No more conflict for Lowry

[Guest Voter]

So now that the people's choice Debbie Lowry is going to sign over her retirement payments owed to her that are in question to a third party, where is the conflict now it dosn't exist anymore! Seat the people's choice.

[Guest Angry Voter]

The Board of Education can't pay a third party under the collective bargaining agreement. You're denial has now become delusional.

[Guest Your angry????]

The Board of Education can't pay a third party under the collective bargaining agreement. You're denial has now become delusional.

Love your name! Angry voter, LOL you ain't seen angry voters yet pal,wait until November you'll see all the angry voters you can handle skippy!

[Guest Guest]

The Board of Education can't pay a third party under the collective bargaining agreement. You're denial has now become delusional.

Of course they can. These are earned benefits, which can be assigned.

[Guest Guest]

There's no language in the old or new contracts that prevents anyone from assigning rights or monies. The issue is no one ever needed to do so. The current BOE could have easily and simply cured this issue by approaching the administrators' union which was prepared to vote if asked. The bottom line is the majority just didn't want to cure it. Amazing how power and control becomes all consuming to the point of paranoia for them. There are no rational discussions; they either can't or won't agree to disagree; compromise is a foreign word; and the lack of understanding of the educational forum is ever evident...... And what is sadder and more frightening is that not one of the majority is willing to admit they don't know and aren't willing to learn what is necessary to foster a positive educational climate where those in our school community can feel comfortable and confident in the decision making taking place. There's no need to argue sides. There are those who feel strongly on both sides and won't easily change their minds. Those who are concerned and have a vested interest in our schools just need to remain vigilant and know actions speak so much louder than words.

[Guest Baloney on Rye]

The Board of Education can't pay a third party under the collective bargaining agreement. You're denial has now become delusional.

Says who?

[Guest Snap out of it!]

Says who?

Contracts 101. No assignment without an amendment to the collective bargaining agreement, which takes you back to the Board and the union.

[Guest Guest]

So now that the people's choice Debbie Lowry is going to sign over her retirement payments owed to her that are in question to a third party, where is the conflict now it dosn't exist anymore! Seat the people's choice.

Who is going to pay the taxes? If Debbie gets the money through a third party, she is still getting the money. Who is the bird brain that thought up this bunch of crap? If she doesn't want the money, just give it up or donate the entire amount to the various "Sandy Hurricane Victims Charity Funds." That would be a really honorable thing to do--I'll bet she doesn't do that and that she keeps her money by hook or by "crook"!!!

[Guest Full of Balony]

Says who?

Says a Judge from the State of NJ, or do you now want to attack a judges decision. She and her cronies knew she was not able to run but their arrogance got in the way.

[Guest Guest]

Says a Judge from the State of NJ, or do you now want to attack a judges decision. She and her cronies knew she was not able to run but their arrogance got in the way.

You're just making that up. Debbie probably didn't know there was an issue. Where's your proof that anyone else on her ticket knew she was still receiving payments? Of course, you don't have any facts but that doesn't matter to you. Meanwhile, why didn't the five stooges challenge her candidacy before the election?

[Guest Guest]

Says a Judge from the State of NJ, or do you now want to attack a judges decision. She and her cronies knew she was not able to run but their arrogance got in the way.

That's not what the judge ruled. He only ruled that she can't serve unless the conflict is resolved. He didn't say they couldn't resolve it. On the contrary, he encouraged them to resolve it.

[Guest Taxpayer]

Contracts 101. No assignment without an amendment to the collective bargaining agreement, which takes you back to the Board and the union.

In all likelihood, the union would have no problem with it . . . but as for the Board - and by that I mean the Board majority - no way, no how. They are committed to keeping Lowry off the board at whatever cost or they would have stepped forward long before this to help solve the "conflict". They did not work in the best interest of the district or Debbie Lowry and showed themselves to be the viscous, vindictive bunch of know-nothings to ever sit at that table. AND THAT'S SAYING SOMETHING!

[Guest Stop Spinning It]

That's not what the judge ruled. He only ruled that she can't serve unless the conflict is resolved. He didn't say they couldn't resolve it. On the contrary, he encouraged them to resolve it.

And the Judge ruled that the ONLY two options are either Lowry forfeiting the money due her in full or the Board paying her in full prior to January 3. Neither of those is happening.

[Guest Guest]

And the Judge ruled that the ONLY two options are either Lowry forfeiting the money due her in full or the Board paying her in full prior to January 3. Neither of those is happening.

That's not my understanding of it. What language from the decision says that?

[Guest Guest]

In all likelihood, the union would have no problem with it . . . but as for the Board - and by that I mean the Board majority - no way, no how. They are committed to keeping Lowry off the board at whatever cost or they would have stepped forward long before this to help solve the "conflict". They did not work in the best interest of the district or Debbie Lowry and showed themselves to be the viscous, vindictive bunch of know-nothings to ever sit at that table. AND THAT'S SAYING SOMETHING!

You are missing the most important part. Ms. Lowry filed a false federal election report. If one of the Fab5 had done that you would be screaming the for bloody murder and to prosecution. Who are you kidding?

[Guest Taxpayer]

And the Judge ruled that the ONLY two options are either Lowry forfeiting the money due her in full or the Board paying her in full prior to January 3. Neither of those is happening.

That was my point - the board could have assisted Mrs. Lowry to "cure" the problem, but they have absolutely no interest in doing that. Why?

[Guest Guest]

That was my point - the board could have assisted Mrs. Lowry to "cure" the problem, but they have absolutely no interest in doing that. Why?

Because they oppose her politically, even though she won the election. Their behavior is disgusting.

[Guest Guest]

You are missing the most important part. Ms. Lowry filed a false federal election report. If one of the Fab5 had done that you would be screaming the for bloody murder and to prosecution. Who are you kidding?

What are you talking about? What false election report? Are you saying that she denied having a right to further payments from her tenure in the system?

Of course you're not. You're just doing what you guys always do: spinning and distorting. It's called lying. You owe Debbie an apology. Not that you have the character to offer it.

[Guest An Objective Taxpayer]

That was my point - the board could have assisted Mrs. Lowry to "cure" the problem, but they have absolutely no interest in doing that. Why?

Is it because all the other school administrators with the same benefit will also want it paid in full and the Kearny school district doesn't have that kind of money? These retirement benefits exceed $100,000 per administrator. Wasn't Lowry's $112,000?