid by the same group? The Board of Education is a volunteer position--why should this person be paid and the others not? Please explain?

Honey, I think you're confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Smart Kearny Voter

Ms. Lowry has an INTEREST in the money she earned during her 32 years of employment with the Kearny Board of Education, and who wouldn't? Can you be serious suggesting that she walk away from that? It seems to me that serving on the board of education is a VOLUNTEER position with no compensation, no benefits, etc. I've never believed that being the beneficiary of your earned money presents any kind of conflict at all. As far as I'm concerned, I don't believe the fact that Ms. Lowry is receiving what is duly owed to her would have any impact at all with her decisions at the table. Why would it? And let's be real here, o.k.? If the only people that ran for the board of ed were "really interested in serving the children and representing their voters", there would be at least 5 empty seats at that table right now. Seriously, give me a break with your holier than thou nonsense.

It doesn't matter what you believe. We live in a nation of laws. Lowry's candidacy was illegal because of her interest in that money. Your arrogance is stunning. You accuse me of being "holier than thou" when you think you're above the law. You're not above the law. Neither is Lowry. She either gives up the money or waits until 2016. Which will it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Do As I Say, Not As I Do

I agree with one thing you said, they're a lot smarter, that is, a lot smarter than you !! Before you post such crap do your homework and don't believe everything you're fed.

1- Board can not stop her from being seated == Correct.

2- Waste of tax dollars == incorrect, the Board, the whole Board, all 9 members have taken an oath to uphold the Laws of the State of NJ. Lowry's issue was known publicly. They have an obligation to check if this is fact or fiction. Maybe a $100.00 for attorney to send a letter to DOE for an answer, yet what Lowry is asking for will cost thousands of dollars to see if her "payoff" is legal.

3- Defer payments === Illegal, not allowed.

4- Lump sum payment, posible, but spend thousands of taxpayers dollars to get an approval from the State and DOE, if even allowed. But that waste of taxpayers dollars is OK with you because you want Lowry on the Board, not to mention doing it to get around the LAW.

No politics, just doing what MUST be done when faced with a situation that needs to be addressed.

Now if this was a member of the "other" side, you know that terrible group that you don't approved of, Kleenex would be out of tissue from all the crying you and the loyal soldiers would be doing to prevent the person from being seated. It all depends on what foot the shoe is on !!!

Maybe then you can explain how Mr. King is allowed to serve. He has a similar situation regarding a conflict of interest before the an administrative law judge and the DOE Commissioner. I don't remember any of the remaining Fab5 finding this to be a problem and asking for a ruling. You are right about this being one sided. They worked really hard at keeping George's issue hidden. It's really sad how power and agendas influence evertything they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Read the Law!

Maybe then you can explain how Mr. King is allowed to serve. He has a similar situation regarding a conflict of interest before the an administrative law judge and the DOE Commissioner. I don't remember any of the remaining Fab5 finding this to be a problem and asking for a ruling. You are right about this being one sided. They worked really hard at keeping George's issue hidden. It's really sad how power and agendas influence evertything they do.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The Lowry issue is NOT a conflict of interest issue that would go to the State ethics commission. It's about a REQUIRED QUALIFICATION in order to run and be on the Board of Education. State law says a person is "prohibited" from serving on a board of education if she has an interest in a contract with the board or a claim against the board. Does King have an interest in a contract with the Board? or did he file a claim against the Board? If the answer is no and no, then he can serve. That's not saying he doesn't have a conflict on certain issues that may come before him on the Board, in which case he'd have to recuse himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Smarter than you

It doesn't matter what you believe. We live in a nation of laws. Lowry's candidacy was illegal because of her interest in that money. Your arrogance is stunning. You accuse me of being "holier than thou" when you think you're above the law. You're not above the law. Neither is Lowry. She either gives up the money or waits until 2016. Which will it be?

Oh, I see, it doesn't matter what I believe. I guess it also doesn't matter how I vote either, and you think I'm arrogant? Don't preach to me, I don't need your counsel. You seem awfully sure that the state will rule against Lowry. Me? I'm not so sure. There are several aspects to take into consideration here, and I'm not ARROGANT enough to know which way the state will rule. It's quite clear which way you hope it will end, but sometimes, you should be careful what you wish for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Also Smarter Than You

The law is clear. The statute says a person is 'prohibited' from being a board member if he has an 'interest in a contract' with the board. You can't spin that. You can't change the facts. You're entitled to your opinion but you can't make up the law or make up your facts. But when you were called out, you respond by accusing the person of being 'holier than thou'. That is arrogance, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Big Wee Wee

The law is clear. The statute says a person is 'prohibited' from being a board member if he has an 'interest in a contract' with the board. You can't spin that. You can't change the facts. You're entitled to your opinion but you can't make up the law or make up your facts. But when you were called out, you respond by accusing the person of being 'holier than thou'. That is arrogance, in my opinion.

"The law is clear". Really, I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard those words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law is clear. The statute says a person is 'prohibited' from being a board member if he has an 'interest in a contract' with the board. You can't spin that. You can't change the facts. You're entitled to your opinion but you can't make up the law or make up your facts. But when you were called out, you respond by accusing the person of being 'holier than thou'. That is arrogance, in my opinion.

Yeah, I guess we should do whatever we can to prevent putting anybody with a knowledge of the educational process on the board of ed. That could be dangerous. Decisions could be made that actually make sense. People wouldn't be fired on a whim. Test scores might go up. We wouldn't want that. We don't really want to go forward when it's just so much easier to slide down that slippery slope. Pandora's box has been opened & it's almost fun watching what will come out next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Education Not Required

Yeah, I guess we should do whatever we can to prevent putting anybody with a knowledge of the educational process on the board of ed. That could be dangerous. Decisions could be made that actually make sense. People wouldn't be fired on a whim. Test scores might go up. We wouldn't want that. We don't really want to go forward when it's just so much easier to slide down that slippery slope. Pandora's box has been opened & it's almost fun watching what will come out next.

Yeah, right. Lowry might have been an"educator" for 32 years, but that carries no weight. Especially when she retired because Test Scores were in the TANK while she was at the wheel !!! Couldn't handle it, so she took the money and ran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, right. Lowry might have been an"educator" for 32 years, but that carries no weight. Especially when she retired because Test Scores were in the TANK while she was at the wheel !!! Couldn't handle it, so she took the money and ran.

Another cheap shot from Kearny's right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess we should do whatever we can to prevent putting anybody with a knowledge of the educational process on the board of ed. That could be dangerous. Decisions could be made that actually make sense. People wouldn't be fired on a whim. Test scores might go up. We wouldn't want that. We don't really want to go forward when it's just so much easier to slide down that slippery slope. Pandora's box has been opened & it's almost fun watching what will come out next.

You have an educated person there already. Who else could say "You's guys" better then J.L.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...