Preparing to interview Terence Wall
Freeholder Candidate Terence Wall has contacted me about interviewing him. He and I are hashing out how we might actually do this, but we have agreed on one thing, that it would be acceptable to him if I ask you, my readers, to suggest questions that I might ask him in the proposed interview.
If you have questions that you would like me to ask Terence in the interview, please email me at BillSewardnj@aol.com, or post them here.
I am willing to interview, via email, any Freeholder candidate who wishes to use this blog to get their message out. The questions and answers will be published verbatim in their entirety. I may or may not editorialize, but the entire interview will be published regardless of my editorial position.
This could be interesting. Thank you Terence.
The Healey Mirage
1 day ago
Posts
26 comments:
I have a similar proposal from Kaiser Sose, where the candidates post comments, using real names, on my blog. Let's see how the response is.
BTW, have you heard from Stanton?
I asked Terence if he had made you the same offer and he said he had. I like what you're doing with Sose's idea. I hope the candidates respond to both of us..this could be very good.
No word from Stanton.
I think it's fair to ask Terence about how he intends on handling infrastructure issues insofar as the repair of county roads that are, in many cases, deteriorating in communities (like Union Beach) without bonding excessively?
Next, I'd like to ask him how he intends to stand up against suburban sprawl? This is contributing to a "bloating" of school districts, greater per student class sizes and a greater need for taxation not only in our towns but on the county level also. There are infrastructure issues wrapped up in this also. The state master plan is, unfortunately, only a guide with no teeth. Does he have any ideas that would stop the sprawl?
Here is my question
Mr. Wall considering the following items please explain why the party should support you.
1. You ran a primary challenge against Arnone and Farragher two sitting legislators who at the time were very popular thereby forcing the party and the candidates to expend valuable resources
2. You were censured by your Township Committee.
3. You made hideous allegations against serena Dimasso because you were angry that she was made Mayor instead of you and then failed to provide the proof of those allegations.
Thank you.
TR,
Name calling is not truth telling, and will not be tolerated here.
Character does count. I'm sure you can make your points without the name calling.
I call'em as I see'em
I fail to see why the use of descriptive adjectives to voice someones opinion is objectionable I am not using foul or objectionable words.
I am merely using the words that most accuratly reflect my view of a person.
The refusal to respond to questions a person finds uncomfortable is arguably an act of cowardice. A coward is by definition one who commits an act of cowardice.
Therefore my opinion is not baseless and is arguably valid.
Why should an arguably valid opinion be denied a voice?
TR,
Thank you. That is much better
In all fairness we ought to ask the other candidates similiar tough questions. Even Terrance desrves fairness.
I am sure they are reading this.
Joe Dibella.
Did you lie about who told you the police were campaigning?
If yes why?
PS I encourage anyone who has questions like this for any candidate to post it. Nothing is more important in a candidate then integrity.
I still haven't gotten my response to the first two questions from Terence.
If I have his answers tomorrow morning I will post them. Otherwise, I will post my interview questions and hope he answers on the blog
Teddy,
My understanding is that there is an effort to legally have the internal affairs report opened. I for one am interested in finding our who the "politicly active female who has influence with the PBA" is. At Tuesday council night's meeting, Mayor DiBella assuered me that it was NOT me. It's on video tape! In any event I have requested should my name be in the report, that it be released UNREDACTED at whatever point a judge signs the order.
According to members of the recall committee, the recall petitions had not been printed at the time of the accusation. Mayor DiBella then claimed it was actually former Councilman Lucey that had told him that police officers were passing recall petitions in uniform while on duty. Moreover, Chief Carter issued a memo at the conclusion of the investigation stating that "THE MAYOR'S ACCUSATIONS WERE UNFOUNDED!" It did not happen.
I'm sure whoever the unnamed "female" is will be less than amused to find her name in the report. The HTPD is the finest group of men and women that I have ever worked with. The mayor's lie is unacceptable and he still owes the police department, Mr. Walsh and the unnamed female a public apology.
Reposted from the Wall interview:
Elephants_not_donkeys said...
Terence - there is no legal authorization required for disclosure. In New Jersey, it is LEGAL to tape a conversation as long as ONE party is aware of the tape. So Serena owes you nothing.
You seem to indicate that there is a tape. Given the fact that Serena owes you nothing, you ought to release it to maintain your own credibility.
You see, many people have doubts about you, stemming from your assualt on a senior citizen that was privately settled, to your bullying tactics, to your false robo tape of John Bennett.
You apparantly had the tape for three years but only went public with it on the very day that Serena was sworn in as Holmdel Mayor. Why the lapse in timing? If you were so outraged as you claimed to have been, why didn't you go public immediately? Why did you campaign with her as your running mate? Why did you respectufully request to be Mayor with Serena as your Deputy Mayor?
Why do you insist that the matter is closed? You made a strong allegation and claimed you have a tape. You have an obligation and a right to produce the tape if you are to be taken seriously. If Serena is the type of person you allege her to be, don't your constituents have a right to know that? Now that you are clear on the legalities of releasing the tape, when can we expect to hear it?
6:18 AM
Teddy Roosevelt said...
Good job Mr. Seward.
Mr. Wall I would ask you to address just one issue for me. You were once censored by the Holmdel Town Council.
What were you censored for and how does that effect your current run for office.
6:32 AM
Teddy Roosevelt said...
Mr. Seward you mention that Mr Wall has
" been on the forefront of the affordable housing and COAH issue."
As an elected official Mr. Wall strongly opposed a plan to turn a few houses on the old Nike Missile base in Holmdel into transitional housing for the poor.
In fact he rode that horse to re-election in one race. He did so by preying on the fears and prejudices of people who live in Holmdel.
We should all be clear that Mr. Wall is no friend of the downtrodden and not an advocate for affordable housing unless it is built in someone elses back yard.
6:40 AM
Elephants_not_donkeys said...
Terence - please see my previous posts about your legal obligation when it comes to releasing the tapes. You should release the tape asap.
Here are more questions: how many properties do you own in and around the state of New Jersey? How many luxury cars do you own? Do you still broker health care contracts for the Holmdel Board of Ed? Do you still charge fees for your robo calls? What was the nature of your political partnership with indicted Mayor Merla? What exactly was your role in the appraisal and reappraisal of some "Former Farms" in Holmdel?
6:43 AM
Elephants_not_donkeys said...
"Here are more questions: how many properties do you own in and around the state of New Jersey? How many luxury cars do you own? Do you still broker health care contracts for the Holmdel Board of Ed? Do you still charge fees for your robo calls? What was the nature of your political partnership with indicted Mayor Merla? What exactly was your role in the appraisal and reappraisal of some "Former Farms" in Holmdel?"
Elephants, I don't think these issues are relevent.
Terence has a right to own property and luxury cars. If this disqualifies someone from holding elected office, we will only have people who can't afford to own their homes or drive nice cars as office holders. Not a good idea.
Brokering health insurance contracts to the Holmdel Board of Ed? Terence is not a member of the Board of Ed. If the Holmdel school budget were to be defeated and Terence is their insurance broker, he should recuse himself from the budget negociations and voting on the revised budget. The guy is entitled to earn a living.
Does he charge for robo calls? So what if he does? Again, he is entitled to earn a living.
The Merla thing is below the belt. John was a popular and powerful player on the county scene prior to being indicted. John's indictment does not taint Terence and to trying to smear Terence with that is, to quote Terence, "beyond the pale."
About appraising real estate in Holmdel, Terence is a license real estate professional. If he used his elected position to enhance his personal finances that is inexcusable. If you have something concrete and verifiable, let's see it. Otherwise, the guy is entitled to earn a living and the innuendo has no place here.
I give Terence alot of credit for standing up and facing the questions. The interview was his idea. We may or may not be satisfied with his responsiveness, but he has the guts to face the music.
My space will not be used as a high tech lynching. Not for Terence or for any other candidate.
Teddy Roosevelt said...
"Good job Mr. Seward.
Mr. Wall I would ask you to address just one issue for me. You were once censored by the Holmdel Town Council.
What were you censored for and how does that effect your current run for office. "
TR, as you know the censure was revoked, which is why I didn't bring it up. Anyone who wants to know more can do a google search...there is plenty of info out there about the censure and the revoke of the censure
Elephants_not_donkeys said...
"I will refrain from the "below the belt" posts. I have been duly admonished and I apologize. I will not abuse the privelege"
Thank you.
Elephants..
I asked Terence a follow up and your point, which is a good one, is all over the blogs. Terence has ample opportunity to respond and do the right thing.
Let's hope he does.
I think I've done a good job asking the tough questions in a fair manner, while at the same time giving Terence the opportunity to recover from some of his past mistakes and neutralize his crtics. So far he really hasn't taken the opportunity, but there is still time, not much time, but he can still do it.
numbers guy..
we'd loved to hear more from you and Terence's supporters.
Frankly, I don't see questions as attacks. Baseless attacks and name calling I've either deleted or repramanded. None of the questions, which are tough are from "out of the blue".
In my opinion, Terence would be well served to deal with them powerfully now and put to rest now. The Democrats will not be easy on him,
Mr. Wall I was not aware the censure was revoked. Please enlighten us.
Mr. Seward I think that any politician who had a close relationship with John Merla or any of the other indicted politicians deserves scrutiny.
At the very least it shows poor judge of character. There were many in the party who were smart enough to keep those people at arme length.
Panel rescinds censure, approves new ethics law
By darlene diebold
Staff Writer
HOLMDEL — To the shock, surprise, and even dismay of a few, the Township Committee made an about-face and rescinded the censure of Committeeman Terence Wall in a 5-0 vote last week.
The original censure was replaced with a resolution, approved 5-0 also, in which all of the committee members pledged not to release any confidential information unless a majority of the committee agreed to do so.
The new resolution was written by Deputy Mayor Gary Aumiller. The censure resolution was written by Committeeman Larry Fink and passed 4-1 at the Oct. 22 committee meeting. The censure was completely rescinded, according to Mayor Art Davey, "for the good of the town."
The new resolution reads: "Each member hereof affirms that he/she will not divulge confidential matters until release is authorized by a vote by the majority, or until state law directs that confidentiality is no longer appropriate."
The Township Committee censured Wall for violating the township’s ethical standards by releasing confidential information regarding the Nike surplus federal housing site on Telegraph Road to the news media and the public on a number of different occasions. The censure also alleged that Wall harassed different members of the public when they did not agree with his viewpoints.
Wall has publicly admitted releasing a document that was marked confidential in July, just a couple of days before the deed was supposed to be transferred to the Monmouth Housing Alliance for nine of the 12 houses that used to house army officers, adjacent to Phillips Park. Members of the public were angry with the committee for not letting them know sooner that the nonprofit organization had wanted to use the houses for a homeless shelter.
The federal government also approved an application for the Barn for the Poorest of the Poor to receive three of the homes to use as storage areas for the food they distribute to needy families. The Monmouth Housing Alliance and the Barn were allowed to apply for the land under the McKinney Act, which was created during the Reagan presidency to deal with the country’s growing homeless population. The township is still waiting for word from the federal government regarding the MHA’s application. It is the township’s position that the application was faulty and should be thrown out.
The new resolution also states that "in order to have stability, and for the work of the people to go forward, one or two committee persons should not circumvent the decision of the majority, because the township committee acts as a whole and not as individuals.
Before the vote was taken, Wall and Fink each spoke.
"I’ve always been a touch on the individualistic side, I admit," Wall said. "That has, I think, caused some great concern with the fellow members of my governing body. I do agree that whether or not I disagree, they have an absolute right to keep that which they deem confidential in executive session as such. Sometimes, especially on a major issue, I disagree so strongly that I’ve made decisions to not entertain that majority feeling. I need to realize, and I do realize, that people elected all of us. When you disagree with the majority, you are also disagreeing with those who placed them in office. Going forward, you can count on an adherence to this resolution."
Fink said that the resolution of censure was something that the majority all took very seriously because the breach of confidentiality was inappropriate, and it could have compromised sensitive negotiations in the future. "We meet in executive session," he said, "not to shield things from you because we have secrets to hide, but rather we are trying to do our best to serve the town’s interest. That’s why it is so important sometimes to keep certain things confidential until they no longer need to be. As long as going forward we can all respect the adherence to that guiding principle of our code of ethics, I think we’ll all be better off."
Two people publicly complained about the committee rescinding the censure. Walter Woods, the Democratic municipal chairman, said that he wished that Wall had apologized [for his action].
Carol Beckenstein, the former campaign manager for Tony Orsini, and Monisha Merchant, who lost in the general election to Wall and his running mate Serena DiMaso, said, they were "stunned" by the rescission and wanted to know why the change came about.
Davey said, "Sometimes you have to do it for the good of the town."
In a separate interview, Wall said, "Absolute vindication with a unanimous vote was nice. Obviously the charges were false and the bipartisan vote is proof positive. I was most pleased to see this result. The voters, of course, are the ultimate arbiters, and they made their judgment on Election Day. They will judge the others in due time. Today we move forward in a positive way to ensure public safety, lower taxes and preserve open space. We have work do, and it’s high time we did it."
Teddy Roosevelt said...
"Mr. Seward I think that any politician who had a close relationship with John Merla or any of the other indicted politicians deserves scrutiny.
At the very least it shows poor judge of character. There were many in the party who were smart enough to keep those people at arme length."
Some may accuse me of poor judgement if I continue to let you post this nonsense here.
The article about the Censure being revoke was published in the Independent on December 6, 2001.
Mr. Seward,
Can we discuss the issue with out any reference to a particular candidate; Whether being an ally with someone who is convicted or pleads guilty to corruption (which admittedly does not apply to Merla)is evidentry to the issue of wether that peron has poor judgment and whether that is a valid consideration in considering a person for public office.
Mr Seward thank you forprinting that article I had not seen that resolution of the issue.
I think it raises two intresting points the first is that Mr. wall admitted revealing executive session material then goes on tto say the revocation vindicates him and poves the charges were false and politically motivated. To me that does not sound remorseful or truthful.
Second, The most important part of this story was almost ignored by the press.
,"The censure also alleged that Wall harassed different members of the public when they did not agree with his viewpoints."
This type of activity is my biggest problem with Mr. Wall.
That being said I promise no more posts about Terrance Wall.
Is this tape a video? I wanna see it.
Post a Comment