Why endorse a candidate who frivolously SUED our town?

I was working on some new menu items for Village Coffee    I thought that corn beef hash would be great since I see so much of it devoured at the Parkwood.

The owner seems reticent to argue with success so I am treading water

Terrific hot dogs are available at Costco so could chili dogs be far behind?

max_weisenfeld said:

I am personally disappointed in the committee's choice of a new resident whose first participation in our town's politics was to be involved with a disruptive personal vendetta.  I for one will be considering alternatives.

I'm with Max.  Also wonder what deal was struck to bring Vic and Fred together.  Anyone know who the two dissenters were on this nomination?

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Tom, you are right that it is yesterday's news, but the underlying issue is quite fresh...The continual undermining of the current political establishment by a bitter, egotistical former pol. Apparently, the Democratic establishment has far shorter memories than I, and a far greater tolerance for anti-Maplewood activities.

I do oppose McGehee, for that very reason. I don't have, nor do I need, an alternative to hold that position. As for my being a candidate, I could probably scare up 50 signatures, but I would bet that at least half of them would never vote for me. I have too big a mouth to survive an election cycle, and too little tolerance for wasting my, and others', time.

Respect me, or not...that is certainly your choice. But I would urge you, and others, to see the chaos that is looming because Fred and the Bandits have their agenda.

Dennis, you make some fair points, and I never intended any disrespect to you personally, but I diverge from your view in at least two key areas:

1) I don't see how you can characterize McGehee's candidacy as undermining the current political establishment when he received almost unanimous support from the MDC.  It's not just Fred Profeta supporting him, but Mayor DeLuca as well.  Plenty of others on the MDC also represent the "current political establishment" (by any definition), and they overwhelmingly voted to endorse McGehee as well.  So I think it is more than a stretch to say that the McGehee campaign is fueled only by a Profeta vendetta or other "looming chaos" agenda.

2) Opposition without an alternative is permissible, of course, but ultimately ineffective.  There will be a new member of the TC next year one way or another.  Voting "None of the above" and leaving the seat vacant is not an option.  If you and others don't like the MDC's choice, support a different candidate.  It doesn't have to be you personally, but find someone willing to run and serve if elected.  

It's hardly an act of treason to run "off the line".  Not only did Lembrich win his seat last year despite no MDC endorsement, but Mayor DeLuca won his back in 2005 (I think that was the year) in the same manner.  I think Kathy Leventhal may have run and won off the line at some point, but I could be wrong; Nancy Adams ran off the line and lost in a prior election, but received the MDC nod last year and is now on the TC.  A candidate can also run an as Independent or a Republican in the general election, but that doesn't seem to present the same realistic chance at victory as contesting a Democratic primary. 

Regardless, if you can convince people to oppose McGehee but can't give them an actionable way to follow through on it, it doesn't seem like your collective opposition will amount to much.  

CapnMarko said:

author said:

Free tennis balls available with the purchase of only a few dozen chili dogs

I still want to know where you are getting these $1 chili dogs ... I'm intrigued. 

Jerry's in Elizabeth are $2.25 with the chilli... 

as close as I think you will find for a decent quality dog.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/jerrys-famous-frankfurters-elizabeth

I share this view. 

 Attempting to maintain an open mind,however, I do note that the candidate has been active with one of our local schools and the CCR ( unfortunately, a group whose tactics I frequently find divisive).  This is unlike the newest male member of the TC who lived here for several years with absolutely no community participation until he decided to run for office.

max_weisenfeld said:

I am personally disappointed in the committee's choice of a new resident whose first participation in our town's politics was to be involved with a disruptive personal vendetta.  I for one will be considering alternatives.

mod said:

max_weisenfeld said:

I am personally disappointed in the committee's choice of a new resident whose first participation in our town's politics was to be involved with a disruptive personal vendetta.  I for one will be considering alternatives.

I'm with Max.  Also wonder what deal was struck to bring Vic and Fred together.  Anyone know who the two dissenters were on this nomination?

MOD, why do you assume that a "deal was struck" for DeLuca and Profeta to support the same candidate?  That sounds pretty cynical.  Can't it just be that, of 3 candidates, one clearly stood out as the best qualified to most of the District Leaders?  With the exception of one year in the middle, Vic and Fred collectively have been Mayor for the past 12+ years.  Few people, if any, in town have given more of their time to Maplewood, particularly its local government.  Of course they have disagreed with one another and been on opposite sides of several issues/campaigns, but I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that their support of the same candidate must be the result of some conspiracy or secret bargain.  I, for one, respect and am grateful to both Fred and Vic.  If you know more about some alleged behind the scenes dealings, please enlighten us.

From what I have heard, the 26-2 MDC ballot was secret, so no one knew exactly who the two votes for Hans Hummel were.  However, my neighbor said that another female District Leader told her that she was a longtime friend of Mr. Hummel and was planning to support him.  So that's probably 1 of the 2 right there, and it didn't sound like she was specifically opposed to McGehee, just voting for someone she knew instead.  My neighbor said that she voted for Frank McGehee because she was impressed by his presentation and also he was the only candidate to reach out to her before the meeting to speak with her and ask for her vote.  This is second-hand and anecdotal, of course, but it's the best intel I have access to.  If others have better info, I'd be interested to hear it. 

krnl said:

I share this view. 

 Attempting to maintain an open mind,however, I do note that the candidate has been active with one of our local schools and the CCR ( unfortunately, a group whose tactics I frequently find divisive).  This is unlike the newest male member of the TC who lived here for several years with absolutely no community participation until he decided to run for office.

max_weisenfeld said:

I am personally disappointed in the committee's choice of a new resident whose first participation in our town's politics was to be involved with a disruptive personal vendetta.  I for one will be considering alternatives.

Not to drift this thread further into last year's election (which is also yesterday's news), I'll only say that clearly many in the community did not feel that Greg Lembrich's prior lack of community participation was disqualifying.  As someone who has watched most of the TC meetings this year, I think Lembrich is fitting in well with the Committee and his lack of experience isn't showing.  He's chairing several subcommittees and seems to be recruiting new members and revitalizing other groups.  In fact, a buddy of mine who follows town politics closely and was a big supporter of Jerry Ryan (and detractor of Lembrich) last year recently told me that he thinks Lembrich is "working his tail off" and doing a great job on the TC and his other boards and committees. Also, I personally didn't vote for Nancy Adams in the last primary (I did vote for her in the general), but I've been very impressed with her so far.  Overall a really strong TC right now, in my opinion.  So, personally, I plan to look beyond the resume and judge candidates by more than just how many community groups they belong to and for how long.   Each of our votes count the same at the end of the day.

mod said:

max_weisenfeld said:

I am personally disappointed in the committee's choice of a new resident whose first participation in our town's politics was to be involved with a disruptive personal vendetta.  I for one will be considering alternatives.

I'm with Max.  Also wonder what deal was struck to bring Vic and Fred together.  Anyone know who the two dissenters were on this nomination?

The suit bothered me as well, but as I wanted development opponents to move on once the process ran its course, I'll take my own advice and evaluate Mr. McGehee based on what he can offer the town going forward. I didn't realize he was so new to town and it's admirable that he's chosen to get actively involved so quickly.

It's also a little easier for me to accept his position given the fact that he's only been here a few years and might not have been fully cognizant of the town's history with the post office site dating back more than a decade. Finally, as he's not an attorney, I can't hold him responsible for the VK's specious legal arguments and tactics.  

Bad copy would not print.........However a copy of the Maplewoodian reveals that the total cost to the town was $16,000

For part of the monies the town attorneys billed for making calls and receiving calls......coming and going to their own partners.   A double dipping phone call method of uping the billing

   Mr. Forgione, the builder even placed monies in escrow should it be needed

The Mayor's response when queried was in effect.......its over .   Let's move on

From the Maplwoodian   Feb 2     2016

author said:

However a copy of the Maplewoodian reveals that the total cost to the town was $16,000

I don't think I want to know what goes into an 80-cent chili dog.

DaveSchmidt said:

author said:

However a copy of the Maplewoodian reveals that the total cost to the town was $16,000

I don't think I want to know what goes into an 80-cent chili dog.

Twenty ground-up pennies and as much sodium as 60 cents will purchase. 

DaveSchmidt said:

author said:

However a copy of the Maplewoodian reveals that the total cost to the town was $16,000

I don't think I want to know what goes into an 80-cent chili dog.

They are loss leaders and worth the trip

Well, the the committee had to endorse someone. And I bet he was the best of the bunch. Unfortunate perhaps.

tomdevon said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Tom, you are right that it is yesterday's news, but the underlying issue is quite fresh...The continual undermining of the current political establishment by a bitter, egotistical former pol. Apparently, the Democratic establishment has far shorter memories than I, and a far greater tolerance for anti-Maplewood activities.

I do oppose McGehee, for that very reason. I don't have, nor do I need, an alternative to hold that position. As for my being a candidate, I could probably scare up 50 signatures, but I would bet that at least half of them would never vote for me. I have too big a mouth to survive an election cycle, and too little tolerance for wasting my, and others', time.

Respect me, or not...that is certainly your choice. But I would urge you, and others, to see the chaos that is looming because Fred and the Bandits have their agenda.

Dennis, you make some fair points, and I never intended any disrespect to you personally, but I diverge from your view in at least two key areas:

1) I don't see how you can characterize McGehee's candidacy as undermining the current political establishment when he received almost unanimous support from the MDC.  It's not just Fred Profeta supporting him, but Mayor DeLuca as well.  Plenty of others on the MDC also represent the "current political establishment" (by any definition), and they overwhelmingly voted to endorse McGehee as well.  So I think it is more than a stretch to say that the McGehee campaign is fueled only by a Profeta vendetta or other "looming chaos" agenda.

2) Opposition without an alternative is permissible, of course, but ultimately ineffective.  There will be a new member of the TC next year one way or another.  Voting "None of the above" and leaving the seat vacant is not an option.  If you and others don't like the MDC's choice, support a different candidate.  It doesn't have to be you personally, but find someone willing to run and serve if elected.  

It's hardly an act of treason to run "off the line".  Not only did Lembrich win his seat last year despite no MDC endorsement, but Mayor DeLuca won his back in 2005 (I think that was the year) in the same manner.  I think Kathy Leventhal may have run and won off the line at some point, but I could be wrong; Nancy Adams ran off the line and lost in a prior election, but received the MDC nod last year and is now on the TC.  A candidate can also run an as Independent or a Republican in the general election, but that doesn't seem to present the same realistic chance at victory as contesting a Democratic primary. 

Regardless, if you can convince people to oppose McGehee but can't give them an actionable way to follow through on it, it doesn't seem like your collective opposition will amount to much.  

Dennis_Seelbach said:

alias said:

who is "We?"

Maplewood Democrats!

Got it.

Thanks Kemosabe.

I'm gonna write in Gerry Ryan...again.

If I recall correctly, I believe that the committee is not obliged to endorse anyone, nor are candidates obliged to seek such an endorsement and certainly don't need it to run (or even win) as recently demonstrated.

Why don't you who are accusing VK of spending your money look into who actually paid those legal bills. That would be FACT finding.  

OliveBee said:

Why don't you who are accusing VK of spending your money look into who actually paid those legal bills. That would be FACT finding.  

OliveBee, why so coy?  If you have information, why don't you go ahead and share it?  I never thought the lawsuit was nearly as outrageous as others here, but it clearly provoked strong feelings.  You've insinuated either that the lawsuit was not as expensive as advertised and/or that the developer paid all or most of the town's legal bills.  Do you have facts/proof to back that up?  If so, please present them rather than just referencing them as though everyone is aware of them.  It is clear from others' reactions that you haven't built up enough credibility here for folks to just trust your claims without at least some verification.  Sharing facts is helpful; taunting others while withholding facts and daring them to search for them seems childish and annoying.  

tomdevon said:

OliveBee said:

Why don't you who are accusing VK of spending your money look into who actually paid those legal bills. That would be FACT finding.  

OliveBee, why so coy?  If you have information, why don't you go ahead and share it?  I never thought the lawsuit was nearly as outrageous as others here, but it clearly provoked strong feelings.  You've insinuated either that the lawsuit was not as expensive as advertised and/or that the developer paid all or most of the town's legal bills.  Do you have facts/proof to back that up?  If so, please present them rather than just referencing them as though everyone is aware of them.  It is clear from others' reactions that you haven't built up enough credibility here for folks to just trust your claims without at least some verification.  Sharing facts is helpful; taunting others while withholding facts and daring them to search for them seems childish and annoying.  

Well said, Tom.

jeffl said:

tomdevon said:

OliveBee said:

Why don't you who are accusing VK of spending your money look into who actually paid those legal bills. That would be FACT finding.  

OliveBee, why so coy?  If you have information, why don't you go ahead and share it?  I never thought the lawsuit was nearly as outrageous as others here, but it clearly provoked strong feelings.  You've insinuated either that the lawsuit was not as expensive as advertised and/or that the developer paid all or most of the town's legal bills.  Do you have facts/proof to back that up?  If so, please present them rather than just referencing them as though everyone is aware of them.  It is clear from others' reactions that you haven't built up enough credibility here for folks to just trust your claims without at least some verification.  Sharing facts is helpful; taunting others while withholding facts and daring them to search for them seems childish and annoying.  

Well said, Tom.

Thanks jeffl.  I have previously called out Village Facts and their supporters where I thought their arguments were weak.  Seems only fair to do so to Village Keepers and their supporters when they make unsupported claims and expect them to be taken as fact.  

@tomdevon - Well stated...I will try to get the written info for you all - as it is not in my hands.

OliveBee said:

Why don't you all find out what the candidate is about and what he represents before jumping to (the usual) conclusions?  Like moths to a flame…like lemmings on a cliff.

And why don't you find out the VILLAGE FACTS about those legal bills, what they really amounted to, and who actually paid those invoices?

And while you are at it why not take the time to sort out for yourselves what could have avoided that suit in the first place. 

Sometimes it is better to do research and ask questions before jumping to conclusions about anyone  or anything. And that's a FACT.

So, who paid?

TomR

tomdevon said:

OliveBee said:

Why don't you who are accusing VK of spending your money look into who actually paid those legal bills. That would be FACT finding.  

It is clear from others' reactions that you haven't built up enough credibility here for folks to just trust your claims without at least some verification.....

+1

The OP specifically asked, “Why endorse a candidate who frivolously sued our town?”

One answer might be: The Democrats didn’t endorse any such candidate, because the lawsuit wasn’t frivolous or, at least, the intentions of this candidate weren’t frivolous.

OK, so I’m playing semantics a bit.  But, on the other hand, it’s a loaded question isn't  it?  The matter of frivolousness (frivolitide? frivolocity?) of a lawsuit is subjective and clearly hinges on the intent of the plaintiff.  If the intent is mischief and mayhem, then the suit is, indeed, frivolous (or worse).  But if support for the suit is born of a heartfelt belief that it serves the public good, the suit may be cumbersome or inconvenient to others, but is not necessarily frivolous. 

Just my two cents…

The VK must have spent thousands of dollars on the suit.  I hardly think they considered frivolous

tomcarlson said:

The OP specifically asked, “Why endorse a candidate who frivolously sued our town?”

One answer might be: The Democrats didn’t endorse any such candidate, because the lawsuit wasn’t frivolous or, at least, the intentions of this candidate weren’t frivolous.

OK, so I’m playing semantics a bit.  But, on the other hand, it’s a loaded question isn't  it?  The matter of frivolousness (frivolitide? frivolocity?) of a lawsuit is subjective and clearly hinges on the intent of the plaintiff.  If the intent is mischief and mayhem, then the suit is, indeed, frivolous (or worse).  But if support for the suit is born of a heartfelt belief that it serves the public good, the suit may be cumbersome or inconvenient to others, but is not necessarily frivolous. 

Just my two cents…

The overall goals of the VK crew may or may not have been frivolous, depending on your POV. The lawsuit, however, was a blatant delay tactic that would not have prevented the building from moving forward no matter what the eventual outcome had been. It was a nuisance suit, plain and simple.

tomcarlson said:

Just my two cents…

For that, you can have the rest of my chili dog.

Like your earlier post about the messiness of democratic governance, this one brings home the high-minded quality of the public servants we have here. Thank you again.

imonlysleeping said:

tomcarlson said:

The OP specifically asked, “Why endorse a candidate who frivolously sued our town?”

One answer might be: The Democrats didn’t endorse any such candidate, because the lawsuit wasn’t frivolous or, at least, the intentions of this candidate weren’t frivolous.

OK, so I’m playing semantics a bit.  But, on the other hand, it’s a loaded question isn't  it?  The matter of frivolousness (frivolitide? frivolocity?) of a lawsuit is subjective and clearly hinges on the intent of the plaintiff.  If the intent is mischief and mayhem, then the suit is, indeed, frivolous (or worse).  But if support for the suit is born of a heartfelt belief that it serves the public good, the suit may be cumbersome or inconvenient to others, but is not necessarily frivolous. 

Just my two cents…

The overall goals of the VK crew may or may not have been frivolous, depending on your POV. The lawsuit, however, was a blatant delay tactic that would not have prevented the building from moving forward no matter what the eventual outcome had been. It was a nuisance suit, plain and simple.

As Chair of the Planning Board, Tom Carlson undoubtedly has a good idea of how the VK lawsuit did and did not delay or otherwise impact the process.  If anyone would have grounds to hold a grudge or be aggrieved by it, it would be Mr. Carlson.  That he and Mayor DeLuca, both District Leaders (as is Kathy Leventhal, who was on the TC during the lawsuit), seem OK with McGehee strikes me as a sign that the MDC is focused on the future rather than what has passed.  

tomcarlson said:

The OP specifically asked, “Why endorse a candidate who frivolously sued our town?”

One answer might be: The Democrats didn’t endorse any such candidate, because the lawsuit wasn’t frivolous or, at least, the intentions of this candidate weren’t frivolous.

OK, so I’m playing semantics a bit.  But, on the other hand, it’s a loaded question isn't  it?  The matter of frivolousness (frivolitide? frivolocity?) of a lawsuit is subjective and clearly hinges on the intent of the plaintiff.  If the intent is mischief and mayhem, then the suit is, indeed, frivolous (or worse).  But if support for the suit is born of a heartfelt belief that it serves the public good, the suit may be cumbersome or inconvenient to others, but is not necessarily frivolous. 

Just my two cents…

Frivolity... 

RE: LEGAL EXPENSES

This is from Dave Helmkamp - his MOL sign on is not working so I am posting this at his request...more later...Per Dave:

Here's what I have (primarily through OPRA):

Two Township financial accounts are associated with the JMF application. For short-hand, I will call them:

-202   Maplewood Alliance Improvement District Other, Litigation Expense      $11,654
-807   Redevelopment Post Office-Maplewood Redev                                  $53509+8499

(this is the total for the application, including the cost to prepare for and do the sale in November)

INVOICE DATES:  April 1 to November 30th  (four different law firms)
LAWSUIT DATES:  Late May to withdrawal in Mid-July  (sorry, I do not have the exact dates handy)

The $11,654 is entirely related to the Village Keeper court complaint and the second MVA meeting for which JMF said they would include the issues raised in the law suit.  Some of these hours were used for research, but none were used preparing materials for court.   The town paid this total.

The responses I got from the Town (thru OPRA) indicate that the -807 account is a "JMF
Escrow" account.  It is my understanding that Planning Board applicants typically fund their escrow accounts in $25,000 increments, as expenses accrue.

There are invoices I am not clear on, totaling $8499.  Based on the hourly details described, they appear to be similar to the the other invoices placed in the JMF Escrow account.

In short, I was able to confirm an expense to the Town of $11,654, and
identify the other charges as billed to JMF's escrow account.

I've attached my hand notes on these ten invoices.   I will join the MOL
conversation when I have a working login;  in the meantime, please ask
those on the thread for further questions--I will submit an OPRA request
regarding the $8499 on Monday so as to complete the picture.