Posted on

Reader says Village Council’s response to assault at the town council meeting simply atrocious

Village Council Assult

photo by Boyd Loving

“I find the Village Council’s response to tonight’s assault at the town council meeting simply atrocious.  It is also beyond vile that one of the council members attempted to find reason for why the council took no responsibility to address the assault.  To request that we find a better time to call the police?  Yes, it was a shame it occurred during a feel good ceremony, but I certainly hope you are not insinuating that the attack was planned for that time.  A town council with a sense of responsibility and care for its residents would have addressed the incident after the ceremony, not turn a blind eye.   Nor would they try to find reason for turning a blind eye.  

Let’s also remember that the alleged victim is someone who has been attacked repeatedly during these meetings for recording public meetings.  Lead by example – what you have done is open the gates up to give others the sense of right to attack those who wish to record.  

Shame on you.  I hope your children and grandchildren weren’t watching – you certainly taught them an interesting lesson tonight.  

Bonita “

“I totally agree.  The Village Council should have called to have Don Delzio removed and banned from all future meetings.  They clearly sent a message that this type of behavior is acceptable.

I had high hopes for Albert and Gwenn when I helped run a grass roots campaign to get them elected.  Now they have not only turned their backs on residents by moving forward with this mammoth garage structure, they are allowing people like Don Delzio to intimidate other residents.

Hopefully, our new VC that will be voted in next summer can overturn the debacle that has been caused by poor representation.  Look forward to getting a new VC and possible new VM who are more responsive to resident’s needs.

 Ed”

Posted on

Reader wonders if the proposed change to the law is contemplated as part of a larger plan to politicize our system of local government

DSCF3241

So, based on the diligent detective work by Councilwoman Knudsen, we learn that the current hiring scheme provides that Ridgewood-based applicants are to be preferred when all of the top candidates are equally qualified. This sounds reasonable. Accordingly, the burden of persuasion on whether or not to change the law should be on those who are in favor of a change.

Up until now the proponents of change have been saying that according to the current hiring scheme, the Village has not been permitted to hire better qualified candidates who live outside of Ridgewood if at least one local applicant is deemed at least minimally qualified. Now we learn that was not true. In fact, it does not take an enormous leap of faith to conclude that we were being LIED TO.

It turns out the Village has only lacked the ability to hire candidates of the SAME qualifications who live outside of Ridgewood. In other words, they have lacked the ability to discriminate against (politically undesireable?) Ridgewood residents who have the same qualifications as the best (properly politically aligned?) candidates who live outside of Ridgewood.

Why should we change the law to facilitate such a hiring practice?

One wonders if the proposed change to the law is contemplated as part of a larger plan to politicize our system of local government, which by virtue of the Faulkner Act is supposed to be completely non-partisan.

Ah yes…politics. This has been the common denominator from day one when it comes to the behavior of the Three Amigos. Why should we expect these old dogs to learn new tricks when they continue to get such great mileage out of the old ones?