Jump to content

Challenging Your Vote


Guest John Q. Public
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest John Q. Public

It seems that voting a candidate into office, and voting an incumbent out, is not quite enough proof for the current board of ed majority that people want change. There are rumors everywhere that this current majority aren't gonna accept it. By challenging board member-elect Lowry's right to her position, the majority will once again defy public opinion and pull yet another underhanded move. Of course they will cloak the whole thing as a means to protect the board from any illegality. They will accuse Lowry of a conflict of interest because she is receiving her annual retirement payout, a payout that is for sick days she earned during her 35 years of employment with the boe. A payout that was negotiated years ago by every bargaining unit and a payout provision that is no longer available to new employees. If they are successful in removing her, then what? Who do they think they can replace her with? It will definitely be someone WHO WAS NOT ELECTED BY THE VOTERS OF THIS TOWN. You have to wonder why this challenge was not brought forward BEFORE the election & why they are so desperate to hang on to their majority. What - or who - are they so afraid of? When is enough enough for these people? Board meeting Monday, November 19 at 7, if you care about your vote, or better yet, if you care about your vote being taken away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest It's All About the Law

It seems that voting a candidate into office, and voting an incumbent out, is not quite enough proof for the current board of ed majority that people want change. There are rumors everywhere that this current majority aren't gonna accept it. By challenging board member-elect Lowry's right to her position, the majority will once again defy public opinion and pull yet another underhanded move. Of course they will cloak the whole thing as a means to protect the board from any illegality. They will accuse Lowry of a conflict of interest because she is receiving her annual retirement payout, a payout that is for sick days she earned during her 35 years of employment with the boe. A payout that was negotiated years ago by every bargaining unit and a payout provision that is no longer available to new employees. If they are successful in removing her, then what? Who do they think they can replace her with? It will definitely be someone WHO WAS NOT ELECTED BY THE VOTERS OF THIS TOWN. You have to wonder why this challenge was not brought forward BEFORE the election & why they are so desperate to hang on to their majority. What - or who - are they so afraid of? When is enough enough for these people? Board meeting Monday, November 19 at 7, if you care about your vote, or better yet, if you care about your vote being taken away.

This is not a "move" by the Board majority, but the WHOLE BOARD is sworn to uphold the LAWS of the State of NJ. So let's see if the WHOLE BOARD does what they are sworn to do or will the minority want to defy the LAW because the "minority" are the ones who are "desperate" and "afraid" and time will tell WHY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Baloney on Rye

This is not a "move" by the Board majority, but the WHOLE BOARD is sworn to uphold the LAWS of the State of NJ. So let's see if the WHOLE BOARD does what they are sworn to do or will the minority want to defy the LAW because the "minority" are the ones who are "desperate" and "afraid" and time will tell WHY.

I totally disagree. It is a "move" and a calculated one at that. And how very noble that the majority is now so interested in upholding the LAW. Do you think that's a convincing argument considering some of their past "moves"? Sore losers, bottom line, and desperate to hold on to their majority. Addicted to their own sense of power and more than willing to spend taxpayers dollars to keep it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sliced BS on Rye

I totally disagree. It is a "move" and a calculated one at that. And how very noble that the majority is now so interested in upholding the LAW. Do you think that's a convincing argument considering some of their past "moves"? Sore losers, bottom line, and desperate to hold on to their majority. Addicted to their own sense of power and more than willing to spend taxpayers dollars to keep it.

Slice it anyway you want, if the board spends a few dollars to get an opinion that is the right thing to do. If Mrs. Lowry wants a decision to try to "beat" the Law than that is going to take a whole lot more taxpayers dollars, i.e, spend tax dollars to find out if PAYING her off up front and NOW is allowed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slice it anyway you want, if the board spends a few dollars to get an opinion that is the right thing to do. If Mrs. Lowry wants a decision to try to "beat" the Law than that is going to take a whole lot more taxpayers dollars, i.e, spend tax dollars to find out if PAYING her off up front and NOW is allowed

That's BS. There's no question that the Board could pay off the amount owed now. They could easily negotiate terms with Lowry if they were truly worried about the taxpayers paying more in interest.

That is exactly what they would do if they valued the outcome of the election, which is to say, if they valued the will of the people. But Castelli and his minions do not value the will of the people. They are petty little men who will not hesitate to put their own agendas ahead of the people.

It comes down to this: the people voted for Debbie Lowry and deserve to have her on the BOE. More to the point, we deserve to have our will respected and honored. If her eligibility was a problem, the five Republicans who are trying to keep her off the Board should have raised it before the election, so the responsible ticket could find a replacement. It's about the people. Let's see whether it works out that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Still Baloney

Slice it anyway you want, if the board spends a few dollars to get an opinion that is the right thing to do. If Mrs. Lowry wants a decision to try to "beat" the Law than that is going to take a whole lot more taxpayers dollars, i.e, spend tax dollars to find out if PAYING her off up front and NOW is allowed

"Beat the law"? You do realize that this is all some ridiculous formality, don't you? The fact that Ms. Lowry has to somehow justify receiving money that she earned during her more than 30 years at the Board of Education is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, the laws have now changed, but for her - and many past and future retirees - it's still perfectly LEGAL. The fact that she is still a beneficiary of money due her does not constitute her doing something wrong. And does anybody believe that her receiving this money somehow makes her biased on any decisions affecting the boe or students? The state of NJ should realize that getting QUALITY candidates to even consider running for school boards is dwindling every year. When a QUALITY candidate is elected by a majority of voters, why should some archaic ruling apply? I guess the state of NJ would rather have do-nothing, self-serving candidates over the age of 21 who can read & write English sit and make decisions regarding the educational future of their town. Not me. I find that prospect scary and ultimately - as we've seen in the last 18 months - extremely detrimental to the future of this town and its kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Always Politics

That's BS. There's no question that the Board could pay off the amount owed now. They could easily negotiate terms with Lowry if they were truly worried about the taxpayers paying more in interest.

That is exactly what they would do if they valued the outcome of the election, which is to say, if they valued the will of the people. But Castelli and his minions do not value the will of the people. They are petty little men who will not hesitate to put their own agendas ahead of the people.

It comes down to this: the people voted for Debbie Lowry and deserve to have her on the BOE. More to the point, we deserve to have our will respected and honored. If her eligibility was a problem, the five Republicans who are trying to keep her off the Board should have raised it before the election, so the responsible ticket could find a replacement. It's about the people. Let's see whether it works out that way.

See this is the problem with the foolish four and their hypnotized following. They think that the Board and themselves can do whatever they want ALL the time. The Board can not negotiate with Lowry. These topics are uncharted issues. They must go through the proper AUTHORITY, not her BUDDIES on the Board.

Now, someway, somehow comes the "TWIST" again. Blame the 5 other members for this whole debacle !!! Lowry's "minions" have posted here stating she has "VETTED" this issue in great detail "PRIOR" to the election. So if she did this, she and her cronies OBVIOUSLY KNEW about this PRIOR to the election. Now you all want to pass blame. This is not and was not the other Board members responsibility to investigate, the whole burden rests solely on the CANDIDATE (Lowry). Shame on her and her ticket for trying to get over on the people and the system !!!!

Also, check voter registry on the Hudson County clerk site..........the 5 Republicans you speak of are NOT all Republicans, by the way why would Party matter?, the BOE is a non-partisan group, or it should be, but you proved that you and the Lowry ticket are as usual about POLITICS !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robin Hood

See this is the problem with the foolish four and their hypnotized following. They think that the Board and themselves can do whatever they want ALL the time. The Board can not negotiate with Lowry. These topics are uncharted issues. They must go through the proper AUTHORITY, not her BUDDIES on the Board.

Now, someway, somehow comes the "TWIST" again. Blame the 5 other members for this whole debacle !!! Lowry's "minions" have posted here stating she has "VETTED" this issue in great detail "PRIOR" to the election. So if she did this, she and her cronies OBVIOUSLY KNEW about this PRIOR to the election. Now you all want to pass blame. This is not and was not the other Board members responsibility to investigate, the whole burden rests solely on the CANDIDATE (Lowry). Shame on her and her ticket for trying to get over on the people and the system !!!!

Also, check voter registry on the Hudson County clerk site..........the 5 Republicans you speak of are NOT all Republicans, by the way why would Party matter?, the BOE is a non-partisan group, or it should be, but you proved that you and the Lowry ticket are as usual about POLITICS !!!!!

Yeah, King George and his band of "Merry Men" had NOTHING to do with this, nothing at all, no way, no how, never, nada. Yeah, right. Shame on YOU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this is the problem with the foolish four and their hypnotized following. They think that the Board and themselves can do whatever they want ALL the time. The Board can not negotiate with Lowry. These topics are uncharted issues. They must go through the proper AUTHORITY, not her BUDDIES on the Board.

Now, someway, somehow comes the "TWIST" again. Blame the 5 other members for this whole debacle !!! Lowry's "minions" have posted here stating she has "VETTED" this issue in great detail "PRIOR" to the election. So if she did this, she and her cronies OBVIOUSLY KNEW about this PRIOR to the election. Now you all want to pass blame. This is not and was not the other Board members responsibility to investigate, the whole burden rests solely on the CANDIDATE (Lowry). Shame on her and her ticket for trying to get over on the people and the system !!!!

Also, check voter registry on the Hudson County clerk site..........the 5 Republicans you speak of are NOT all Republicans, by the way why would Party matter?, the BOE is a non-partisan group, or it should be, but you proved that you and the Lowry ticket are as usual about POLITICS !!!!!

Whether they are registered as Republicans or not, they are clearly right wing know-nothings who have damaged our town by mindless adherence to ideology. I will blame them if they try to shove Castelli down our throats. He lost, not by a little but by a lot. Same with Campbell. Period, end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this is the problem with the foolish four and their hypnotized following. They think that the Board and themselves can do whatever they want ALL the time. The Board can not negotiate with Lowry. These topics are uncharted issues. They must go through the proper AUTHORITY, not her BUDDIES on the Board.

Now, someway, somehow comes the "TWIST" again. Blame the 5 other members for this whole debacle !!! Lowry's "minions" have posted here stating she has "VETTED" this issue in great detail "PRIOR" to the election. So if she did this, she and her cronies OBVIOUSLY KNEW about this PRIOR to the election. Now you all want to pass blame. This is not and was not the other Board members responsibility to investigate, the whole burden rests solely on the CANDIDATE (Lowry). Shame on her and her ticket for trying to get over on the people and the system !!!!

Also, check voter registry on the Hudson County clerk site..........the 5 Republicans you speak of are NOT all Republicans, by the way why would Party matter?, the BOE is a non-partisan group, or it should be, but you proved that you and the Lowry ticket are as usual about POLITICS !!!!!

Hypnotized following? The people of Kearny are not hypnotized. That is a disrespectful thing to say. So you're obviously an ideologue with an agenda, and a supporter of the current BOE majority. Only they lost the election because the people don't like what they've done. And you obviously know enough about the BOE 5 to know where they stand politically, and how they are registered. In fact, it's likely that you are one of the five current BOE members, because very few people would take the time to check their party registrations. So you're not fooling anyone.

And you're dead wrong about the BOE's power to work out a deal that solves the problem. All the BOE has to do is settle the future payments issue before year's end, then Lowry can take office, because there won't be any potential conflict of interest. The BOE could easily work a deal that doesn't cost Kearny taxpayers money, and which would satisfy Lowry. All they have to do is pay out the present value of her future payouts now. That's not hard to figure out, or to do. Then the people could get the candidate we voted for, without costing the taxpayers anything. But no, the five who control the Board would rather spend money on legal fees than work out a deal, because they don't want Lowry on the Board.

But that's not right, because here is what matters: The people are entitled to have the candidates we voted for on the Board. What happened is not our fault, and if there was a problem with Lowry's candidacy, the BOE majority should have challenged that candidacy before the election.

So sure, you can blame either side or both sides but this is not about you, or the five or the four or anyone except the people of Kearny, who expressed our collective will very clearly. We want the current five out and a new set of people in. But unfortunately, the five who were repudiated in the latest election are still on the BOE, and they do not want Lowry to take that seat, because they know that she will vote to end the policies of the current five, which is what the people voted to do. In other words, King, Leadbeater, Castelli, et. al., don't care that the people of Kearny want them out and Lowry in. They're willing to ignore the most basic principle of democracy to serve their own ends. They won't even try to work out a deal. And that is despicable. I hope the people of Kearny will have the good sense never to vote for any of those characters again - for anything!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest She Should Apologize

"Beat the law"? You do realize that this is all some ridiculous formality, don't you? The fact that Ms. Lowry has to somehow justify receiving money that she earned during her more than 30 years at the Board of Education is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, the laws have now changed, but for her - and many past and future retirees - it's still perfectly LEGAL. The fact that she is still a beneficiary of money due her does not constitute her doing something wrong. And does anybody believe that her receiving this money somehow makes her biased on any decisions affecting the boe or students? The state of NJ should realize that getting QUALITY candidates to even consider running for school boards is dwindling every year. When a QUALITY candidate is elected by a majority of voters, why should some archaic ruling apply? I guess the state of NJ would rather have do-nothing, self-serving candidates over the age of 21 who can read & write English sit and make decisions regarding the educational future of their town. Not me. I find that prospect scary and ultimately - as we've seen in the last 18 months - extremely detrimental to the future of this town and its kids.

It's not an "archaic ruling". It's a relatively recent (several years ago) State law enacted by the legislature to prevent conflicted interests on boards of education. Board members have a fiduciary duty to protect the school district but that comes into question if a member has an ongoing financial interest in a contract with, or claim against, the Board. The recent rulings are straightforward applications of the law. Either Lowry missed it (embarassing) or thought it wouldn't be picked up by Kearny residents (insulting).

As to your argument that if not for her, a retired teacher with a direct financial interest, there would only be "do-nothing, self-serving candidates", spare us. There were ten candidates that ran, several of whom can do the job adequately There are also many others in our community who would also be good if given a chance. Problem is neither side of this war gives anyone a chance unless you agree to fight their war.

Ms. Lowry cannot serve as a matter of law. She owes all Kearny residents an apology for allowing her name to appear on the ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an "archaic ruling". It's a relatively recent (several years ago) State law enacted by the legislature to prevent conflicted interests on boards of education. Board members have a fiduciary duty to protect the school district but that comes into question if a member has an ongoing financial interest in a contract with, or claim against, the Board. The recent rulings are straightforward applications of the law. Either Lowry missed it (embarassing) or thought it wouldn't be picked up by Kearny residents (insulting).

As to your argument that if not for her, a retired teacher with a direct financial interest, there would only be "do-nothing, self-serving candidates", spare us. There were ten candidates that ran, several of whom can do the job adequately There are also many others in our community who would also be good if given a chance. Problem is neither side of this war gives anyone a chance unless you agree to fight their war.

Ms. Lowry cannot serve as a matter of law. She owes all Kearny residents an apology for allowing her name to appear on the ballot.

There are already BOE members that have finacial interests in the district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an "archaic ruling". It's a relatively recent (several years ago) State law enacted by the legislature to prevent conflicted interests on boards of education. Board members have a fiduciary duty to protect the school district but that comes into question if a member has an ongoing financial interest in a contract with, or claim against, the Board. The recent rulings are straightforward applications of the law. Either Lowry missed it (embarassing) or thought it wouldn't be picked up by Kearny residents (insulting).

As to your argument that if not for her, a retired teacher with a direct financial interest, there would only be "do-nothing, self-serving candidates", spare us. There were ten candidates that ran, several of whom can do the job adequately There are also many others in our community who would also be good if given a chance. Problem is neither side of this war gives anyone a chance unless you agree to fight their war.

Ms. Lowry cannot serve as a matter of law. She owes all Kearny residents an apology for allowing her name to appear on the ballot.

No you owe the people who have spoken an apology for this nonsense! They will remember no matter how this turns out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robin Hood

It's not an "archaic ruling". It's a relatively recent (several years ago) State law enacted by the legislature to prevent conflicted interests on boards of education. Board members have a fiduciary duty to protect the school district but that comes into question if a member has an ongoing financial interest in a contract with, or claim against, the Board. The recent rulings are straightforward applications of the law. Either Lowry missed it (embarassing) or thought it wouldn't be picked up by Kearny residents (insulting).

As to your argument that if not for her, a retired teacher with a direct financial interest, there would only be "do-nothing, self-serving candidates", spare us. There were ten candidates that ran, several of whom can do the job adequately There are also many others in our community who would also be good if given a chance. Problem is neither side of this war gives anyone a chance unless you agree to fight their war.

Ms. Lowry cannot serve as a matter of law. She owes all Kearny residents an apology for allowing her name to appear on the ballot.

Well, you're right about one thing. An ADEQUATE job would certainly be better than what these 5 clowns have been doing for the past 18 months. And exactly what is stopping other community members from running for the school board. Given the chance? What the hell does that mean? How come John Campbell manages to run every damn year? As for Lowry and your interpretation of the "matter of law", when exactly were you appointed as commissioner of education? Unless you're an attorney with a background in school law and might actually have some inkling of what you're talking about, maybe you shouldn't sound so very sure of yourself. But, we'll see how this plays out. As for Debbie Lowry - she owes NO ONE an apology for anything. You, on the other hand, are a smug, rude know-it-all who, I'm quite sure, does NOT know-it-all.

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...