So Kids First holds a hard line on some of his demands and he walks. That reflects "bungled attmeted" to select the Superintendent. What would Mr. Bajardi have the do? Give in to every demand? Doesn't make sense.

Wow. Rose Markle had to bang her gavel. That's news. Salacious blather from Lane Bajardi. Was it only about Lane Bajardi against the board? Were we in the same room? How about reporting what's actually going on with the students in the district - the approval of the Stimulus funding for the laptop program for all the middle schoolers in Connors, Wallace and Calabro? How about the announcement that the highly respected principal of Connors, Ms. Erbe, is retiring? Or, the track team being approved to participate in the Penn Relay? There was a detailed agenda, and about 10 people got up to speak at the podium. Any news from Mr. Carter? Nothing? I guess it's about Lane Bajardi. Thanks for the update on drama.

Hi, pat. Thanks for your feedback. There's a story about the rest of the meeting as well, including some of the items you mention. You can read it here: http://patch.com/UlzU

- Claire

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I find it hard to seperate Lane Bijardi's comments from his past political attacks for Councilwoman Mason in front of the City Council.

Councilwoman Mason once said she didn't want to inject politics into the BOE. I would say sending in her surogates is a rather disingenuous of doubling back on her statements.

Who gave Claire the confidential communique? Sullivan and Gilliard's blatent public violation of the rule of law is despicable and reeks of machine politcs. (18A-12-24.1.g-"I will hold confidential all matter of executive session" this includes ANY and ALL information related to any information obtained before, during and after executive session, EXCEPT: under court order). Did they bother to check with the board attorney, before they sent out their public letter "insinuating" comments during executive session? No board members can legally respond to their accusations, as they too would be in violation of the law . Sullivan and Gilliard's total disregard of law, for political gain, is exactly what the public has been fighting. What a disappointment, Sullivan and Gilliard.

I have tried to ignore the anonymous bloggers who insist on spreading lies, but it's apparent that their virulent form of self-expression infects the cosmos. So allow me to try to inject facts into the debate.

If the "confidential communique" jane is referring to is Dr. Romano's resignation letter, then she is misinformed as to the nature of that communication. His letter dated Feb 25 and released to the board on March 1 is a public document; it is not and never was a confidential document. Also, it was never discussed in executive session until last night. As the board attorney told Lane Bajardi during last night's meeting, the letter can be obtained through an OPRA request.

During the public portion of the meeting Lane asked board president Rose Markle several questions related to "what she knew and when she knew it" about the letter and the resignation because he indicated that it looked suspicious that the letter was released shortly after the deadline passed for submitting petitions for the boe election. (his suspicions, not mine.) She would not answer his questions, as is her choice. Then the board went into exec session. When we came out, Rose told the people who waited for an hour that yes, the letter was dated Feb. 25, and yes, she released it to the board members on March 1. As Claire writes above, Rose in a previous interview acknowledged sending the letter out to board members at about 5 pm, an hour after the deadline for petitions, including her own.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You and spousey are quite the anonymous poison pens yourselves.

One more thing...it's easy for a member of the public who sits through one ethics seminar to declare herself an expert. Let me explain: some things examined in executive session are also aired publicly and some things that first appear in public are later discussed in exec session. Also, many things in exec session are not confidential and can be discussed right away. Minutes are kept and are available to the public.

And as our attorney said, board members must keep many matters private but we also never give up our First Amendment rights. For instance, we discussed Principal Linda Erbe's retirement and its repercussions in committee. That doesn't preclude me from discussing my opinions of her in public. I understand my obligations and have never exposed anything confidential from an executive session.

After Phil DeFalco resigned during exec sesssion, I told some members of the public. Theresa Minutillo admonished me for violating confidentiality. She was wrong. Phil just happened to resign during a closed meeting discussing other issues. It was never a confidential matter. It's clear that even long time board members sometimes don't understand how the process works.

I believe a government works best when it works in the sunshine. That's why I voted last night to discuss re-combining the board secretary/business admin's job in public, not in executive session. And why I wanted the discussion of filling Phil's seat held in public. I was outvoted both times.

One last clarification.

In her ongoing jihad, jane incorrectly quotes NJ Statute 18A:12-24.1. g

The code actually reads: "I will hold confidential all matters pertaining to the schools which, if disclosed, would needlessly injure individuals or the schools."

Thank-you Pat. It is well known that Sullivan (+ spouse) and Bajardi are quite comfortable slinging mud anonymously in the blogosphere. Who do they think they are kidding? Sullivan however is unique in her willingness to also do it under her own name while acting the part of the bewildered victim. No one is fooled although the performance is Oscar worthy. And speaking of Oscar performances Bajardi's over scripted performance piece last night would seem to lend credence to the existence of a Mason/Sullivan Axis. I can't think of the last time Bajardi has been trotted out at a BoE meeting. Some one has called out the foot soldiers. But which self-anointed Queen of Reform is giving the orders and who will prevail: Mason or Sullivan?

This is quite a stretch, hullabaloo.

I supported Dawn Zimmer in her elections last year, wore the green shirt and put up the posters. Ask her.

Point of information: just before my break with Kids First, I was approached by KF campaign manager Liz Mulholland in an effort (supported by others I was told) to run against Beth Mason in the second ward, where I live. I laughed heartily and told her I had had absolutely no interest in running for city council. Perhaps scorning her invitation is why my erstwhile friends are now intent on linking me and Beth in some diabolical plot to...well, I'm not exactly sure what the plot is.

At a minimum you're acting the spoiler from the comfort of your Board seat. How does one resign from an electoral slate when you're not even running for reelection? Perhaps some of your "erstwhile friends" are not willing to accept your claim that you are the only voice of reform on the Board and everyone who disagrees with you is part of the "machine." As for plots it's no stretch at all to imagine you allying yourself with whomever you think will help you further your agenda. After all your Kids First alliance served you very well until you didn't prevail in the Superintendent vote. As the saying goes politics makes for strange bed-fellows. Nothing would surprise me.

The only question is when the "Bajardi Files" will make its debut on H411. There are no coincidences.

jane: what you don't seem to understand is that laws trump policies. The state Sunshine Law -- which says government bodies need to do most of their work in the light of day unless discussing issues such as personnel, legal matters, real estate -- is paramount. That's why I voted to open the December meeting in which we chose Phil DeFalco's replacement.

We had every legal right to over-rule our old bad policy and I believe we had an obligation to do so. This was hardly "on the fly" since decisions like this often are debated strenuously among members leading up to a meeting. To my chagrin, no one else on the board saw the wisdom of respecting the spirit of the open public meetings law. So while the public waited downstairs, we listened to a half dozen candidates for the open seat tell us why they wanted to be on the board...something they would do in public every day if they were actually running for election.

The public becomes suspicious when we move into closed session - and rightfully so. It's easy to fall into a trap of wanting to make uncomfortable decisions away from public scrutiny.

Boy, Markle's actions here are really fishy. Not only should she have told the rest of the board when Romano's letter came in on the 25th, she should have immediately told the public. Accusing Vito Gagliardi, the lawyer, of telling her to wait four days is so sleazy. Markle's already admitted that she was keeping Gagliardi out of the negotiations with Romano and trying to work out a deal herself. So here's my theory: When it blew up she kept it quiet, hoping the news wouldn't get out until after the filing deadline. Kids First was already having trouble finding newcomers to run on their ticket along with two of the anti-reform old guard, Markle and Irene Sobolov. Markle didn't want their potential candidates--Jean Marie Mitchell and Leon Gold--to get cold feet when they realized that the Romano fiasco had become that much more impossible to defend. So she kept the news from everybody until the petitions were safely filed. It also appears that while she was obligated to tell the board, she had no intention of ever telling the public, until maybe the day after the election. That explains the angry reaction from Jane and the rest of Kids First when the news finally came out.

I have to question motivation of some of the players.

Is this just moving the Mason-Zimmer power struggle from the City Council to the BOE ?

When the same highly divisive people suddendly appear on the scene using the same divisive tactics they used at the City Council it appears that much of the infighting is politically motivated.

Like it or not Mrs. Sullivan is viewed as being part of Councilwoman Mason's camp and Mrs. Markel and the rest of Kids First part of Mayor Zimmer's camp.

I would ask both sides to tone down the rehtoric and rememeber why people put you in office.

watchdog, you write such great short stories. You left out the alien abduction part this time. ;-)

Maureen, if you were so concerned with this (or any) policy, why didn't you request a change when you were elected and why haven't you requested one since December? Just seems a little odd, if you really believed cnadidates should be forced to interview in public, why not put that policy up for a change/modification? Many would see changing policy on the day of execution, as a violaton of sunshine laws. It seems to fly in the face of what you stand for.

The vote and all discussions relevant to appointing a candidate was made in public (in the spirit of open meetings law).

@Lane B:
You say Romano "played them like a fiddle to his own advantage and outmaneuvered them." To what advantage? Romano didn't get what he wanted and he walked away. Are you saying the Board should have given away the store? They didn't. So what's your point other than furthering Sullivan's agenda? It's no coincidence that Sullivan's issue is suddenly your concern. Romano isn't coming. Perhaps if you paid more attention to the BoE on a regular basis you wouldn't be so confused. I haven't seen you at a Board meeting in a very, very long time. You materialized out of nowhere to grandstand with your camera crew and your big booming buttery voice. If that wasn't electioneering then what is? And don't play the innocent when it comes to anonymous blogging- your reputation precedes you but nice try.

hullaboo you beat me to it. i don't understand it either. this arguement would make sense if he walked in with a golden contract filled with goodies, but he asked and was denied. sounds like strong negotiation to me.

fact is, he was denied his requests. he is not coming and how that info is "game changing" is a mystery too. It's only "game changing" to those playing games.

what ever you think Romanos expectations or motivatiosn were, fact remains Hoboken didn't blink nor give in. He is not staying at Fort Lee and his chances at a better postition are now hampered by the endless vicious attacks online regarding him, all they have to do is google his name and see.

ps. Beth's crew USED to tape boe meetings. she stopped last year, during last years BOE elections. why the sudden interest when it is played often on 77?

@Lane:
Romano did not get what he wanted or he'd be here with everything you say he was demanding. Funny strategy he employed to get everything and yet he ended-up with nothing from Hoboken. Nada. I would beg to differ with you that his reputation was enhanced if anything it was dragged through the mud. Sullivan did all she could to besmirch his reputation before he could be hired and upon his withdrawal continued to malign his character. On what planet is this a win for Romano?

Lane B, do you have any proof of this imaginative scheme? You and watchdog should get together and write a fictional novel-your talents really are wasted, here. This is for non fiction/biographical type discussions.

LOL! great press- have you read what sullivan had to say about Romano?

I could understand your live item concern, if not for the fact that 1-the schedule for the superintnedent search was discussed at most meetings (specifically, the date of the picking) and 2-your gal, Sullivan, voted for the live item Principal within moments of the Supt. vote, yet, you have no concerns with Sullivan? It just seems very suspect.

It is disappointing that you have changed your ideals. Cammarano? really?

Today when asked by the Mile Square View bloger , about her videographer at the BOE meeting and would recordings be used in anyone's campaign, Councilwoman Mason said "I do not know."

Let's look at the coincidences: Bajardi materializes at the Board meeting with an over-scripted performance piece to further Sullivan's agenda and Mason's camera crew is there filming but there's no connection between any of them. And of course it will just be another coincidence if Bajardi's theatre piece morphs into a campaign video and magically appears on H411 for Sullivan's Maureen First slate. As someone once said, "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

...and this is the point where I begin to wonder, "Why am I responding to people who hide behind names like hullabaloo?" Perhaps if you would step away from your screen names and show your true selves I would take you more seriously. You won't do that because you wouldn't want you real names associated with your breathless hyperbole, historical re-writes and hysterical conspiracy theories.

I love all of the comments that have Lane B labelled as a former Kids First supporters. In the three years i was associated to KF the closest Lane B and his wifey ever got to being a supporter was sitting in the board meeting taking notes for his 411 blog stories. He never supported the initiatives until Maureen ran with the ticket and his apparent switch away is just his posturing to get the uninformed public to think that he is part of a mass exodus.

Somewhere it should also note Lane B as a former supporter of Peter Cammarano and reminded that he fought the city council on the initiative to take back control of the planning board away from Cammarano hours before he was arrested for selling out to developers. It is amazing how fast he has become the mockery of what he used to speak against. It is time for Lane to sit down, shut up and try to do something from inside the hall he demands so much of while whining about it from the sidelines. His diminutive appearances only reflect on himself now and not those that he once proposed to care about or the issues.

Poor Poor Lane Bajardi from National Cable Network Anchor to Public access Channel 77

FYI, Mile Square View has posted a companion piece to the interview with Councilwoman Beth Mason today.

And we pose some additional questions we doubt will be answered. That seems to be an issue of late with some elected officials.

And unlike Hoboken411, we don't accept anonymous written political commentary and then allow the writer to respond to it under various screen names.

But then again, who is like Hoboken411? Hoboken.patch.com is killing it and will be finishing his lunch sooner than later. MSV will be glad to help.

Lane - "@hullabaloo, future potential employers are not going to read Ms. Sullivan's remarks in the comments section of the blog and hold that against Dr. Romano. They will, however, read the upbeat interview published here by Claire on Patch as well as similarly upbeat articles in the local weekly, among other sources. "

The "remarks" are immediately following any article on Patch and the other sites. Of course they will read the comments.

Lane advising us on Employment? Ha!

@Lane B-your breathless hyperbole, historical re-writes and hysterical conspiracy theories:
" Ms. Minutillo and Ms. Markle hid the news about Dr. Romano from the public, isn't it? So candidates with higher name recognition and reform reputation than Mr. Gold and Ms. Mitchell wouldn't get into the race. " WHAT???
"future potential employers are not going to read Ms. Sullivan's remarks in the comments section of the blog and hold that against Dr. Romano. They will, however, read the upbeat interview published here by Claire on Patch.They will also weigh the fact that 7 trustees wanted Romano while 2 trustees didn't."How do you know employers won't read Sullivan's comments?
"Dr. Romano got what he wanted and more. He got great press in Bergen and Hudson counties, will very likely get a big raise in his new Fort Lee contract, and will be taken more seriously for any future Superintendent position he chooses to seek. "How do you knowwhat he wanted and that he will be taken more seriously? Any proof?
"I would, however, expect them to utilize the professional attorney they hired to handle the delicate negotiations. Instead they dispatched Theresa Minutillo, who has no experience negotiating six-figure employment contracts and was clearly outmaneuvered by Dr. Romano. This was at Dr. Romano's request, and he played them like a fiddle to his own advantage." How do you know what happened in executive session? were you there?
Can you prove ANY of this?

test

Lane isn't running for the school board so it's irrelevant whether he did or didn't support Cammarano. What is relevant is that Lane has always been a strong support of reforming the school system, something that much of Kids First isn't that interested in anymore. And it's also relevant that Irene Sobolov, one of the Kids First candidates pretending she's a reformer, signed up as a member of the Cammarano transition committee, right before he was arrested.

interesting. 50 posts on this thread and almost as many theories. never heard that one before.

http://www.hobokencityguide.com/hustle/view/0/947/

Lane Bajardi has been one of the most inflamatory and devisive figures in recent Hoboken politics and his political loyalties and affiliations are clear and well known.

This is why I and a large number of other people have good reason to question his motives.

I would also say there was a very large difference between breaking with the reform movement and actively working to get Peter Cammarano elected and being on Mr. Cammarano's hundred plus person, intentionally wide, bipartsan transition committee.

Oh this is precious! The self-annoinyed, self-appointed reformers are eating one of their own for disagreeing with KF. What I find particularly amusing is the awkwark attempt to label Lane as being politically influence while ignoring the fact that the Zimmer campaign paid for the fliers for last weeks KF fundraiser and the fact that the Mayor is injecting City Hall style politics into the BOE campaign. Wasn't it KF who campaigned on the platform that City Hall should stay out of BOE campaigns? Now, now...before you attack me...check your archives and you will see the quotes in the KF campaign material. And as far as the "sit down and shut up" comment...that sure sounds like machine politics to me.
Ok ladies and gents, I just fed you some fresh bait...let the feeding frenzy begin!

Sounds like sour grapes, watchdog. Hindsight is 20/20.
Keep spinnin'

I am confused, can you please provide any substantiative support for your claim that Bijardi supported reform in the schools? I don't recall any letters of support for anyone, except Cammarano. ;-). Funny, that you think lane B supporting cammarano isn't of importance. Kinda Shows your ignorance. Everyone knows who lane b is...

Irene not interested in improving schools ...LOL!!!!! even the devil himself couldn't say that.

Ahh, more fantasyland... I told you already, this blog is for non-fiction/biographical info....take the alien abduction stuff elsewhere (maybe 411- they buy into that nonsense).
" Zimmer campaign paid for the fliers for last weeks KF fundraiser and the fact that the Mayor is injecting City Hall style politics into the BOE campaign."

God...the mason slime is now in the BOE..UGH!

That's exactly what I like to see, HobokenDad. At least you have confirmed that Mayor Zimmer is no different in her desire to politicize the public schools than Mayor Roberts, Mayor Russo and all the mayors before them. I suppose it's a real eye-opener to find out that KF is nothing more than a cog in the machine. (ok, I know, it's different because she's on the side of right and the rest of the world is evil...save your typing finger for someone who will actually believe you)

Jane...stop lying. The email and flier were all over town. If you didn't see them then maybe you should step down as the defacto defender of the dumb.
While you're at it, you can stop lumping me in with the Mason camp. I voted for your gal in city hall for both council and mayor. I can however, admit that I did so because the pool was shallow and my expectations were about as low as her performance in office.

Hullabaloo and randy randy -- of course I was familiar with that list before I posted my comment and I knew that someone would come back and post that link. But it was widely known and circulated that she agreed to serve on Cammarano's committee right after that story was posted. I'm guessing Jane knows the truth. That's why she's not disputing it (of course, now she'll feel she has to) or just ask Irene. Of course, Hoboken Dad is right--being on Cammarano's big and somewhat bipartisan committee was not the biggest deal in the world. But it does show a lack of judgment and not very good reform instincts for someone who's running as a reformer and keeps voting against reform at school board meetings.

oh my. now over 60 posts. impressive numbers for a new site.

WATCHDOG – You have no clue. You changed from Irene "signed up" in your initial post to "ageed to serve" in your second post.
Irene had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Cammaranno campaign. AFTER THE ELECTION and after the committee was originally formed she was ASKED (she did not sign up) to ATTEND A MEETING of this bi-partisan group of almost 100 citizens. She was obviously respected as a strong voice of the community. She attended 1 meeting. WATCHDOG - Please explain the relevance of this to me.
Irene has always been an advocate for the CHILDREN attending the public schools. She believes that a quality school system is a right and not a privilege. She also believes that the negative perception of the school system is overstated and needs to be changed and she works tirelessly to achieve that goal.
WATHDOG – what is your goal ?

Maureen, do you have any idea what a monumental hypocrite Lane is? He's talking about people hiding behind screen names. So far this week he has been the colonel, marklower, and a bunch of names at hoboken 411.

He's hopeless but what about you. Do you want to win so bad that you will accept his support?

CONGRATULATIONS Hoboken Patch. You certainly have hit a nerve with your reporting and have developed a lively forum. Apparently you are the place to post to try and advance a point of view regarding Hoboken doings.

That said, I am willing to wade into the argument and am willing to accept brickbats as well as accolades. At first I wondered what all of the fuss was about regariding Mr. Bajaridi's appearance at the BOE meeting. I then watched the meeting on channel 78. I was actually spell bound by the sheer luancy of his rantings and over the top theatrics that he displayed. I had to wonder if anyone close to him actually watches his "performance" and gives him any feedback. The McCarthyesque style of inquisition gets old very quickly, and actually engenders sympathy for those that he is so rudely and belligerently badgering. No way is he delivering the message he thinks that he is conveying and actually scoring points. The most ineffective tirade and performance that I have observed.

As for Maureen - here is a suggestion - watch the re-runs. You scowl and drip sarasm in every sentence, no every breath. No way to win an argument or to make your point. You just come across as bitter and angry, and after watcing two meetings, I still don't know what point(s) you are trying to make. I still do not understand why you want to spend all of this money on a "search" and hire a headhinter that will "make" someone want to be the BOE super. Bizarre thought proess. If you know of a Houdini headhunter that has those skills, let me know - I would use their servies. You just come aross as amateurish and not particularly artiulate. The whole Penn Relay discussion was an embarassment on your part. Take a deep breath and think about how your words and argument play out. I actually thought you had a valid and reasonable point to make, initially, but you lost me in the pettiness of your argument.

Lastly, if anyone is dumb enough to think that the scripted performane by Mr. Bajardi was not political, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. What has struck me about Ms. Mason (and Mr. Bajardi, do not even try and suggest that you appeared without her knowledge, consent and counel) is the disdain that she apperas to have for teh voters of Hoboken, It is as if she has this "marketing genius" view of the world and we are all pawns to be manipulated. It is arrogant, and condescending and was, unfortunately, on full display on 78. I watched the BOE meeting after reading about her refusal to deny that the taping of the meeting would not be used for political purposes. Classic fail moment.

Maureen, if you were so concerned with this (or any) policy, why didn't you request a change when you were elected and why haven't you requested one since December? Just seems a little odd, if you really believed cnadidates should be forced to interview in public, why not put that policy up for a change/modification? Many would see changing policy on the day of execution, as a violaton of sunshine laws. It seems to fly in the face of what you stand for.

Hello? Maureen any answers? hello? anything maureen? hello?

re: Mason's strategy of unleashing the vain, apoplectic Bajardi at the BoE w/personal videographer in tow:

Let's say 2 teams compete each year in a cake bake-off. One team uses butter and vanilla in their recipe, the other uses vinegar and boric acid. And anti-freeze. This team bakes their acid-cake in a fine pan made of solid gold, in a fabulous chef's oven-- the kitchen is in a mansion over on Hudson Street. The butter/vanilla team uses a plain aluminum pan in a GE oven.

Well, the butter-vanilla team wins the bake-off every year, the acid-cake team loses. In fact, no one ever eats their cake- one sniff and they toss their slices in the garbage. Now, what would you do if you were the losing team? Use the same foul recipe next time hoping for a different result?

Nothing about deploying Bajardi makes sense. Beth's lost the last 3 bake-offs with her bitter recipe. The stench of failure follows him. It is surely a good omen for Kids First that Mason has jumped into the fray with her foul recipe.

If only her riches could buy some common sense.

Isn't Real Results running on a platform of transparency and executive management skills? The didn't file their d2 elec form yet and they have an ad in the Hoboken Reporter. CandidatesMUST file the form before they expend money. This is what they call executive management? It's just a one page form. They had 14 days to get it in. I guess they are following sullivan's versions of the law. Ya know, only if THEY think it should be followed. Like Markevich said, get rid of the "shackles of paperwork and useless procedures."

Do you see it now Maureen? Do you see how many people must be lying in order for Lane to be telling the truth? The whole town is in a conspiracy.

Yet the tone and the words are the same as all the denied screen names. Zimmer's minions, he says, just like all the secret identities do. THINK FOR YOURSELF, Maureen.

Calling all Masonites Calling all Masonites: Urgent Group meeting at Russo Civic Association Tonight. Urgent Group Meeting at Russo Civic Association tonight.
Attendance required or you will be demoted on the Church Toweres Waiting List(Over)

OneTime--Thanks for confirming Irene's membership on the Cammarano committee and her attendance at one meeting before he was arrested. Glad to see there is at least some honesty on this thread.
--"Signed up" and "agreed to serve" are the same thing. Irene was asked to serve and she agreed to serve so she signed up. I don't get your point there.
--As I said, this was a somewhat bipartisan group, but not that bipartisan. Out of almost 100 citizens, only four or five came from the reform camp.
--I stated the relevance in my last post: to sign up with Cammarano's committee showed a lack of judgment and not very good reform instincts.
--Yes, Irene has long been seen as an advocate for the public school children. And it's very commendable that she's always had her children in the public schools. But it's not enough that she leads high school tours and helps out with the PTO. Now that she's on the board much more is expected. I and many other parents supported her appointment to the board, believing that her advocacy would now have much more impact. But she's voted over and over with the board's old guard that has opposed reform forever. The final straw was voting for a new super who was so obviously the wrong choice for our district--a choice that Kids First knew was wrong but was made anyway just to get someone hired before the election. Picking a bad super just for politics? That's advocating for the kids?

That's your opinion that he was the wrong choice, a lot of us parents were very happy with a candidate that came from high performing districts and wanted him for Hoboken.
I don't blame him for backing out, it is his career and before he even had a chance to prove himself he was being crucified in the blogs by Maureen.

why do you keep mentioning "arrested" in the same sentance as Irene? Seems like you are trying to infer more then attandence at one meeting. If I didn't know any better, I would think you are trying to smear someone with what looks like a good communt reputation. seems a stretch and pretty low.

How smug. Irene has been a well known advocate for the children of the public schools, has her three boys currently enrolled there, helped out at the PTO, and was an original founder of the Hoboken Family Alliance, among other admirable accomplishments. So Maureen, what superior criteria do you hold that brings more value than Irene to be a trustee of the Hoboken school system?

You say, "Picking a bad super just for politics? That's advocating for the kids?" Well, at least it's includes Irene's kids, too. Yes, she believed it was a good choice - not that it would affect your kids who are now out of the district.

If you didn't like the stimulus-funded middle school laptop program, for example, what ideas did you have to offer instead? The conversation had gone on for months. No one heard anything from your corner in the form of an alternative idea: What comes to mind is just a Simon Cowell wannabe.

Romano was chosen by 7 out of 9 board members. He was highly desired by the vast majority. Only 2 board members Sullivan and Gilliard disagreed. Gilliard stated something about trying to get an aquaintance in, which leaves Sullivan as the only person who didn't like Romano. The vast majority of constituents are very angry that Sullivan's antics may have caused Romano to decline the district's offer.
Now that SUllivan removed her kids from the district, she wants a Supt. with no nj public school experience nor certification. Again, Sullivan is misguided. The state of NJ requires certification. Like raslowski,if we bend the rules, the taxpayers will have to foot the bill to have the supt. aquire all necessary classes, certifications and mentors to reach the bare minimum state requirements. The parents and tax payers, overwhelimingly disagree with her. This is NOT SUllivan's school. It is a public school. Our students and taxpayers deserve better. They deserved a supt who came from the top schools in NJ. Sullivan and her Real Results slate is wrong for the students and taxpayers of Hoboken. Their inexperience and distain for state law, will cost our students and taxpayers, dearly.

Let's face it when the Benjamins run out for the Bajardi's we all know they'll be moving. Unless they already have, or maybe they are on Mason's payroll.
The notion that Bajardi and the wifey would send their kid to school with minority kids is a joke, they would move back to Wappinger Falls faster than you can say Conspiracy!

Hi all,

I really wanted to stay out of this discussion, as I like to focus on filming the meetings and avoid the politics, but my name and my company's name have been thrown around so many times here that I feel the need to respond.

First off, last week's board meeting was not the first one we had been back at. We had been back the month before. I did not film it personally, but my associate Eric who can often be found filming city council meetings did.

Secondly, there seems to be a hard stressed theory on here that I'm in cohoots with Lane and Beth. Flat out NOT TRUE. Lane has never asked me to film a meeting, paid me to film a meeting or discussed with me whether or not he would be present at a meeting.

Beth and I decided that the community would be better served filming board of ed. and hospital meetings instead of city council meetings which receive a lot of coverage. Our goal is to live stream both of these meetings in the future. I was trying to live stream last Tuesdays meeting but was unable to get the internet connection in that basement.

For some reason randyrandy decided to post my letter to the editor in support of Beth and was probably trying to start a new conspiracy theory with a mention of Tim Occhipinti. Tim is a friend, he used to work with my girlfriend many years ago. In the first election when I filmed Beth's tv commercials, Tim asked me to help him out with videos for his city council run and I did.

Tim paid me for that work. It was completely separate from my work for Beth. After Beth lost the election, I helped Dawn Zimmer in the runoff election, making this spot - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRLkevy3uak&playnext_from=TL&videos=QeSedWxc1Vk&playnext=1

After Peter Cammarano's arrest, I did a small amount of video work for Beth in the third election. However most of it was handled by Vision Media.

I am not in the business of playing politics. I do not film meetings with the goal of helping a particular election ticket. I do pay attention to what is written on our local blogs and I understand the discourse and animosity some people have towards others. You guys are free to have your discourse and guess who is behind whose screen name and who did what to who but please leave ASL Productions out of it.

Thank you,

Adam Lebenstein

I have two things to add. 1) Since this thread is largely about the split between Maureen and Kids First, I should probably note that I don't think I have ever spoken with Maureen Sullivan.

Also it is not anybody's business really, but my relationship with Beth is work for hire. She has no ownership in ASL Productions, a registered LLC. I have somewhere between 10 and 20 corporate clients, Beth is 1 of them. When Beth first hired me to film meetings, I was working as an associate producer for IMG and for SNY. Thanks to Beth hiring me to film, encode and upload many many meetings, in addition to work from the other two companies, I was able to build up money to buy better equipment and gain assignments with larger corporations.

The assertions that Beth owns my company are incorrect, just like much of the information (or should I say speculation) posted here. Also on Roman's blog he said boe meetings stopped being posted in 2008. If you go right here - http://wethepeoplereports.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=48 - you will see that the meetings we filmed, which was up to april of 2009, had been posted.

Mr. Lebenstain. maybe just me, but i dont think anyone thought you were in anything with Beth besides a business relationship. I thought the question was whether Lane and Beth had other motives for filming the boe after such a long break, April 2009.

Well, if it helps the dialogue at all, Beth and I had a discussion about switching our filming focus from city council back to board of ed. long before the superintendent resigned. When we stopped filming the boe meetings in april of 09 we also stopped filming zoning, planning and hospital because we were running out of server space. By not filming the sometimes six hour council meetings anymore we have the space to once again film board of ed. and hospital. As i stated previously we were also interested in live streaming meetings that were not currently being live streamed.

Mile Square View saved the link to the website on we the people reports Friday afternoon. There were no 2009 BoE videos available. The link was updated to show the videos not available previously.

The findings in detail are posted in the latest story: http://hobokenhorse.blogspot.com

An invitation was offered to discuss all of this but was declined.

On another note, Some Real Results candidates have entered the Blogosphere answering questions with less than calm responses.

Perry Lin says He doesn't know Lane or Beth. He said they have nothing to do with his slate "There he said it" that's his quote!

Anyway, do you think Mr Lin thinks we forget that Maureen Sullivan was Beth Mason's Ross Perot in 2008?

In fact Mason endorsed a mix n match trio who do not want to run together, but in true Beth fashion, what she can't control or screw up personally, she will destroy.

She should stick to home remodeling and let reformer folk run government rather than her Russo partners.