Well said Packanack 1996!

Unanimous?...LOL...you wish.

1996 is correct, Kazan already ran and lost, she should not therefore be appointed, that would be contrary to the will of the people.

The last election was for 3 seats, not 4. If 4 seats had been contested, it's likely that Kazan would have finished 5th.

uhm, because the people who did run invested their time energy and resources in to running and then others contributed to their campaigns as the voters voted for them?
So what you are saying now is, hey dont ever run, wait till some one games the system and is appointed where the other 3 who never ever ran nor carried any votes are somehow entiled to appointment?
Oh please, talk about nullification? Sheesh

uhm, because the people who did run invested their time energy and resources in to running and then others contributed to their campaigns as the voters voted for them?
So what you are saying now is, hey dont ever run, wait till some one games the system and is appointed where the other 3 who never ever ran nor carried any votes are somehow entiled to appointment?
Oh please, talk about nullification? Sheesh

Packanack1966..... And if 12 people ran and diluted the vote for Albanese and Esson, maybe Kazan would have won. This conjecture is as much unfounded as yours with 4 more people running and Kazan coming in eighth place!

Careful Stew, that's how Menendez got into office!

the never rans are 'entitled' to the appoinment then? this is your concept of a representative democracy?

What do you call the person who comes in fourth in a race for 3 seats?

(Drum roll please).

"Loser."

It is a leap to declare her the choice of the people.

Representative democracy? Since when? The entitlement belongs to the party in power. C'mon, thats the way its always been. Nothing different from Valley road to Trenton to Washington except for the drone attacks. Wayne hasn't bought them ... yet!

Frank...you apparently don't understand gov't very well. This was a bipartisan election. No, Frank, if Obama resigns and I wish he would, we unfortunately we be stuck with Biden...God forbid. Our federal gov't doesn't quite work the way our local system does, at least the Board of Ed. So your comment about Romney is moot.

Al, the runner-up in a fedreal election doesn't get appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy. Similarly, the runner-up in Wayne's BOE election may not get appointed to fill a mid-term vacancy.

You are calling for the runner-up to be appointed because you happen to like her this time. I'm expecting the elected members to appoint somebody else, because the voters already rejected Kazan, most do not want her on the Board.

Where is all this "smearing" that you speak of? I have read and re-read the threads on this subject, and see no evidence of a smear campaign around here.

The woman stood for election and lost, more voters did not want her on the board, than there were voters who did. That is not an attack on her, that is just the election results.

I wouldn't expect her to be appointed after being turned away by the voters.

If there are enough elected board members who do not want her on the board, then she should not be appointed. The appointment of Kingston's replacement is exactly the kind of decisions they were elected to make.

So Frank, let me get this straight. You would rather see somebody get appointed to the Board who has done nothing near what Cathy has done? Your hang up on the vote is disconcerting. Almost 7000 people voted for her. You're a shill Frank. Your name is not even on the voting rolls.

Cathy has done nothing but turn most voters off....that's why she lost. Yes, I would rather they appoint somebody else, and expect that they will.

Did you check the voting rolls to see if Stewart Resmer, or Justice are on there?

Gee Frank. Cathy has turned voters off? How would you know. Do people come to you and tell you this? Yeah right! You're the barometer for all candidates. People come to you and tell you what they think. Cathy is articulate, she's intelligent, passionate and sincere. Cathy placed fourth because she ran against two candidates backed by the WRRO, and the PTO's, as well as being smeared by a low class political brochure. They were afraid of Cathy! They didn't attack Bubba and he won! They never thought Bubba was going to win. They didn't care as they were only supporting two candidates, Albanese and Esson. They abandoned or jettisoned Monteyne. Didn't support him and looked where he landed as well as the amount of votes he got. He landed deep in 5th place, well behind Cathy. Howdy Doody would have gotten more votes. They underestimated Bubba and the Bubba name that still resonates with the people here in Wayne. They didn't 'care. As I said, they were only supporting 2 people and got them in.

My question to Justice was...where is the smear campaign on this forum? I haven't read anything like that here.

I did not receive any hit piece, and was not aware of it until it was cited on this website...months after the election. Since you are so interested in what I think, post the letter here so I can judge whether it's so low road or not.

no frank be a stand up guy and place a phone call to some one who would be your elected representative and speak with the woman directly,.

I'm not calling the candidate.

Is there something that she would tell me privately, that cannot be posted on this forum for the public to consider and evaluate?

I agree CL...I'm trying to be matter-of-fact about the whole situation. Kazan supporters apparently can't handle differing opinions, they need to get hysterical and nasty... make disparaging remarks, talk about my mother, my religion, my ancestry...quite the nasty group...don't you agree?

Al Scala....
No, my post is not mean spirited.. It harkens to an old joke; what do you call the person who came in second in a race?...."loser."
I was trying to make a point, not to be a wise guy. My statement which followed my comment should have made that clear (It is a leap to declare her the choice of the people." I did not use the term "loser" to characterize her spirit, effort, or worth as a person.

If she really wants to get elected, she should stay away from the podium.

Chicken Little...the spirit and tone of your post is definitely mean spirited. Cathy is the farthest thing from a loser. This woman wants to serve. The preponderance of people are running away from things like this. I understand that. Working, raising a family, having both man and wife work to survive economically is tough. I appreciate it and understand it because I live it. Here is a person who not only wants to serve but is willing to make the time, devote herself to the children and the taxpayer, and you are calling her a loser. You're damn right your post was out of line and mean spirited.

Gee Frank.....now you want to censure her. You are recommending she keep away from the podium? Are you kidding me? Maybe in your sick world that's the thing to do. Where did you come from? China? Russia? Afghanistan?

Al,

(This may not print in the right sequence; it was my intent to respond to your 3:05 p.m.)

Why do you say, "you're damn right your post was out of line and mean spirited"? I never conceded that my post was out of line and mean spirited. In fact, I explained why it wasn't. Why do you ignore my explanation? You are obviously so biased in her favor that you cannot appreciate the point I made. it should have been clear that my use of the term "loser," was a reference to her failure to win the race. But, you ignore that, and choose to chime on, damn the torpedos and full speed ahead.

No, I don't want to censure her, just giving her campaign advice.

Yes, I recommend that she keep her mouth shut if she wants to win, but she is of course free to talk herself out of getting elected again.

You are quite the hypocrite, aren't you Al?....calling others mean-spirited, then lashing out at me like that.

I am only delivering the majority opinion here...shooting the messenger won't help your candidate.

Frank,

I think Al is getting a bit in over his head, and is coming off hysterical.

I agree CL...I'm trying to be matter-of-fact about the whole situation. Kazan supporters apparently can't handle differing opinions, they need to get hysterical and nasty... make disparaging remarks, talk about my mother, my religion, my ancestry...quite the nasty group...don't you agree?

Chicken little....you and Frank make a good team.

Bill...which month ?

Who can say for sure that the board won't appoint Kazan? Her supporters on this forum that are convinced that she will not be appointed...they are all throwing a hissy-fit about it. Considering their surety, my expectation is that she will not.

Most voters did not want Kazan just 90 days ago, that hasn't changed just because Kingston resigned. Hopefully the current board will recognize that, and appoint somebody else.

All the candidates got thousands of votes, so in your opinion nobody lost... Mitt Romney got 61 million votes, I guess you don't think he lost either.

If the Board appoints Kazan, they will ignore the MAJORITY of voters, those who did not want her on the Board 90 days ago, and do not want her on the Board now....and that is not the right thing to do.

Gee Frank....now you're a psychic. You are absolutely doing your hardest to discredit Cathy. No Frank, I totally disagree with you. When you bring Romney ( whom I voted for), into this equation, it simply shows me how much you don't know, and how dysfunctional you are.

Truth
You may like Kazan. You may want her to be on the board. But she did lose the election, irrespective of the number of votes in her favor. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own set of facts.

Al...is this really how this forum will go ?....I comment on the story, and you reply by calling me names? I write about a candidate, and you in turn write about me?

Is this Kazan's campaign strategy?...to have her supporters shout down and insult the opposition?

That's going to be another losing strategy, my advice is for you to stay away from the podium too.

Gee Frank, that is certainly sage advice. Are you trying to censure me now.? You are a piece of work. Frankly, if you post something that I dislike, disagree with or simply doesn't resonate with me, I'll respond. That's simply the way it is. Your purposeful negativity towards Cathy Kazan, your constant reminder of her result in the election, I find it to be done with an agenda in mind. Keep one thing in mind Frank. You and I only represent one vote each. Could be enough for a win or a loss. However, hopefully, whoever reads these posts, something favorable will resonate with them in regards to Cathy. She certainly deserves it. Hopefully, your negativity and your voice of censure will not resonate with the people. Also Frank, I have no problem going to a Board meeting and asking a question at the podium. I've done it before several times. If something is done at the Board level, that I don't like, you can rest assure, I will be there.

Al...you really need to free yourself of your fantasy that I am an insider of some sort with an agenda.

I have no negativity or agenda against Cathy, I simply do not support her candidacy for the BOE.

I don't know what was written about her by Kingston, or who else signed it, but apparently some elected board members did not...and DO not... want Kazan on the board. That tells me that Kazan has been at odds with the board.

Is someone who has been at odds really the best candidate for appointment? Of course not, but stranger things have happened.

Scondo wrote that the mayor effectively chooses the appointee, I'm fine with that.

Nobody is trying to censure anybody. Al you are of course free to continue making a fool of yourself on TV, whatever floats your boat...but I am advising against it based on bad reviews.

Paul r....you raise a good question. I don't believe there is any law that obligates the Board to appoint someone who came in next in line in the election. I believe it is their right to appoint who they want. Would I be in favor in favor of the Board appointing that person if it were not Cathy? If the person was qualified, I certainly would. And I'm not just talking about someone who could read and write, or is over a certain age, etc. I'm surprised there is not a law to that effect. Unfortunately, the preponderance of our Board is political. Once elected, there's not much you could do about that, aside from voting them out the next time they run. Let me be clear here. I supported Cathy. I worked on her campaign and worked very hard along with several others. I was very disappointed that she placed fourth . Cathy campaigned very hard,.....very hard. Honestly, I thought she had a great chance to win. I like Cathy and think she would make an excellent trustee.

Fair enough Al - to me that makes a lot more sense to me than supporting someone simply because they were next in line in votes earned, especially in a case like this where there were multiple candidates for multiple positions.

You voted for her, of course you believe the position should go to her.

She has been at odds with the Board. The majority didn't vote for her, the majority don't think she would make such a wonderful addition.

The Law on the matter is:

18A:12-7. Boards; appointments; vacancies
The boards of education shall be appointed by the mayor or other chief executive officer of the municipality constituting the district. Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the board shall be reported forthwith by the secretary of the board to the mayor or other chief executive officer of the municipality, who shall within 30 days thereafter appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.

All these Kazan supporters are trying to influence the Mayor in his making his choice for the replacement. She has no lock on the position and no one should presume otherwise from the fact that she once sought to be elected and was not. It matters not and anyone who says it should is really just a partisan raling against Republican domination of local politics.

There is a procedure, but let us act differently and let us do it a new way: I suggest we build a big mud pit and we have champions wrestle in the pit for the naming rights, Stewart on on side, the Pathetic Misogynist Frank on the other and of course the colorful linguist Justice in the mix too. 2 out of 3 falls and winner names replacement. Or maybe just follow the law.

So there is a law on the books that covers this very matter as Scondo points out. Why all the discourse? If, within 30 days of the reporting the Mayor does not nominate a replacement, the revolution can begin.

Is a pathetic misogynis somehow different from a regular misogynist.

Justice...wow you are off the hook...OK bring the hate...say what you mean to say.

Justice,
What are you talking about? I am not calling anyone names. And I have responded appropriately to everyone who has responded to me. As for no longer dealing with "suburban underhanded pansies...." I have NO idea what you mean by that.

Justice..."Hey Chicken Little...I am no pansy".

That's OK Justice, whatever you say...now relax.

Who are you going to impeach Justice...?

Make sure you copy us on the paperwork, good luck Justice.

Al you are doing her no favors with your name-calling, shouting down and insulting the opposition. That will not work here, nobody is itimidated.

I don't consider any of my comments on this story to be disrespectful, can you say the same for your comments?

Frank....take a hike. My discourse here on Patch is clear and concise. If you want to call it intimidating, then so be it.

Justice,
You're hysterical.

Stewart, Al and Bill just checked the voting rolls and the name "Justice" does not appear. Nice try, what planet are you really from?

Frank...you're a shill. I've said this before. You're here on this site with an agenda. Frankly, I don't care what you say. You have an agenda, and I will defend Cathy Kazan on here to the hilt against people like you.

And I'll defend those who you call immoral and unethical, especially when they act within the law, and in the best interests of the district.

Frank.....not only are you a shill, but you can't read either. Please review every one of my posts. If you can find the words immoral or unethical in any one of them, please point it out to me. Now you're starting to make things up. Don't get dillusional on us.

That's another personal attack.

I didn't make anything up.

Re-read my post, I never claimed that you wrote that, only that I will defend if you do.

Frank...you're absolutely dillusional. Now you don't even remember what you wrote. Are you OK? Let me quote you Frank! "I'll defend those who you call immoral and unethical". C'mon now Frank. Calm down and relax. Read your post again. You're just not making any sense.

You have it right, in the Kingston matter, should you call those who act within the law unethical or immoral, I will defend them.

You seem confused, that's because you are aggitated and somehow reading things that have not been written.

Why are you dancing around this, Al?

Do you consider Kingston's actions with her resignation unethical or immoral?

Al Scala
5:03 pm on Friday, February 8, 2013
Although Kingston didn't do anything illegal, I'm sure someone can make a case about an ethical question.

I made no hateful comments, that's all in your imagination.

What deception did I attempt with my name? What does my mother have to do with any of this, I am not following you.

You asked once whay I posted so early in the morning, I answered, and you have brought my mother up over and over again. What are you getting at, and what does that have to do with the BOE?

Dan thanks for moderating this discussion.

I see that comments are approved somehow before they post to the page, is someone actually reviewing all the comments and approving them?

The way I see it, if Ms. Kingston had resigned prior to the election, then 3 Board Seats would have been open to be voted upon and Ms. Kazan would have been elected.

correction 4 seats would have been available

Well the way I see it, if four seats had been available, the voting would have been different. Monteyne would have been fully supported, finished fourth, and Kazan would have finished 5th.

But "ifs" don't matter here, what matters is what actually did happen, Kazan was not elected.

Maybe she will be appointed, but her supporters don't seem to think that will happen.

That's probably because she has been at odds with the board, they don't want her.

No gaggeler Mz Kingston knowing she was leaving, decided to embark on influencing the outcome of an election by not announcing her intent to vacate a seat, evry one is not as easily mislead as you and the lady might want every one to be.
6700 voters disagree with you.

Wayne Mom..your point is excellent and interesting. Look at it this way. If Kingston would have resigned at a time before the election, where a fourth seat would have come available in the election, Cathy Kazan most probably would have won. The regular board members ran away from Monteyne, who they appointed earlier, therefore not giving him a chance. That opens the fourth seat to a Cathy Kazan win. Kingston knowing she was moving at a given time, purposely did not resign, holding the seat until after the New Year, which preserved the board to pick who they want. Although Kingston didn't do anything illegal, I'm sure someone can make a case about an ethical question. Our resident political correspondent, Frank Gallagher makes a point, that makes his cohorts look even worse. He says that if Kingston would have resigned before the election, and a fourth seat was open, they would have supported Monteyne, as opposed to dumping him from the ticket. I guess, even though they wanted Monteyne out, obviously not thinking he made a very good trustee, they would have supported him anyway, just to hold the seat. Gee, that's a comforting thought! Awesome!

And 8000 voters agree with me, 8000 voters (the majority) disagree with you.

Thank you Al for recognizing all the talents.

You do pose a good question, what's the matter with Justice? Do you know?

Your quite welcome Frank!

I am grateful that Dan has not turned off the comments because if we are to snowed in for the weekend we will all be needing some form of entertainment, no football and all that.

You are mistaken. There is nothing hysterical about my posts. As for the last word, I tire of the nonsense after a point, and check out. So, this IS my last word on this topic. There is only so much time to waste.

I was just saying 'what if' the council president knowing she too were to be vacating her seat was to what Mz Kingston has done? What would that say about Wayne Township?
We just cant have people influencing elections and manipulating results in order to circumvent the democratic electoral preogatives of the People can we?

When are you instituting the impeachment proceedings?

Who will you impeach, Justice?...Satan?