...or the bads. Whatever you want to call them, Pat Walsh has some splainin' to do.
So far she has refused to talk to MoreMonmouthMusings. Monday at 6PM she is having a press conference at Town Hall. We'll be there. We hope you are too.
Download and print these documents, this story, and come with your questions.
May the Force Be With Us
1 day ago
Posts
8 comments:
All quiet on the Democratic front...
checkmate
The word is, the Democrats will keep quiet hoping the whole thing blows over. Wayne Bryant and Sharpe James apparently thought the exact same thing.
I read the documents and the story but I do not see the goods (or the bads) here. The School Ethics Act, if this is what Mayor Scharfenberger references, makes no mention of loans. If this was a loan from Sullivan to Walsh, there is no foul that I see.
http://www.state.nj.us/education/ethics/act.htm
Any word on the questions that were raised about the outcome of that trial, any examples of how Sullivan or Fenton benefited from what the Mayor Scharfenberger called her "championing", etc, that you said were "great questions" and you'd answer in a follow-up? They may shed more light on this, but so far it seems like a non-story to me.
Loans get repaid, they typically include some form of security, interest, etc. There are also other funds deposited by walsh into her personal account that were clearly not a loan from a "friends of" account. These were not disclosed either. Walsh claims these were all loans, if so, she should explain how or if she ever paid back, whether interest was ever charged, etc. Also, even giving her the benefit of the doubt on the disclosure, how about the obvious conflicts she had when she cast a vote against paying for legal fees that taxpayers were legally bound to pay due to her nutty actions on the board? Why would someone give you $30k, whether a loan or gift, if they did not have a vested interest?
I have another "non-story" for you. Martin Schoor was sentenced to prison for a $15,000 "gratuity" - half of what Pat Walsh took. There are plenty of officials serving jail time for similar "non-stories." This is the classic Democrat tactic - shrug your shoulders and ask, "what's the big deal?" I have news for you, ethics violations at any level is a big deal and with the crap that goes on with the BOE, the people have a right to know.
I agree. Ethics violations are a gross violation of the public trust. That is why I said if there was wrong-doing onher part, she should be charged. In my opinion, I have not seen any evidence of that yet, despite the fact that many lawyers and another board of education member were involved in this case. For this to be brought to the forefront now, absent any evidence or charges, is suspect.
Who had a vested interest in what?
How can you say "absent any evidence?" Haven't you looked at the checks and court deposition? Do you not see it or do you not WANT to see it?
Post a Comment