Skip to content

Democrats’ First Campaign Piece Of 2015

Many of you got this in yesterday’s mail.  I’ll add some comments at the end of each page.


Above the fold we have a letter from the widow of John Taylor.  I’ll let you guys decide for yourselves whether any of that should have any bearing on whether we should accept the mayor’s $4.1 million plan.  Personally, I don’t think it’s relevant.

Below the fold we have a picture of Councilwoman Jennifer Nicolay, along with an article touting her accomplishments.  Since she is currently running for re-election, legally it is considered to be a campaign advertisement and subject to the borough’s financial disclosure laws.

Also, there’s a small piece about HBS.  Honestly the more I hear about it the more disturbed I am by it.  With all the associations these families have with people down at borough hall, there’s conflicts of interest all over the place.  Our government is not supposed to be used to help the mayor’s friends and friends of his friends.


Claire, if you bring back the same plan at the same price that was petitioned against and then rejected by the voters last year, why would you be so shocked that it’s being opposed again this year?

Responses to her bullet points:

Like I said in a recent post, if you want the opposition to produce a competing plan, give us the same amount of money the mayor spent on developing his plan.  Or give us half as much.  But if you and the mayor think we should pay for it ourselves then you and the mayor should personally pay the town back for the cost of his plan.

About the lawsuit, don’t you want to do what’s legal?  If a judge decided that your funding plan was not legal, would you want to do it anyway?  I say, let’s wait and see what’s legal and then move forward from there.

The Avon Pavilion was built for less per square foot than is being proposed for Taylor.  The new municipal complex for Mantoloking, which includes a courtroom and police station, is being built for less per square foot too.

All the people who oppose the $4 million bond do not think alike.  Some don’t want a pavilion on 5th.  Others want a pavilion but think it can be built for less.

About the $4.1 million cap, it’s easy to cap it when the price is already sky high.  Anyway, what if there’s change orders once it’s started, just like there were with the boardwalk?  Will you abandon the project when it’s already half built?

Please stop calling things bipartisan just because Tom Burke likes them.

You can call the mayor all you want.  He wants that $4 million and nothing is going to change his mind.

“No to petitions and ballots.”  Yes, all that talk of  “Of the people and By the people” is so yesterday.

Below the fold we have an article about Janis Blackburn and another campaign ad, this time for Janet Grosshandler, who is running for the school board.


Above the fold we have an attack on Ken Pringle’s “frivolous” lawsuits, every one of which were successful, and then an attack on Pringle’s “failed” redevelopment plan.  Although I wasn’t so outspoken back then, I was strongly against Pringle’s plan.  I don’t recall there being much opposition to it from Doherty though.  In fact he open up a mortgage company on Main St. so he could get a piece of the action.  Maybe that’s why he’s so mad that the redevelopment failed.  When it did his mortgage company went down with it.

Also above the fold is a list of concerts at Pyanoe Plaza.  Seems kind of incongruous with what’s next to it.

Below the fold we are told what great shape the beach utility fund is in.  I don’t know if it is or if it isn’t, but I didn’t move to Belmar so I could have a strong beach utility fund.  I moved to Belmar because I enjoy going to the beach and the stronger the beach utility becomes, the less enjoyable to me the beach is to visit.  When was the last time you heard a resort advertise for you to come to their overcrowded beaches?  I thought uncrowded beaches were better.

Further down is another campaign advertisement for candidate Jennifer Nicolay.

To the right is a story about how even birds love what the Democrats have done with Belmar.  The story opens with a boast about record crowds of people coming to Belmar this year.  I’m sure all Belmar residents love having record crowds of people mobbing our beaches and our neighborhoods.  The story ends abruptly in mid sentence.  That’s fine with me.


On the left, I’ll agree to a 1907 two-story pavilion if Doherty will agree to 1907 union workplace rules and 1907 property taxes.  On the right, Election Day is listed as a “Community Event”.  (It has to be on there…it’s the whole reason for this flyer, isn’t it?)

And finally:

“Paid for by Belmar Democratic Committee”

And who paid for the Belmar Democratic Committee?  LIUNA, IBEW, Plumbers Union, Carpenters Union and the re-election campaign of Senator Nick Scutari, who in turn is paid for by LIUNA.  And what individuals contributed to those funds?  Impossible to know.

You know Belmar’s requirement that every individual that contributes to a campaign, no matter the size of the contribution, wasn’t my idea.  It was Doherty’s.  Below is a 2007 news story reprinted with the permission of the Coast Star:


Controversial pay-to-play ordinance is introduced

By Kelly Skellinger

Last Wednesday evening, a controversial ordinance, which seeks to amend the borough’s pay-to-play reform law to include all campaign contributions, was brought before the mayor and council for its first reading.

Councilman Matthew Doherty, who has been advocating the passage of the ordinance, eagerly offered the ordinance up for introduction. The motion was then seconded by Mayor Kenneth Pringle and approved on its first reading.

The ordinance, if passed on its second reading on Aug. 22, “requires that all individuals seeking an elected office within the Borough of Belmar report all campaign contributions under the limits set by the ELEC [Election Law Enforcement Commission] laws and regulations of the State of New Jersey.”

The ordinance goes on to mandate that “each and every campaign committee for a candidate for any elected office within the Borough of Belmar shall … file with the borough clerk a true and correct copy of each and every campaign contribution received which is less than the amount required to be reported to the ELEC Commission and shall be filed no later than the date that the said report is due to be filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission.”

The information will have to be filed with the borough clerk on the same reporting form used to report campaign contributions to ELEC. Any campaign committee that does not file all of its campaign contributions with the borough, will be fined $250.

The current pay-to-play reform law in the borough only require campaign committees have to file those contributions of $300 or more.

While the ordinance’s second reading and public hearing is scheduled for the Aug. 22 meeting of the mayor and council, the public took the opportunity to discuss the controversial ordinance during last Wednesday’s public comment session.

The lengthy discussions, which were birthed through this session, resulted in Councilman Barry Zimmerman suggesting that the mayor, council and public workshop the ordinance at the next agenda session, preceding the next meeting. The council agreed to discuss the ordinance further at the next agenda session, also set for Aug. 22.

“Mr. Dougherty, you are sponsoring this ordinance that is coming up,” Belmar resident Michael Marino stated last Wednesday. “Can I ask you what motivated you to sponsor this particular ordinance?”

“Sure,” Councilman Doherty stated. “Under current campaign finance laws, they are governed on the state level and they require full disclosure of any contribution of $300 or greater. But in municipal elections, where you do not raise large amounts of money, you raise smaller increments. Because of that, you can literally fund an entire campaign without disclosing who is financing it. Does that make sense?”

“Well, that makes sense to you but I’m wondering … the state put a $300 maximum…” Mr. Marino said.

“Minimum,” Councilman Doherty corrected him.

“…for disclosure,” Mr. Marino continued.

“Right,” Councilman Doherty said.

“Now, the reason they did that is because they wanted to do away with any kind of corruption,” Mr. Marino said. “Did you see any corruption within Belmar that precipitates having this ordinance?”

“Did I see any…” Councilman Doherty stated, confused.

“Corruption,” Mr. Marino said.

“No,” Councilman Doherty answered.

“Now, if George decides to run as an Independent and Mrs. Brennan wants to give him $5, he has to tell the whole world that Mrs. Brennan gave him $5 to run for the council or to run for mayor,” Mr. Marino said. “I think that is wrong and I’ll tell you why. Have you been in an election booth lately?”

“Sure,” Mayor Pringle answered.

“You notice that, with the new machines, they still have that curtain around it?” Mr. Marino questioned. “Because the sanctity of the ballot! The sanctity of the vote! And this is an imposition on the sanctity of that ballot by having to disclose as low as $1 for somebody who is running as an Independent because of this bill.

“There is no corruption that I have seen,” Mr. Marino continued. “This is more headed towards the general public running than it is toward the major Democratic and Republican parties.”

“If I could just respond to this,” Mayor Pringle said. “Under our pay-to-play ordinance, if any of the candidates accept money via a source, such as a Democratic committee or an outside the town county committee or any kind of political action committee, you are foreclosed from participating in so many things, any development matter, any matter involving a vendor, any ABC [Alcohol and Beverage Control] matter.

“The result of it is that, since the adoption of the pay-to-play ordinance, none of the candidates in any of our campaigns have accepted any money from any source including election funds of assemblymen,” Mayor Pringle added. “We don’t accept any money from sources where you can’t tell what the origin of that money was and that is the purpose of that.

“The Democrats have not accepted from the Belmar Democratic Club but the Republicans have accepted each year from the Republican Club,” Mayor Pringle stated.

“The Democrat and Republican clubs could run a dance and sell tickets,” Mr. Marino said.

“Under our pay-to-play ordinance, I don’t think that is true but we can fix that,” Mayor Pringle said. “The pay-to-play ordinance does do it, in respect to every past contribution with the possible exception to the club of the same party in the same town. I don’t know if that’s the case, but that is the only way that money can come in that you don’t identify the actual giver.

“So,” Mayor Pringle continued, “we would have one of the few towns anywhere, where the source of every dollar is disclosed. This says that we will know every contribution and, if a person would like to keep their support private, they are entitled not to give.”

“So, what we are doing is, we are eliminating the public from the election process,” Mr. Marino said.

“No,” Mayor Pringle answered, “the public can still participate.”

“How can they participate if they cannot give money?” Mr. Marino questioned.

“They can [give money],” Councilman Doherty said.

“They can [give money],” Mayor Pringle agreed. “They just have to raise it like everyone else does.”

“They have to declare each and every dollar that they get,” Mr. Marino said. “A $1 bill goes on the Internet and everybody in the world knows that they are giving a dollar. It is ridiculous.”

“We listed all of our contributions last year, Matt [Doherty] and I, as they came in,” Mayor Pringle said. “We disclosed every contribution, from $1 up, during last year’s campaign, voluntarily.”

“[Contributions] from the Democratic Club?” Mr. Marino questioned.

“We didn’t take from the Democratic Club,” Mayor Pringle said.

“[Contributions] from a fund-raiser?” Mr. Marino questioned.

“We sold tickets,” Mayor Pringle said.

“Everybody that bought a ticket…” Mr. Marino started to question.

“…is listed,” Mayor Pringle interjected.

“Right, somebody bought 30 tickets. They are listed?” Mr. Marino questioned.

“They are listed,” Mayor Pringle said.

“They bought 30 tickets, Here! Here! Here! Here! Here!” Mr. Marino shouted, pretending to hand out invisible tickets. “Baloney!”

“Everybody who paid is listed,” Mayor Pringle said.

“It’s a lie!” Mr. Marino shouted. “It’s an assault on the voter. It’s an assault on the public!”

“Your comment right there is an assault on a mayor and council who prides themselves on honesty and integrity and I am not going to stand here and listen to you,” Councilman Barry Zimmerman stated.

“You are not standing, so just sit there,” Mr. Marino said.

“With that in mind, if you are going to insult me…” Councilman Zimmerman continued.

“You are going to leave,” Mr. Marino said.

“That’s right,” Councilman Zimmerman stated, getting up from his seat. “I’m gonna do what you did to us last time.”

“You are going to leave anyway!” Mr. Marino shouted. “You sold your house. You are going to go back to Fort Lauderdale?”

Councilman Zimmerman exited the room through the side door as Mr. Marino made his final comment, “My point is that anything under $100 should be omitted.”

“Thank you,” Mayor Pringle said.

Other members of the public, such as Kevin Fay and Michael Seebeck, a Republican candidate for council this November, approached the dais to make comments regarding the ordinance.

“I agree with Mr. Marino,” Mr. Fay stated. “It is a matter of privacy and, also, it appears to me, perhaps, a bit of intimidation.”

Councilman Doherty explained to Mr. Fay that the purpose of the ordinance “is to fully disclose all campaign contributions that come into anyone’s account to run for mayor and council. Very simple.”

“I think Matt’s point is that, in last year’s campaign, 95 percent of the money would not have been disclosed if you applied the $300 threshold to this,” Mayor Pringle said.

Councilman William Merkler said he had encountered a few people while he was campaigning, who asked that their names not be disclosed when they donated to his campaign. The campaign contributions were all under $300 and, for that reason, the names were kept private, as is allowed currently. However, should the ordinance pass, that will change.

“Mayor Pringle, you did point out that somebody, somewhere along the line, sat down and gave this some thought, came up with some figures and a threshold to establish these regulations that, up to now, have all been abided by,” Mr. Seebeck commented last Wednesday evening. “I understand the need for a pay-to-play regulation in New Jersey. Galloway Township have enacted some pay-to-play regulations and they did so while still maintaining the election contribution thresholds of the ELEC and it allows the anonymity of people, to honor those thresholds anonymously.

“I think, to cast a net to include any individual who may have an interest in making a contribution anonymously,” Mr. Seebeck added. “I think that overdoes it. I do agree with Mike [Marino] that there should be some anonymity to it, some allowance for contributions. We are not running Senate campaigns in our town.”

“Why do you believe someone should be allowed to contribute anonymously in a council election,” Councilman Doherty asked.

“Because it is a small town, Matt,” Mr. Seebeck said. “We are all neighbors. The same reason that I am allowed to go into a voting booth without someone standing over my shoulder or asking me, ‘Who are you voting for?’”

“Don’t you think there is a difference between your right to privacy in a voting booth and when someone is financially backing a candidate?” Councilman Doherty asked.

“It’s a good question,” Mr. Seebeck said, “but I am not entirely sure. I default to the fact that the New Jersey ELEC has these laws and regulations. If it is such a good idea for us, why did they not drop the limit to zero?”

“I believe that fully disclosing all campaign contributions is necessary because the people have the right to know who is financing politicians’ campaigns,” Councilman Doherty added earlier this week. “The more information voters have about a candidate, the better informed they are, and this will lead to a better decision at the voting booth. In addition, shedding light on the campaign finance system will ensure it is not abused by politicians at the expense of tax payers.”


Boy I miss Mike Marino.


  1. OLD MAN wrote:

    Ok now is the time for three aspirins and a large glass of orange juice

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:16 am | Permalink
  2. Tom Paine Supporter wrote:

    Just like Tom’s pamphlets Dave’s blog valiantly tells the real, rest of the story. Dave’s bravery cannot be bought. We are so lucky to have become so much more informed on the machinations of the Administration and how it has devolved

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 9:17 am | Permalink
  3. Ms. Sarcastic wrote:

    At least the propaganda is not wasted with tax dollars. Thank you Dave, take a bow for your no spin blog.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 9:47 am | Permalink
  4. admin wrote:

    In the end it is the taxpayers who pay.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 9:49 am | Permalink
  5. Tom Paine Supporter wrote:

    You have awaken and told the people that the current administration is definitely questionable and open to criticism. The petitioners are brave and forthright.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:14 am | Permalink
  6. vox populi wrote:

    Mike Marino was respected by all in Belmar. Political persuasions didn’t interfere with their relationships. He was a Genuine gentleman and scholar.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:51 am | Permalink
  7. Taxpayer wrote:

    Claire are you kidding? The mayor spent over one million dollars on engineering fees alone. Would you like residents to pay themselves out of their pockets for engineering fees to redesign the 5th Ave building? That’s the problem here? You sound like a broken record. NO. Residents do not have to pay for a redesign. We need to cut our losses now and TELL OUR ENGINEERING FIRM OUR BUDGET IS 2.9 MILLION AND TO REDESIGN A BUILDING FOR THAT AMOUNT. And don’t even start about the extraordinary cost are to meet hurricane and FEMA standards. Everyone else built their pavilions at a reasonable price. When you have an original thought please offer it up. Otherwise be quiet. 4.1 million is too much money to replace the modest Taylor that was 5,776 square feet and being rebuilt over 1000 square feet. It is not smaller but much larger. Here’s my original thought of the day. The water is still brown is many areas in town. We need to address that as an emergent issue.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:26 am | Permalink
  8. Cathi wrote:

    Besides being irrelevant I question that a 98 year old woman wrote such a letter/post. God bless her if she did.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
  9. Claire Deicke wrote:

    My original thought is that people are sick and tired of the likes of you…you have no evidence that residents will pay from their pockets…What do you know about the differences in costs of Taylor Pavilion versus pavilions in other towns? Do you have all of the facts and figures from other towns-comparing costs? A blanket statement with no evidence… So what are you saying about brown water….the borough staff has made great strides in clearing up the water issue-and continues to do so…an interesting switch of focus from the pavilion issue-here’s my thought about you…..when you can dump the rude attitude, get back to me-take a lesson from the administrator of this blog-while we generally disagree on most topics, he is never rude to me-or tries not to be…without any facts, you attack me…..get some manners! You should know me by now-whoever you are-I’ll NEVER be quiet…my last original thought for the day…you are a poor soul who needs to have a shining moment to feel good about himself/herself…at my expense…do something positive for the town…look at the good things in life-you’ll feel better about yourself…

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:51 pm | Permalink
  10. Belmar Independent wrote:

    On the same day I get a partisan propaganda newsletter from Belmar Democrats and a statement posted by the Republican candidate for council supporting a Yes on the Taylor 4.1 million bond vote. Burke states that this is “not a partisan issue, it is a Belmar issue.” I say if it looks like a duck ( vote yes supporters) and walks like a duck, then it is a duck. Webster’s defines partisanship as: ” a firm adherent to a party or faction,cause or person especially one exhibiting BLIND, PREJUDICED and UNREASONING ALLEGIANCE.” Claire stated say NO to these negative people who criticize our great community”. This is partisanship on steroids. 1041 non-partisan voters who represented last Aug. 57.93% of our great community are negative people. Really? Last year another great unifier in the Democrat camp Janet Grosshandler wrote.” Do you want this TINY group to keep holding us back? The nay-sayers” will not stop us who want Belmar to thrive”. Claire states that “the petitioners and opponents are accountable to NO ONE. ” Trust me we are accountable to our God, our families and our republic. The last time I checked, our elected officials are accountable to we the people, even if we were the ” tiny group” and not the majority as is the case. A tiny group of colonials petitioned King George and got the same lack of respect that we have been getting. So who is conservative and who is liberal? Conservatives have a blind adherence to the status quo. The liberal response to the Mayor, Claire and Tom is the honoring of last year’s petitions and the special election PERIOD. To criticize and denigrate voters for exercising the liberties continues to release the “dogs of war”.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm | Permalink
  11. Guest wrote:

    I miss Mr. Marino as well! What I found so interesting about this blog post, is that in 2007 the Mayor and Council had no problem answering questions from the public during the public comment section of the meetings, including Doherty. In 2015, that is not what this section of the meeting is for! Hmmmmm!!!

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
  12. everyones for sale wrote:

    “Please stop calling things bipartisan just because Tom Burke likes them.”

    I thought Tom Burke was a Democrat. Did he change parties just to give Doherty bipartisan support?

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
  13. everyones for sale wrote:

    and Claire Deicke, the vast majority of us don’t even read your responses anymore. We just skip over them because your assessments are so severely misguided. My brain actually requires my hand to slap myself back to reality once I’m done reading your comments. It’s starting to hurt….so please, just make a quick point and be done, or read a different blog.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
  14. An Observation wrote:

    #10 #12 & 13 i could not have said it better myself. OH i forgot we must not be negative!!!

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 5:00 pm | Permalink
  15. Pootsie wrote:

    Mike Marino, The best. We all miss him.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
  16. Guest wrote:

    Regarding the little snippet about Home By Summer ,Do we even know what was really raised .It seems the amount’s given by the Mayor are something he just came up with. With looking at both properties and what has been done and apparently what still needs to be done, It seems they would have exceeded that amount donated. For the 14th avenue house alone it had to be more than what he is reporting. And where are the additional funds coming from to finish these two homes, Its obvious they have run out of funding being that these homes at least the 14th ave home is just sitting. Something is so wrong with this pet project of the mayor’s.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 5:54 pm | Permalink
  17. vox populi wrote:

    Would you just let the poor woman rant? At a certain time in everyone’s life you can do no wrong and get a pass to say anything. Kind of like your “different” uncle at the wedding celebration or holiday dinners.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:32 pm | Permalink
  18. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Cathi-Mrs. Taylor did indeed write the letter-she’s as sharp as a tack-why would you say that something so heartfelt is irrelevant? So dismissive of a 98-year-old woman-#10 I love your idealistic approach to things-and the American way-try this one on for size-7 residents (from different parts of town) approached me (I didn’t solicit) and said they were misled by the person(s) offering the pavilion petition…the individuals read the petition, then they were sold a bill of goods-one family asked how they could get their names off the petition…#13-I hope you slap yourself good and hard so that you come back to the real world-why do people mention me on this blog? Am I not allowed to comment? And, by the way, who are you? You’d never approach me face-to face…I could care less whether you read my comments, or anyone else does-last I heard it’s my right to respond-so, like the Old Man says, take an aspirin and relax-maybe that will remove the pain from the slapping-why don’t you bring credibility to your remarks by using your actual name-cowardly for someone who professes that I’m unworthy of your’re unworthy becuase you’re a can you be critical? Who is brave enough to say what she thinks using CLAIRE DEICKE…and you use “everyone’s for sale?” how many other names do you post under? Also, many people have outreached to me and said how much they appreciate my letter in the recent mailing-so , people agree with what I have to say….maybe not you, Faceless Wonder

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:53 pm | Permalink
  19. Bill Straus wrote:

    Claire, the mayor and council have lost the trust of half the residents in town not because of the pavilion issue but because they lie. Remember as a teenager your parents told you don’t lie to us because we won’t trust you. This is the core of the problem here in town. It’s not about the Taylor pavilion it’s about lying. I would love to sit down with you and give you countless examples and at that point you will understand, lying is the worst of sins as it destroys trust honor and integrity. Really Claire I want to sit down with you, get back to me.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
  20. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Vox Populi-Love that you use Latin-miss Latin at mass on Sundays-thanks (I think) for giving me a pass……although I wouldn’t characterize my remarks as ranting..I can be quirky at times-like the different relative you reference.I come from a long line of different, quirky people.we’re highly individual..and am proud to say so-Latin is very closely aligned to Italian…as you well know-love it!
    Bill-I’ll look at my schedule and get back to you…..busy with lots of family stuff….Claire

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
  21. Katrina wrote:

    Its quite simple. 353 people signed the petition against the 4 million bond ordinance. 353. And there would have been more had we more time. Almost 60% voted the same plan down last year.If some people feel they are getting misinformation whose fault is that? We have continually asked for open town hall meetings and instead got a committee of the same people that put the plan into effect in the first place that is not open to the public. I as a petition committee person want two things. I want the residents of Belmar to have a vote on how to spend their money, in November, not a money wasting special election. And I’d like people to understand I have no hidden agenda other than wanting open information and giving residents a voice. I have no political party affiliation, I could care less about Democrat Republican or anything in between, although I do admit that having to spend my own hard earned money to combat the expensive propaganda that is at the disposal of the Mayor and Council, is very disheartening.

    Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
  22. Belmar Independent wrote:

    I had more people than your 7 contact me to sign the petition, most live around you. What’s your point? I have voter list, just like you do. I know how many informed Democrats and Independents in my area are informed, upset and continually sign the petition.
    I regret that you view a resurgence of American idealism with such cynicism.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 6:48 am | Permalink
  23. Cathi wrote:

    Claire, like I said “God bless her if she did”.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 7:57 am | Permalink
  24. Eugene Creamer wrote:

    The fold-out is a perfect fit liner for the bottom of our bird cage.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:36 am | Permalink
  25. admin wrote:

    I didn’t know you had a bird, Gene.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:45 am | Permalink
  26. An Observation wrote:

    #24 Eugene, why upset your bird, please get him something better to read.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 9:03 am | Permalink
  27. vox populi wrote:

    Cat litter anyone? We will be drowning with snail mailings and “let’s give the sucker’s free drinks” to get their votes days by November.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 9:24 am | Permalink
  28. Claire Deicke wrote:

    #22-I merely informed you that people were misled when petitioners approached them-American idealism is a great concept-that being said, we all have a right to petition, state our opinions… our forefathers intended-but I do think they are rolling in their graves with the abuse of freedoms….such as people using ficititous names to say mean-spirited things about others-with innuendos and lies…..if you’re so ready to be idealistic, why can’t you identify yourself? You shouldn’t have anything to hide-you were polite in your explanation to me-and didn’t imply I’m some old lady who should be given a pass…..I admit to being quirky!

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 9:35 am | Permalink
  29. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Cathi-OK-I get that you said “God bless her if she did” in fact write the piece-but why are her remarks irrelevant? She wrote with warmth and lovingly of her husband for whom the pavilion was named…..and since the Taylor Pavilion seems to be a topic of great interest lately, how can Mrs. Taylor’s words possibly be considered irrelevant… started off your comments with……..”besides being irrelevant…”

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
  30. admin wrote:

    To me it is irrelevant. She may be a nice lady but I’m not going to go along with borrowing and spending $4 million just because she would like us to. Besides I think the fact that the building would carry her name makes her opinion not exactly unbiased.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
  31. Belmarguy wrote:

    #13 – And to think she was a special education teacher, lol!! Seems to me she hasn’t gotten off the short bus after she retired. haha!

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 2:01 pm | Permalink
  32. Cathi wrote:

    #30 – what you said. Claire, please give Mrs. Taylor my regards. I would love to meet her someday. She must have some stories to tell about living through a World War and a devastating depression. Even so, times were much simpler weren’t they? If I mentioned spending $4 million on a building, my 91 yr old father in law would suggest I get my head examined. Nostalgia can be a very expensive idea.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
  33. everyones for sale wrote:

    HA HA

    just checked the comments. Read them all and completely skipped over all that started with Claire Deicke wrote:

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
  34. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Administrator-Give her a break-she’s 98! Of course she wants to see her husband’s legacy live on !
    #31-I wasn’t a special eduation teacher-you are a simple-minded person with no regard for people-it would have been my privilege to ride on the bus with those sweet, dear special needs children who worked very hard to do their best in school each day….with smiles on their faces-but you wouldn’t know about that….you’re just mean, uncaring and worst of all wouldn’t be a fit person to ride with them…these children are so above you with their dignity and grace..

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
  35. admin wrote:

    Claire, you’re the one who put her letter as the headline of your “newsletter”. Apparently you think what she has to say about it is very important. I’m saying that to me, it’s not important.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
  36. Belmarguy wrote:

    CLAIRE DEICKE, yes you were! You had that cubical room with Manser and Wingo… Don’t tell me, I had to live through it..

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
  37. admin wrote:

    Sorry comment #31 got through. I didn’t even know what a “short bus” was.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
  38. Belmarguy wrote:

    #37Admin, lol… Now you know 🙂

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 5:47 pm | Permalink
  39. admin wrote:

    Please, there’s plenty to make fun of in town without bringing handicapped people into it.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
  40. Claire Deicke wrote:

    I was not a special education teacher-although I’d admit it if I were…..I taught supplemental education-for students who were struggling, but not handicapped/classified….my teaching certificate was general education, k-8…..I couldn’t teach special education children because I didn’t have the certification-Boy, you’re more off base than I thought you were-like I said, not only mean-spirited but clueless…

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 7:33 pm | Permalink
  41. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Administrator-Whatever you think about Mrs. Taylor’s letter is fine-I’m just saying that at 98 years young she wanted to offer her opinion about the pavilion-and we thought it was a great letter…..and heartfelt from a woman of her age.and remarkable, althgough my mother was pretty sharp at 98 as well..that’s why it made the front page of the newsletter…as you stated administrator… we thought it was an important piece in terms of her words honoring her late husband-and that she chose to put her feelings into words…whether you think it appropriate or not doesn’t change my thinking about how marvelous it was that a woman of her age would express her thoughts so perfectly…

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
  42. Claire Deicke wrote:

    #33-Glad you’re giving your brain a break by not reading my comments-might be too much for you to process….

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
  43. Belmarguy wrote:

    Claire, then why were you allowed to teach IEP classified children?! That’s special education… Manser, Wingo, Clark and McGovern were all special education teachers and so were you… Admin, no one is making fun of special handicap children… Claire spun her response to that, not me…

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
  44. The Truth wrote:

    Say what you want but she wasn’t resource room. That being people regretting signing a petition is one thing , there Vote is what counts and this issue was already decided.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
  45. anonymous wrote:

    #30&#34 Of course Dot Taylor is loyal to John as she should be and as you would expect. When John and Pete Maclearie and John Ferrugiarro and Don Matthews were taking care of the town’s business there would not have been any controversy over the replacement of the pavilion because their plan would have been reasonably priced and they would have worked with the public [not just one segment] to find an acceptable solution. And they were not overly fond of borrowing to obligate the taxpayers when the debt in town was already at high levels.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:06 pm | Permalink
  46. Claire Deicke wrote:

    I WASN’T a special education teacher!!!…..I told you what my certification was..what’s so hard about grasping this concept??.bringing up the bus that the students rode on is suspect of making fun of them….no spin here….you are INCREDIBLY clueless..why would you bring the bus that children traveled on up on this blog? You think it’s funny to bring up how they were transported to school…..and make fun of me along with it?

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:07 pm | Permalink
  47. Katrina wrote:

    Can we all just get back on track. The comments should be about the first piece of expensive propaganda gearing up for election time Get ready becuase there will much more coming in the the next couple of months. This ones a doozy. A sweet letter from a 98 year old to soften your heart then a nasty attack on the inside against former Mayor Pringle. And everyone’s favorite words “frivolous lawsuit”! So frivolous that the borough LOST every one. There wouldn’t have been even one lawsuit if the Mayor had listened and considered the opinions of that “small element”

    Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
  48. Tulip wrote:

    I wonder how the Sterner family feels. The renaming of the marina is a little bit much. I definitely feel that the Taylor Pavilion should remain the Taylor Pavilion and the Sterner Marina should remain the Sterner Marina. It certainly isn’t being changed because either of those men did anything wrong. I would hate to think we are going to have mass building when we run out of buildings so another name can go up.

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:59 am | Permalink
  49. Belmarguy wrote:

    Claire.. If you weren’t a special education teacher then why did you teach children that were classified with IEP’s? Was Belmar letting you teach these children illegally without having the right certifications?

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 6:54 am | Permalink
  50. Claire Deicke wrote:

    I am not going to continue with this because you’re not getting the message plainly explained….what can you be thinking? I didn’t teach classified students-I can’t make it any simpler than that…..administrator-please don’t let this person post another message like this-I don’t think this is the purpose of your blog/comments-unbelievable!

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 8:57 am | Permalink
  51. admin wrote:

    I agree. It has nothing to do with anything here.

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 9:02 am | Permalink
  52. Claire Deicke wrote:

    Thank you, Dave!

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.