Last Chance For Candidates Meet Up

Will it be video-recorded?

Will it ever be shown on channel 34?

Will it have (intelligible) sound, too?

An "fyi" e-mail was sent to me from a supporter of the CONSOLIDATED CHANGE slate. They ran into a member of one of the slates over the weekend (wouldn't say which). They told the politician that they were leaning towards the CONSOLIDATED CHANGE slate. The politician made these several points while trying to change their mind (they didn?t): ?
?
THE OUT OF TOUCH POLITICIAN:

1) They are aware of the CONSOLIDATED CHANGE slate but not a bit worried. It?s too small a group and too late in the process to make a difference.

2) They said they would be wasting their vote if they split it among slates. "True change happens when the majority of the council is all on the same page." ?

3) It?s a small group because nobody reads Baristanet and the ones that do, "are not likely to get off their couches to vote." They went on to say, "why do you think we are putting all our advertising in The Montclair Times and not on that site?" ?

THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE:

1) I've received loads of e-mails of interest and support for a new kind of politics like the CONSOLIDATED CHANGE slate. And, there's plenty of time to rally support and spread the word around a small town like Montclair (40,000 residents).

2) Slates might just be the problem. We?ve witnessed the last council make decisions on weekends. Then they arrive on Tuesday?s nights and fake like they are listening during the public comment (sometimes not that well). The process shouldn't work that way.

3) I figure more than 2,000 people read Baristanet everyday and they are a motivated group. That number of readers can easily be a factor in a town election. Consider this: Thirty percent of the registered voters participated in the last town election (6,600 appr.). Those votes were split among four slates. The winning slate got like 10 percent of the registered voters (not exactly a mandate). Unfortunately for us, Joyce Michaelson received the most votes of anyone (3,600 appr.). That?s why she?s the frontrunner and expects to be the next mayor. That's why so many people want to give her money.

It was probably someone from Michaelson?s Partnership slate that thinks we can?t do it. ?

Well, we are the ones we?ve been waiting for. We need a different kind of politics in this town. ?

The nonsense from the last few years should be rejected. ?

We can do this with the no incumbent CONSOLIDATED CHANGE slate: ?
?
Mayor-Jerry Fried (Unity)
At-Large-Starr Daniels (Thrive) ?
At-Large-Kathryn Weller (Unity) ?
First Ward- Roger Plawker (Thrive) ?
Second Ward-Cary Africk (Unity) ?
Third Ward-Nick Lewis (Unity) ?
Fourth Ward-Dr. Renee Baskerville (Independent) ?

For a fresh start. ?
?
thomas ?
pamphleteer76@gmail.com ?

I believe that we are at a crossroads. The so called Consolidated Change ticket has adopted these candidates for their ticket.

It is imperative as we go forward with our decision making to see how each and every one of these candidates feels about being coopted by this ticket.

Where do you stand? Either one supports being placed on the Consolidated Change ticket or not. Either pledge ones allegiance to the Consolidated Change ticket or disavow the concept and slate altogether.

You can't have it both ways. There is a protocol in place to avoid just this sort of situation.

I suggest that if any of the Consolidated Change candidates doesn't make a choice then one should discount them as a serious candidate.

After all, if one is willing to sit on both sides of the fence in the election imagine where they will sit with allegiance to their constituencies.

You have three hours. Tick, tick, tock, tock!

And why would I vote for some one "thomas Paine" is telling me to vote for? Especially using the scare tactics at the beginning of the post. At least offer to buy my vote, you'd have a better chance.

John Duh, it doesn't really matter if the candidates want to be on the CC slate or not. Voters can only choose candidates for mayor, one ward, and at-large--so even if you like a whole slate, you can't vote for it as such. And people have always been able to pick and choose, just like an a la carte menu. I'm pretty sure that's what I'll do next week--make my own "slate"!

In reply to poster Your neighbor:

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely.

My point is that a candidate at the very least should show solidarity with a single slate, preferably with one's original slate.

Presumably they chose to work together because they were of like mind. Of course not every candidate on a slate is going to agree completely on all matters.

However, it points to character. The character of the candidate to make the difficult choice to sink or swim with their comrades.

For in the end we are all comrades and I'd like to know who might cut and run when a better opportunity presents itself.

Isn't this a perfect opportunity to judge a candidates character?

We need to just take the hint on the CC and make those bullet votes for mayor and at-large, then add your specific ward person on the CC list. It's really an open election - not like partisan politics with set lines. We do not need the candidates to choose - WE are the ones doing the damn choosing.

We need all these candidates to understand that we are sick and tired of so called governance that has been little more than selfishness, grandstanding, petty bickering, law suits, arrogance and distain for its own taxpayers. Whoever gets elected, with or without their slate mates, better understand, that it is OUR choice, the voters' choice. And, that we will expect all council members whom we choose to put politics and bullshit aside, focus on our needs. We expect them work together to make policies, programs and legislation designed to build a township that is family friendly, supportive of seniors, and committed to a renewed sense of community.

You hit the nail on the head, Nana. The whole idea of a nonpartisan election was to keep politics out of this process. Instead of party politics, we've been burdened throughout this campaign with something worse: slate politics. I was told a while back that the main reason for a slate was to give a group of candidates the opportunity to pool their resources and save money by sharing campaign expenditures. What good is that when a person running for mayor raises 20,000 bucks for her own personal campaign, in addition to the money raised for the slate as a whole? I think the only thing this slate system is doing well is keeping us uninformed about who these actual people are who are running for office.

Then you better no choose Ted. He's proven that he can get along with NO ONE!