Watch Out for Who is Endorsing New Candidates

Sussex County Online User Forums: Fenwick Island Discussion Forum: Watch Out for Who is Endorsing New Candidates
By No More Re-Runs on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 11:03 am:

The word on the street is that outgoing Council members Baunchalk and Griffin have endorsed Theo Brans, Audrey Serio and Martha Keller. When you vote, please consider these endorsements and ask yourself if you want another series of Council members who are in league with the ones that have finally stepped down. We need fresh vision, not just re-runs of the same old movie. Consider electing candidates not affiliated with the Council members of past. Brans is an incumbent who helped create the problems. Keller is a friend of Peg's and Serio is a relative of Griffin's. Let's get some new ideas and new people into Town Council. People who want to maintain and preserve the Fenwick of old. People who will keep services and spend within their means. People who will take an interest in hearing, POLITELY, all sides of the issue and considering them BEFORE a decision is made. People who will open up the governing process. People who will not be afraid to show us the books.

By 2slow2go on Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 03:55 pm:

Good points. Also, is it true that some of these outgoing council members are hoping that with their seleceted replacements being elected, that they will be appointed to key town committees? The "fab 4" may never leave us.

By Phineas on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 01:07 am:

What we don't need is four new know-nothings with their own (or someone else's) agenda to create complete havoc. Your great abundance of common sense amazes me!

FACT: If the FICC is not in fact endorsing any candidate, (which they say) why the hell do they keep advertising their "position statement" on the issues? Why do they have a "position statement" at all? Is the FICC a candidate? And if they don't endorse, do they discredit?

FACT: Mrs. Borodulia and Ms. Hughes both argued strongly against the commercial business licenses and gross rental business tax.

FACT: Mr. Clark got mad about not being allowed to paint the lifeguard chairs, he took his ideas and opened his own toy store. Then he was just too busy to run the Town and resigned.

FACT: The Lednums' are irate with Council's ordinance of 5 bedrooms/4 baths -hence not allowing them to have a 5th bathroom in their home.

FACT: Mr. Carmean obviously thinks he will continue to give directions from stage left and further, I assume he hates his next-door neighbors the Baunchalks.

Change is best in small increments.

By XXX on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 09:12 am:

You are idiots.

By Elsie Weistling on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 09:22 am:

Glad you noticed that position statement.

Is there anything about what is on the position statement that you do not want for your Government leaders on any level, from Town to the U.S., past, present or future to adhere to? If you have some good reasons why, in any government positions, the points stated are not in the interest of the public, communicate that and let FICC understand so they can see if they need to rethink a particular position.

So, help me along here a little. As I am reacting to your FACTS:

the first is a series of questions and doesn't sound like a fact;

the second fact is true. These candidates did argue strongly against the new tax. Here's my perception: It was going to be a tax that was going to affect the small business community in a negative manner. The tax presented by the Council was not aimed at the businesses, but at the commercial property owners. If the same were to happen to you, I trust you'd want the decision makers to strongly weigh the unanticipated outcome of their upcoming decision: that is, that commercial property owners lease agreements pretty standardly are designed that any taxes and fees are born by the lessee. Therefore, the business owners were really going to be the ones paying this new tax, not the property owners.

By deductive reasoning, Phineas, am I to determine that anyone who ever did not agree with a proposed or passed ordinance or a decision of a Council should not be on a Council? I believe that would be a pretty tough thing to do, don't you? Besides, the First Amendment allows for that right to disagree. Does that particular action on their part strongly persuade me not to vote for them ... no, nor does that particular action strongly persuade me to vote for them. Don't see the point of your statement here, I guess.

As to your Mr.Clark fact, it sounds like your "perception" of events. I agree Mr. Clark seemed very disappointed that the Guard chairs would not be painted for child safety reasons. I agree that the Clark's opened a store. Mr. Clark states other reasons for leaving Council before his term of office was complete, so I don't know if the store, the guard chairs and the shorter term of duty are related or not. You seem to perceive it is and that is your right. Each to his own. But, I am not sure it is a FACT.
As an aside, I would like to commend Council for later picking up on Mr. CLark's idea for child safety, and creating identifying features on the guard stands. Some portion of the stand is painted in a street identifying color, the street name is on the stand and even weather and surf conditions are displayed on the guard stands. Great work in the public interest.

The Lednum's are not running for office, so don't know what that is doing in here whether they were irate or not, FACT or not.

And as to the Mr. Carmean item, how can you have an assumption in a fact? In addition, by your statement, you fail to give someone else or several someone else's credit for being their own person(s) and (an) independent thinker(s).
Again, he is not a candidate for office, and don't know what that is doing in your "we don't need is four new know-nothings" article here.

Like it or not, at least three new faces and maybe four will show up on Council this August. Change will occur on some level. I don't care for your "know-nothings" reference, but in that frame of reference, all of the new faces will have a learning curve because all of the new faces have not been on this Town Council before. No matter what the candidates think they know or want to do as they arrive, they will have a learning curve and they have will also have six other Councilpersons to convince that whatever their (possible) agenda is, if there is one as you insinuate, is in the best interest of the public.

I encourage all to keep in mind that it is the issues and actions we should key in on during this election time and at all times. Get out and vote!

By No More Re-Runs on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 10:13 am:

Dear Phineas-Your commentary just confirmed the original proposition. If the others are "know nothings" then the THREE endorsed MUST be RE-RUNS with a different name. Your commentary also highlights what is wrong with the current council. You unilaterally go down a "hit list" and make false statements about others in an effort to personally demonize them. It seems Ms. Hughes and Ms. Borodulia argued about the ISSUES. I guess in your system of government they should have meekly followed the Council's agenda. With that type of all wise reasoning Phineas, we would all still be paying the Kings' tea tax. As for Clark, your "story" is just a diversion to keep people from knowing the truth. Tell me Phineas--just why wasn't Chris, the Treasurer, not allowed to look at the books? Was there something there that worried you? Guess we know the answer to that, don't we?? When we started to look we have found 4 years of no audits. Thousands of dollars of interest paid later by the good old taxpayer answers that question, doesn't it Phineas! As for the Lednums--why attack them? Have you been to their house? Don't you think their very nice house might have somehow impacted your own property value? Geez, let's throw darts at something that matters. As for Mr. Carmean, I guess he is supposed to feel bad about being part of a LARGE group of people who are fed up with the current way of doing business. He does not hate his neighbors; rather, he hates what has happened to Fenwick under the current Council and he has voiced his objection to their way of doing business. Again, his comments are directed at the issues. Anyhow, dear Phineas, your own hate and misguided perceptions have blinded your vision. Further, your attempts to demonize only serve to create a larger divide. As far as I can see the "know-nothings" you belittle can only do better than the "know-it-alls" that have run Council so far--after all, the bar is set so low, it will be kind of hard for them not to do better. However, the old guard must depart--from Council and committees. No more re-runs! It's time for a new cast. P.S. Phineas--I think your departure will be next--2004!

By William Williams on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 12:15 pm:

I do not know who Phineas is - why not use your real name. Its hard to believe that any one would want the Council to continue in its old ways. Not auditing tbe accounts for 4 years is a big problem. Why would anyone let this happen!
William Williams

By Chris Clark on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 06:51 pm:

Dear Phineas George,

Where do you get your information? I would be more than happy to sit down and discuss what actually happened with the lifeguard stands. Thank you for the complement about my store. I did not leave the council because I was too busy. If you attend council meetings or read the Wave you would know why I resigned from council. Please, if you would like to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem, post your name and/or call me to discuss at 539.4485.

By Chris Clark on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 06:52 pm:

I did forget to compliment you Phineas George. You are at least open to accepting change.

Chris Clark

By 2slow2go on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 11:16 pm:

The last meeting of Mayor Baunchalk was disappointing in several aspects. I would have thought that more people would have attended to show their appreciation for her years of service. However, councilmember Fredericks request for Chris Clark to apoligise for statements he made about a meeting regarding Peggy, along with Peggy's farewell speech which ignored the serious problems over the last year or two and criticised those who pursued them is sad.
Peggy did a fantastic job over the years, but problems occurred, and no remorse for these is disappointing. The public should apologise but not the council, esp. the Mayor or council?
Time for a new council, this year and next.
Patting yourself on the back for the good is fine. But ignoring the bad is unacceptable.
Peggy should have done better.

By Disappointed in the Curtain Call on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 01:45 am:

2Slow2Go--I agree with your assessment. Even in the end, Peg could not help herself. Casting herself as a victim of some great conspiracy was a ridiculous display of self-importance. It was time for her to go. It would have been nice if she just stood up and exited graciously with some comment about making room for new ideas and energy. Instead, in her final meeting as Queen, she has to belittle one citizen, make another one publically apologize and then finish off with a mean spirited speech. If anyone had any doubts about her true colors, tonight was the final testament to her reign of terror. As for Frederick--where does he come off lecturing Chris Clark to work harder to get out correct information before making statements?? Boy, Peter really is the pot calling the kettle black! Peter is and has been the master of spinning "stories". I give Chris credit. With Peter pontificating and Peg clearly ready to pounce, lesser people would have told them both to jump into a tar pit. What is even more troubling is that Peter clearly thinks that he is the heir apparent to the throne. Whoever is elected should be careful NOT to align themselves with him as he is sure to continue the same type of governing style as we have just endured. We need to move forward and get to a positive place--I think the only way to do that is to put Peter back in a bottle on the shelf.

By John on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 06:50 am:

2Slow2Go -
You must have missed the Council Meeting where the Mayor, Peg Baunchalk, delivered her regret and apology speech for all the mess that had occurred in the few months previous. I am guessing it might have been January or February meeting earlier this year.

By 2slow2go on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 07:52 pm:

A little slow here John, but I do do remember a prepared speech read by Peggy. Not much sincereity in that speech. Sounded like a robot. Too bad. As mentioned above, the terms of the majority of this council are now over. If you have the interests of the town in mind, welcome new candidates. The 'fab 4' are not the only ones who can manage this town==although they think so. 8 people who are willing to work openly are better than 4 who don't.

By XXX on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 12:59 pm:

For the last time, Peg is only a "mayor" in her own mind. Fenwick does not have a mayor.

By xxx on Sunday, July 27, 2003 - 09:43 pm:

and you are only one of many million boring letter X's!!

By Peter Pumpkin on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 03:07 pm:

Harry or Peter has to be Phineas!!!!!! No one else has this way of rationalizing in such an idiotic manner.

By Peter Pumpkin on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 03:12 pm:

By the way Phineas the "know-nothings" sure did the job on 3 of the old guard who are now retiring. Harry and Peter will follow Theo in departing from Council and then we will be free!

By free texas hold tournements on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 01:08 am:

Boyce equate!incendiaries,benders Tenneco omission Asiaticizes prepositions em free hold online texas tournament violet drily!nurtured pitiable texas hold poker strategies flies cruder hashes diverting: texas hold game

Add a Message

This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.