TRANSPARENCY AND DISCLOSURE

The withdrawal of one of the five candidates for the three open seats on the BOE leaving only the incumbent Cathcart and the "trio ticket" on the ballot once again exposes the weakness of the present system.

Whether due to voter apathy or candidate apathy in this community the so called non political elections have resulted in a board that many feel has been derelict in its fiduciary duty to the citizens and worse of all for the students.

Although I consider it to be a better alternative, an appointed board by the Mayor in Plainfield, if her performance with other appointments during her term are an indicator, could result in even a worse cataclysm.

Thus we a caught between the "proverbial rock and a hard place" in maintaining the status quo.

The one requirement that we must insist on is full disclosure by all candidates in order that we can be sure that there is no inadvertent ethical problems or potential conflicts of interests. The voter should be able to judge if a common workplace for several members of the Board could create a potential problem, or if a relative in a critical administrative position could compromise a Board members vote. Even a close relative as a teacher, administrator or student in a particular school to which a board member has a special affiliation opens the potentiality of undue impact.

None of the above may ever have a negative effect but the possibility may inadvertently exist.

Why do I mention this? 

On March 12 Renata posted the first of three  information blogs about the "trio ticket candidates"; Mr  Alex Edach.  which resulted in the following comment by of course anonymous

I know that Mr. Edache works for John and Wilma Campbell's real estate office. I think its good for that to be disclosed so that no one thinks he is trying to hide anything. I know him and like him  link

How much personal information should a candidate supply? Since there arose a question about "Transparency and full disclosure", I also submitted a comment Let us set a record straight since. that blogger has accused me of duplicity and nefarious insinuations.

I had written "If we are to have honesty in elections, full disclosure including any potential ethical or conflict issues is essential. To gloss over that fact is not in the public interests" to which Renata apparently took umbrage. The rest of the "discussions" should be read  but  rather then reprint I would hope you will hit the   link.;

However since she as of 4:30PM 3/22/11 has not posted my reply which I have no record  but alluded to it in a smirking comment I am reprinting  a nearly factual rebuttal to the offending commentary: Unfortunately the formatting has been lost. Her remarks are in italics mine in standard type. The red emphasis is mine.

O’contrare*, I am responding to what you wrote, or rather what you didn’t write and therefore what was implied simply by you writing it in the first place. Duplicitous in the sense that you held back what it was you were questioning but put forth that there was something questionable. If that is not what you meant -- that is certainly how I read it. I don't know how one can respond to what I did not write or unless clairvoyant to thoughts that may never have occurred to me. 

So Doc -- let’s us be frank here. Let’s dissect the conversation… You said: “If we are to have honesty in elections, full disclosure including any potential ethical or conflict issues is essential”.
 That is what I wrote. You would question that we need to know everything, excluding his private life, about a candidate?

What exactly did you mean here? To write such a statement without any specific implies that you ‘perceived’ something posted (or not posted) exist. My question to YOU is WHAT is the missing information? What prompted you to write this comment? Once again you make an unwarranted assumption. Not every one is insidious or has a selfish agenda..

Then you said – “To gloss over that fact is not in the public's interests.” So the accusation here (at least to me)is that “I” somehow had decided to gloss over the facts. When all I did was post what was given, and although you may have probed – that is certainly your prerogative. I chose not to –that is my prerogative. I made no accusation, reread the first paragraph. Your blog is yours alone. What you post is your privilege. I made no suggestion that you withheld information Once again you take a remark out of context. The preceding sentence is important. But you were flip in your response to "Anon". Unfortunately, to read defamatory intent in every statement suggests a tendency to paranoia. I am sure that is not the fact.

And finally, I totally degree with your last statement – I think that the forums are EXACTLY the place to vet the candidates. This is what it is for… I consider the LWV forum a valuable tool in judging candidates. I attend most of them. But they are not the only venue for the public to judge. Many can not attend the forums. Do you dismiss the media; newspapers, flier's, radio, television as important sources of information? What is in the printed media can not be misunderstood as can the spoken word in the forum setting.

Renata, your style and use of the idiom in your blog is unique and quiet often incomprehensible to us old fogies, but you are what you are. Oh, By the way the correct spelling of " O’contrare" is "au contrair" which means "on the contrary, quite the opposite". It is French.

.