Jump to content

Town cops on B O E no conflict?


Guest Tell me

Recommended Posts

Guest In the Know Too

I haven't been on KOTW for years. Nice to see that not much has changed.......anonymous posters who don't know their a**es from a hole in the ground spouting innuendo like it was truth. If "throwing stones" means drawing attention to PERCEIVED conflicts, then there are some boulders yet to be hurled. As for all the conflicts by which my family members "continue to benefit", please be specific, so I can proceed to expose your absolute ignorance. Thank you

Barbara Cifelli-Sherry

The conflict with Freeholder Cifelli posted above was very specific, yet you dodged answering it under the guise of righteous indignation. Let's try again. You at the Board of Education Meeting said the two Kearny police officers on the Board of Education are conflicted because one works for the other. I don't even know if that's true although they are different ranks. Now let's compare Freeholder Al Cifelli, who was with you at the Board of Education meeting. Freeholder Cifelli is employed by Harrison Mayor Ray McDonough at Harrison Town Hall. As a Freeholder, he represents Harrison, Kearny, East Newark and Secaucus but he is not employed by those other towns, only Harrison. How does Freeholder Al Cifelli handle his employment-related conflict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Poor Judgement

I haven't been on KOTW for years. Nice to see that not much has changed.......anonymous posters who don't know their a**es from a hole in the ground spouting innuendo like it was truth. If "throwing stones" means drawing attention to PERCEIVED conflicts, then there are some boulders yet to be hurled. As for all the conflicts by which my family members "continue to benefit", please be specific, so I can proceed to expose your absolute ignorance. Thank you

Barbara Cifelli-Sherry

Barbara,

For being a public figure you should talk about "spouting innuendo like it was truth". You speak at a BOE meeting making statements which are false and you post an editorial in the Observer which was 100% inaccurate. You are speaking and writing on "hear say" and rumors from people who are friends with you. You go and spread the info they give you and that makes you not a very credible person. Check you information for being "factual" before you attach your Cifelli name to it. Try practicing what you preach.

Jonathan Wozniack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only point worth talking about, as a take-away from this topic, is that the law is intended to serve a purpose. But in this instance we have one law that guards against inconsequential and non-existent conflicts, while more major conflicts are allowed to exist. Lawmakers cannot foresee every situation, and they are far from perfect. However, Debbie Lowry is being prohibited from serving on the Board because of a statutorily defined conflict that wouldn't interfere with her ability to serve on the Board and represent the people's interests, while Castelli (whom she just clobbered in the election) casts one of the votes denying her a chance to eliminate the conflict, and two other Board members have more obvious conflicts than she has. The law didn't do what it was supposed to do, and five Board members served themselves instead of the people. It stinks but that's the outcome. That's the downside of a system of laws, and the only thing worse is a system without laws. Let's pick up the pieces and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Cifellis" did not accuse anyone of anything. I, Barbara Cifelli-Sherry, said that while I, personally, did not construe the two officers as necessarily being conflicted, I understand that some members of the general public might perceive a conflict. Please, if you're going to relate a situation, try not to screw it up. To address your concerns regarding Freeholder Cifelli, my brother, you might want to do your homework. His certifications predate his elective office by decades....there is no conflict. And don't worry about his ability to act fairly as representative for all of his constituents-----he has this quality called integrity!

That response is (no pun intended) a cop-out. It's like saying, "I'm not saying you beat your spouse, but other people in the general public have said you beat your spouse." Why say that at all publicly except to score unfair political points?

As to Freeholder Cifelli, if I understand your response, he can be an employee for the town of Harrison and still represent Kearny and Secaucus because he has integrity. To take your approach, should I now say that the "general public might perceive a conflict" because Freeholder Cifelli is on Mayor McDonough's payroll in Harrison and will favor Harrison in how he votes? Put another way, don't the two Kearny police officers on the Kearny Board of Education also have integrity? don't the two officers also know how to keep their employment separate from their public service? I'd say you're being selective in how you apply "perceived conflicts" and ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Barbara Cifelli-Sherry

The conflict with Freeholder Cifelli posted above was very specific, yet you dodged answering it under the guise of righteous indignation. Let's try again. You at the Board of Education Meeting said the two Kearny police officers on the Board of Education are conflicted because one works for the other. I don't even know if that's true although they are different ranks. Now let's compare Freeholder Al Cifelli, who was with you at the Board of Education meeting. Freeholder Cifelli is employed by Harrison Mayor Ray McDonough at Harrison Town Hall. As a Freeholder, he represents Harrison, Kearny, East Newark and Secaucus but he is not employed by those other towns, only Harrison. How does Freeholder Al Cifelli handle his employment-related conflict?

Either you were not at the meeting or you were not listening, so I will make this as simple as possible so you can understand. I specifically said that while I did not perceive the two police officers as necessarily having a conflict, I fully understand how members of the public, unfamiliar with the individuals involved, would be concerned about a superior officer serving with one in his command. As for my letter to the Observer, I stand by every single word and I challenge you to find any inconsistencies.

Your assertion that Freeholder Cifelli cannot represent his district properly because he is certified by the State of New Jersey as an assessor for Harrison is ludicrous. His certifications predate his elective office and are the result of continous education and rigorous testing. Do you really think he would jeopardize his private/professional reputation, which by the way is spotless, by not governing in a fair and unbiased way? Apparently the voters of ALL the municipalities in his district are very comfortable with his representation. They continually re-elect him by huge pluralities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conflict with Freeholder Cifelli posted above was very specific, yet you dodged answering it under the guise of righteous indignation. Let's try again. You at the Board of Education Meeting said the two Kearny police officers on the Board of Education are conflicted because one works for the other. I don't even know if that's true although they are different ranks. Now let's compare Freeholder Al Cifelli, who was with you at the Board of Education meeting. Freeholder Cifelli is employed by Harrison Mayor Ray McDonough at Harrison Town Hall. As a Freeholder, he represents Harrison, Kearny, East Newark and Secaucus but he is not employed by those other towns, only Harrison. How does Freeholder Al Cifelli handle his employment-related conflict?

It is not. D/C King is in Charge of Patrol. Det Plaugic is under Capt Durkin, who Reports Directly to the Chief of Police. While D/C King holds higher rank than Det Plaugic, he is not in direct Supervision of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Cifellis" did not accuse anyone of anything. I, Barbara Cifelli-Sherry, said that while I, personally, did not construe the two officers as necessarily being conflicted, I understand that some members of the general public might perceive a conflict. Please, if you're going to relate a situation, try not to screw it up. To address your concerns regarding Freeholder Cifelli, my brother, you might want to do your homework. His certifications predate his elective office by decades....there is no conflict. And don't worry about his ability to act fairly as representative for all of his constituents-----he has this quality called integrity!

Because Cifelli would never use their name to get what they want. Riiiiiiight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Taxpayer

You're right Freeholder Albert Cifelli didn't speak at the meeting. He sat next to his sister Barbara Cifelli-Sherry and cousin Laura Cifelli-Pettigrew both of whom spoke (Sherry at the last meeting, Pettigrew at the prior meeting). It was either the first or second Board of Education meeting that the Freeholder has EVER attended in his 12 years as a Freeholder. He was not there to hear about the new Wi-Fi in the school buildings. He was there to be part of a lame "Cifelli power" demonstration.

Plaugic and King were elected by the residents of Kearny who knew that they were Kearny police officers. On the other hand, I doubt Kearny residents know that Freeholder Cifelli is on Mayor McDonough's payroll.

Two thoughts:

A. How can you be so sure that every person who voted for either King or Plaugic KNEW they were police officers? And even if EVERY person who voted for them did know they were police officers, that doesn't change the fact that there COULD still be a PERCEIVED conflict. Please look up the definition of the word "perceived" because that is exactly the word used by Ms. Sherry when she spoke at the meeting, and she wasn't saying she PERCEIVED it to be a conflict, just that others may see it that way. And really, it doesn't matter if they are police officers or not. The "PERCEIVED" conflict exists because one is a subordinate to the other in their employment, not the fact that they're police officers. Duh.

B. How many Kearny residents do you think give a rat's ass if Freeholder Cifelli is on Harrison's payroll? How does working for the Town of Harrison, which last time I looked was in Hudson County, effect his County work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Harrisonian

Either you were not at the meeting or you were not listening, so I will make this as simple as possible so you can understand. I specifically said that while I did not perceive the two police officers as necessarily having a conflict, I fully understand how members of the public, unfamiliar with the individuals involved, would be concerned about a superior officer serving with one in his command. As for my letter to the Observer, I stand by every single word and I challenge you to find any inconsistencies.

Your assertion that Freeholder Cifelli cannot represent his district properly because he is certified by the State of New Jersey as an assessor for Harrison is ludicrous. His certifications predate his elective office and are the result of continous education and rigorous testing. Do you really think he would jeopardize his private/professional reputation, which by the way is spotless, by not governing in a fair and unbiased way? Apparently the voters of ALL the municipalities in his district are very comfortable with his representation. They continually re-elect him by huge pluralities.

You forgot to mention that Al Cifelli is also the Public Defender in Harrison. He is the County Freeloader, Harrison Tax Assessor and Harrison public defender. Not to mention that he has his own private practice. The Freeloader job gives him a free car, insurance and gasoline so that he can go to one meeting a month in Jersey City. Talk about wasting taxpayers dollars. We should give the Freeloaders a .55 per mile reimbursement to county related business trips and my taxes would go down but that makes too much sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Put another way, don't the two Kearny police officers on the Kearny Board of Education also have integrity? don't the two officers also know how to keep their employment separate from their public service?" No, no they don't and no they can't !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vote Clarification

The only point worth talking about, as a take-away from this topic, is that the law is intended to serve a purpose. But in this instance we have one law that guards against inconsequential and non-existent conflicts, while more major conflicts are allowed to exist. Lawmakers cannot foresee every situation, and they are far from perfect. However, Debbie Lowry is being prohibited from serving on the Board because of a statutorily defined conflict that wouldn't interfere with her ability to serve on the Board and represent the people's interests, while Castelli (whom she just clobbered in the election) casts one of the votes denying her a chance to eliminate the conflict, and two other Board members have more obvious conflicts than she has. The law didn't do what it was supposed to do, and five Board members served themselves instead of the people. It stinks but that's the outcome. That's the downside of a system of laws, and the only thing worse is a system without laws. Let's pick up the pieces and move on.

More inaccurate info. There was no vote by anyone, not even Castelli to deny Lowry a chance to eliminate the conflict, period. The only vote was to have the BOE attorney request a ruling from the Dept of education on the status of Lowry given the fact that numerous people raised the issue of her being in conflict.......including the Mayor's nephew. That is what serving the public properly is about. Getting a decision from an authority and doing what is right and not just writing a check at the taxpayers expense to "payoff" someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Richard Head

Two thoughts:

A. How can you be so sure that every person who voted for either King or Plaugic KNEW they were police officers? And even if EVERY person who voted for them did know they were police officers, that doesn't change the fact that there COULD still be a PERCEIVED conflict. Please look up the definition of the word "perceived" because that is exactly the word used by Ms. Sherry when she spoke at the meeting, and she wasn't saying she PERCEIVED it to be a conflict, just that others may see it that way. And really, it doesn't matter if they are police officers or not. The "PERCEIVED" conflict exists because one is a subordinate to the other in their employment, not the fact that they're police officers. Duh.

B. How many Kearny residents do you think give a rat's ass if Freeholder Cifelli is on Harrison's payroll? How does working for the Town of Harrison, which last time I looked was in Hudson County, effect his County work?

Well if the public is not aware that they are police officers where does this "perceived" conflict exists? DUH, in your head, not anyone else. It is a figment of YOUR imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest perceiver

Well if the public is not aware that they are police officers where does this "perceived" conflict exists? DUH, in your head, not anyone else. It is a figment of YOUR imagination.

Apparently someone preceives it.......we're talking about it,duh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bully Buster

Two thoughts:

A. How can you be so sure that every person who voted for either King or Plaugic KNEW they were police officers? And even if EVERY person who voted for them did know they were police officers, that doesn't change the fact that there COULD still be a PERCEIVED conflict. Please look up the definition of the word "perceived" because that is exactly the word used by Ms. Sherry when she spoke at the meeting, and she wasn't saying she PERCEIVED it to be a conflict, just that others may see it that way. And really, it doesn't matter if they are police officers or not. The "PERCEIVED" conflict exists because one is a subordinate to the other in their employment, not the fact that they're police officers. Duh.

B. How many Kearny residents do you think give a rat's ass if Freeholder Cifelli is on Harrison's payroll? How does working for the Town of Harrison, which last time I looked was in Hudson County, effect his County work?

This is why politics is broken! Barbara Cifelli Sherry can question the integrity of board members who are police officers at a public meeting and then hide behind the language that she qualified it by saying "the public may perceive a conflict". That's baloney. Sherry said it in a desperate attempt to bully the two police officer Board of Education members to pre-pay Mrs. Lowry the remaining accumulated sick time so Lowry could be seated on the Board. Sherry not only said it but repeated it at the meeting. Perhaps she should be sent to the anti-bullying classes at the school to realize what she did was wrong.

As to Freeholder Al Cifelli, he has two pay checks of about $100,000 a year from the Town of Harrison (in addition to his law office and being Freeholder). If he can lose the Harrison jobs at the whim of Mayor McDonough, how can he ever represent his constituents in Kearny, East Newark and Secaucus fairly if Harrison must come first? If you ask me, that's much, much more of a conflict (perceived or real) than the two police officers on the Kearny Board of education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Can You Read?

Well if the public is not aware that they are police officers where does this "perceived" conflict exists? DUH, in your head, not anyone else. It is a figment of YOUR imagination.

Well, Richard (or may I call you Dick?) at the risk of repeating myself, the conflict - if there is one - is because one is a subordinate to the other in their employment. Again, it has NOTHING to do with them being police officers. So DOUBLE DUH back at ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keep digging your hole

Well, Richard (or may I call you Dick?) at the risk of repeating myself, the conflict - if there is one - is because one is a subordinate to the other in their employment. Again, it has NOTHING to do with them being police officers. So DOUBLE DUH back at ya.

Richard pointed out an inconsistency in your argument. Let me flush it out for you. In your response to the point by "I was there too" that the voting public knew Plaugic and King are Kearny Police officers but did not know that Freeholder Cifelli is on the payroll in the Town of Harrison, you said "How can you be so sure that every person who voted for either King or Plaugic KNEW they were police officers?" Richard is right, if the public doesn't know the two officers both work for KPD, then it can't be "perceived". You can't have it both ways, you can't rationalize Freeholder Cifelli's employment situation and then not apply those same points to the two Kearny Board of Ed members employed by the KPD.

It sounds like what you're trying to argue is that there is an actual conflict when two officers work together for the same department. That's wrong. There has never been a ruling that says that. Your argument would mean that there could never be a superior officer on the board (either Police or Fire) so long as there is a lower rank of that department on the Board. That's absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Barbara Cifelli-Sherry

This is why politics is broken! Barbara Cifelli Sherry can question the integrity of board members who are police officers at a public meeting and then hide behind the language that she qualified it by saying "the public may perceive a conflict". That's baloney. Sherry said it in a desperate attempt to bully the two police officer Board of Education members to pre-pay Mrs. Lowry the remaining accumulated sick time so Lowry could be seated on the Board. Sherry not only said it but repeated it at the meeting. Perhaps she should be sent to the anti-bullying classes at the school to realize what she did was wrong.

As to Freeholder Al Cifelli, he has two pay checks of about $100,000 a year from the Town of Harrison (in addition to his law office and being Freeholder). If he can lose the Harrison jobs at the whim of Mayor McDonough, how can he ever represent his constituents in Kearny, East Newark and Secaucus fairly if Harrison must come first? If you ask me, that's much, much more of a conflict (perceived or real) than the two police officers on the Kearny Board of education.

You know, you and I will never agree on this and at the end of the day, you are entitled to your opinions and perceptions as am I. I am admittedly very defensive when someone unduly attacks my family as I am sure you would be. This subject has become personal and convoluted and I feel compelled to simplify several premises which have gotten "lost in translation."

1) I have never publicly questioned the integrity of John Plaugic or George King. I have questioned their judgement and their disingenuous "non-attempt" to right the situation when they had an opportunity to honor the wishes of the electorate. Not being afraid to ask questions is not bullying.

2) Anyone who knows my history with the KPD knows I have the utmost repect and admiration for our uniformed safety personnel and have been their most vocal supporter when others were critical of the department.

3) The whole point of my citing a potential perception of conflict regarding the officers serving together on the board was to highlight the fact that the board is rife with conflicts and that in the final analysis, in a small town like Kearny, it is virtually impossible to avoid conflicts. However, if you're going to expose one conflict, you need to examine all conflicts (or perceived conflicts).

4) I'm not quite sure how Freeholder Cifelli became the target of your venom, but the fact remains that his positions with the Town of Harrison predate his first election by years. Must one give up his sources of employment to serve his community? Apparently, according to the State of New Jersey, the County of Hudson and the thousands of voters who continue to place their confidence in Al, the answer is, "no".

If you are not satisfied with the way in which any elected official conducts himself, why don't you put your name on the ballot.......or have already done that and not fared too well? Jealousy is an unproductive and ugly trait!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Barbara Cifelli-Sherry

Because Cifelli would never use their name to get what they want. Riiiiiiight.

You're absolutely correct! I have used both my names----Cifelli and Sherry----to win elections because I am so proud of the regard in which my two families are held in my community. Cifellis and Sherrys have served the West Hudson area as police officers, firefighters, teachers, elected officials and in so many other capacities for generations. Maybe if you were proud of your name, you'd use it, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Richard (or may I call you Dick?) at the risk of repeating myself, the conflict - if there is one - is because one is a subordinate to the other in their employment. Again, it has NOTHING to do with them being police officers. So DOUBLE DUH back at ya.
I disagree besides the subordinate issue no town cops or employees for that matter should be on the Board of Education!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're absolutely correct! I have used both my names----Cifelli and Sherry----to win elections because I am so proud of the regard in which my two families are held in my community. Cifellis and Sherrys have served the West Hudson area as police officers, firefighters, teachers, elected officials and in so many other capacities for generations. Maybe if you were proud of your name, you'd use it, too.

You're correct also. Served the communities for your own personal gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bully Buster II

You know, you and I will never agree on this and at the end of the day, you are entitled to your opinions and perceptions as am I. I am admittedly very defensive when someone unduly attacks my family as I am sure you would be. This subject has become personal and convoluted and I feel compelled to simplify several premises which have gotten "lost in translation."

1) I have never publicly questioned the integrity of John Plaugic or George King. I have questioned their judgement and their disingenuous "non-attempt" to right the situation when they had an opportunity to honor the wishes of the electorate. Not being afraid to ask questions is not bullying.

2) Anyone who knows my history with the KPD knows I have the utmost repect and admiration for our uniformed safety personnel and have been their most vocal supporter when others were critical of the department.

3) The whole point of my citing a potential perception of conflict regarding the officers serving together on the board was to highlight the fact that the board is rife with conflicts and that in the final analysis, in a small town like Kearny, it is virtually impossible to avoid conflicts. However, if you're going to expose one conflict, you need to examine all conflicts (or perceived conflicts).

4) I'm not quite sure how Freeholder Cifelli became the target of your venom, but the fact remains that his positions with the Town of Harrison predate his first election by years. Must one give up his sources of employment to serve his community? Apparently, according to the State of New Jersey, the County of Hudson and the thousands of voters who continue to place their confidence in Al, the answer is, "no".

If you are not satisfied with the way in which any elected official conducts himself, why don't you put your name on the ballot.......or have already done that and not fared too well? Jealousy is an unproductive and ugly trait!

Nothing was lost in translation at the Board meeting. I think your rationalizations are are what's hard to follow.

1. Asking a question about why the Board doesn't want to pre-pay Lowry's sick time benefit in full is okay. Selectively using the 2 Board members' employment on the Kearny Police Department in your statement was the bullying part. What does their jobs have to do with whether Lowry gets pre-paid or not? Nothing. It was a scare tactic. It was wrong.

2. That may very well be. Yet you still used the 2 Board members' employment as police officers as part of your argument to prepay Lowry in full. You can hide behind "general public" and "perceived" qualifiers, but you did it. It was wrong.

3. If the Board is "rife" with conflicts and one should examine "all conflicts", why of all the many conflicts that you say exist, you use in your public statement the employment as police officers of the 2 Board members who happen to disagree with you on paying Lowry in full? No other example was used. That was very selective of you. You targeted them. Especially when you add the fact that it is NOT a legal conflict (real or othewise) for there to be 2 Board members who are co-workers in a Police Department. It was wrong.

4. You make my point. If Freeholder Cifelli can manage public employment and elected office, can't Plaugic and King do the same and serve their community? And if you're then back to your previous rationalization that you only said the "general public perceives" a conflict, then why isn't it okay to say the "general public perceives" a conflict with Freeholder Cifelli working 2 jobs in Harrison and having to be an elected county official representing not just Harrison but also Kearny, East Newark and Secaucus? Does Harrison come first for him? If the freeholder's election to office makes it okay as you further rationalize, why doesn't the same argument apply to Plaugic and King? they too were elected to their public offices.

I'm not jealous of anyone. For bullys, it's much easier to attack an opponent personally rather than to defend with reason an argument. I won't stoop to your level on questioning your personal motivations. I'm only pointing out the unfairness in your public comments at the Board meeting. It was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Royal Flush

Richard pointed out an inconsistency in your argument. Let me flush it out for you. In your response to the point by "I was there too" that the voting public knew Plaugic and King are Kearny Police officers but did not know that Freeholder Cifelli is on the payroll in the Town of Harrison, you said "How can you be so sure that every person who voted for either King or Plaugic KNEW they were police officers?" Richard is right, if the public doesn't know the two officers both work for KPD, then it can't be "perceived". You can't have it both ways, you can't rationalize Freeholder Cifelli's employment situation and then not apply those same points to the two Kearny Board of Ed members employed by the KPD.

It sounds like what you're trying to argue is that there is an actual conflict when two officers work together for the same department. That's wrong. There has never been a ruling that says that. Your argument would mean that there could never be a superior officer on the board (either Police or Fire) so long as there is a lower rank of that department on the Board. That's absurd.

And if I may, I too would like to flush out a few things. My statement “How can you be so sure that every person who voted for either King or Plaugic knew they were police officers” should have continued to say “AT THE TIME THEY VOTED FOR THEM”. It’s perfectly logical to assume that many people became aware of the fact that both were employed as police officers long after they had cast their votes, isn’t it? There are people who vote who don’t necessarily have a clue what their candidates do for a living. Maybe at the time it wasn’t even thought about. Maybe it took some time to even consider there MIGHT be a problem there. You know, kind of like the Lowry situation. Most people probably never considered her to have a conflict – until it was pointed out so very publicly. So it seems perception is a very tricky thing. You certainly seem to think there’s no conflict; in fact, you think it’s ABSURD to even consider the possibility. Well, that’s your perception and you’re entitled to it.

As for Mr. Cifelli – again, you can choose to consider his employment with the Town of Harrison a negative when coupled with his duties as County Freeholder. But many people would not. I would not presume to call your opinion absurd just because I disagreed with it. That would be a small minded attitude, don’t you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara Cifelli- Sherry is a political hack who would sell her soul for an office. If ANY of you bother to read the Law in this case, there is a conflict of interest defined by the STATE, not the Kearny BOE. They could only pay her out if the Teachers union voted for the contract that dictated the terms of her separation be reopened. They voted NO, therefore, the BOEs hands are tied. Why don't you people get your facts straight before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you are idiots. Glad to be done with Kearny, shame it has turned into such a mean spirited and unfriendly place. seems to me it is driven by the very accepting Democrats in the town- Not, my advice- get the hell out now before the town is totally in the trash,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scrubbing Bubbles

And if I may, I too would like to flush out a few things. My statement How can you be so sure that every person who voted for either King or Plaugic knew they were police officers should have continued to say AT THE TIME THEY VOTED FOR THEM. Its perfectly logical to assume that many people became aware of the fact that both were employed as police officers long after they had cast their votes, isnt it? There are people who vote who dont necessarily have a clue what their candidates do for a living. Maybe at the time it wasnt even thought about. Maybe it took some time to even consider there MIGHT be a problem there. You know, kind of like the Lowry situation. Most people probably never considered her to have a conflict until it was pointed out so very publicly. So it seems perception is a very tricky thing. You certainly seem to think theres no conflict; in fact, you think its ABSURD to even consider the possibility. Well, thats your perception and youre entitled to it.

As for Mr. Cifelli again, you can choose to consider his employment with the Town of Harrison a negative when coupled with his duties as County Freeholder. But many people would not. I would not presume to call your opinion absurd just because I disagreed with it. That would be a small minded attitude, dont you think?

You really like to spin it to confuse residents.

1. There is NO conflict as a matter of law with two officers serving on a board of education. What the public may or may not perceive cannot make it a legal conflict. The "perception" argument was made up by Barbara Cifelli Sherry to bully the two police officer Board members to agree with her that Lowry should be pre-paid in full.

2. Lowry is INELIGIBLE to serve on the Board because she is is owed over $66,000 by the Board. A conflict can be addressed through a recusal. Eligibility cannot. Lack of Eligibility means you can't serve.

3. Freeholder Al Cifelli does have (using the terminology of his sister Barbara at the Board meeting) a "perceived" conflict because by Al Cifelli being on the Harrison payroll, many voters perceive he puts Harrison first ahead of Kearny, east Newark and Secaucus. How can he vote against the interests of his Harrison boss when it's in Kearny's best interests for him to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara Cifelli- Sherry is a political hack who would sell her soul for an office. If ANY of you bother to read the Law in this case, there is a conflict of interest defined by the STATE, not the Kearny BOE. They could only pay her out if the Teachers union voted for the contract that dictated the terms of her separation be reopened. They voted NO, therefore, the BOEs hands are tied. Why don't you people get your facts straight before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you are idiots. Glad to be done with Kearny, shame it has turned into such a mean spirited and unfriendly place. seems to me it is driven by the very accepting Democrats in the town- Not, my advice- get the hell out now before the town is totally in the trash,

They could only pay her out if the Teachers union voted for the contract that dictated the terms of her separation be reopened. They voted NO, therefore, the BOEs hands are tied.

Why don't you get your facts straight? This issue was never voted on by the KEA - it was never brought as an issue. The KEA did not vote NO on any issue regarding Debbie Lowry.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...