Statement from Committeewoman Judy Iradi (04/01/09 1:18pm)
Message from Committeewoman Judy Iradi
As time allows, I have decided to respond to valid requests (signed or unsigned) for information posted on this site.
I will not defend myself or anyone else against negative unsigned comments posted on this site. I will always sign my postings, and if I stop posting you will know that in my opinion, the sponsor of this site has elected to not present everyone's' views fairly or has turned this site into a political campaign platform to promote his candidate(s) for a seat on the Hanover Township Committee.
Recreation Update -
Lucent: The township Administrator has contacted Lucent's management and they have denied Hanover the use of any of their property. However, if anyone reading this has personal contacts or any leverage with Lucent, please see our Superintendent of Recreation or Township Administrator asap.
WPHS: From what I've been told, their Recreation Director recently agreed to let Rec. use the fields when they are not being used by the High-School. Our Recreation Department(Rec). will follow-up on this to get firm commitments.
Malapardis: Mr. Herbert's idea of using Malapardis for an all purpose field is excellent! Rec. has looked into this in the past, but now with Herbert's added insight, Rec. is re-assessing the field expansion. Jim, please contact the Superintendent of Rec(Len Celluro) or the Rec. Chairman(Pete Berkenkamp) and share you knowledge with them.
BeeMeadow: Funds have already been allocated to move the JCPL lights at BeeMeadow Park and expand the field to regulation size. However, if there are any tunnels found in the excavation area (tunnels were found when they excavated the current field) left over from the old 'brickyard' days, it could add significant costs and delays to expanding the field. Let's not move the JCPL lights at significant cost, only to find out we cannot expand the field because of old brickyard tunnels. Our Rec. and Twp. engineers are investigating the possibility of tunnels. However, I've already been told that you may not know a tunnel exists until you start excavating. Do we want to take that chance?
Stoney Brook: A recent suggestion to convert Stoney Brook field into an all purpose field has a lot of merit and is currently being assessed.
Black Brook: Installation of un-intrusive lighting at Blackbrook Large will again be considered.
Turf: Rec has sent the Jets organization a letter-of-request for a donation to Hanover of new or used Turf. As of today, we have not heard back from the Jets.
FYI - any of the above can be accomplished without raising municipal taxes. If you feel strongly enough about recreation, please let your voices be heard. Visit the Township website www.HanoverTownship.com to obtain dates and times of the Township Committee and Recreation Commission meetings.
Judy,
I hope you made a mistake about lighting the baseball fields at Blackbrook Park. This issue has come up a number of times and has always been opposed by the majority of the residents living in the immediate area. As you well know Blackbrook is in the middle of a relatively quiet residential neighborhood. As the last lighting proposal showed there is no such thing as unintrusive lighting of these fields. Lighting up these fields will be very intrusive on the neighbors of the park, both from a light and a noise standpoint. AND THIS DOES NOT CONSIDER THE PARKING ISSUE.
As a result of the opposition the last few times, the then Township Committee and Recreation Commission agreed to have fields installed and lighted across from Town Hall on Jefferson Road. This was done to provide an alternative to lighting Blackbrook in an area where noise, light and parking would not present the same issues as at Blackbrook.
Also the last time, there was consideration about how to pay for the operating costs of the lighting. It was stated we could possibly rent out the field to other leagues and towns. The ony ones that could afford this would be really well organized leagues with substantial followings. Imagine the traffic and noise they would generate with their followings.
We have lights in the park on the tennis courts and skating rinks. The light is intrusive but can be tolerated because their use is not creating the noise or parking problems the ball fields would.
Please reconsider this idea, it is not fiscally sound nor is it really required once the other fields come into use.
Gene Pinadella (05/08/09 11:43pm) REPLY
JUDY and TRISHA
THE COMMENTS FROM BOTH OF YOU THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY HERE, AS WELL AS A COUPLE THAT NEVER MADE IT, HAVE BEEN UNPUBLISHED
Truce! - Maybe that's not the right word.
Trisha, Your father and Judy are never going to be drinking buddy's, lets face it. I am fully aware of all the stuff that got thrown at your father. I have written on occasion to correct matters when I felt he was being treated unfairly as was the case in the last election. The reality is that both sides are guilty of slinging BS at each other and its always hardest on the family members. You father is a good person and those that know him know that - those that choose to view him differently will not change their minds to the contrary so don't let it get to you.
Judy,
I would simply reiterate the above where applicable. I would add that, while removing Howie from the Substance Awareness Council might have given certain members of the committee some satisfaction, it really went beyond what was necessary since as you know, it meant a lot to Howie to be a part of that important program. I'm not blaming you for the decision, but merely pointing out that this extra step might not have been necessary, unless of course that was the intent. Maybe you don't give dam and that's your choice.
The back and forth between you and Trish Olsen has finally crossed the proverbial line and I will not allow it to continue. I make no judgment as to who is right or wrong as the truth is usually somewhere in between the two extremes. I have unpublished all posts that related to your latest back and forth as the content was not consistent with what I am trying to accomplish on this site.
Both of you should continue to use the site as you see fit but please try to keep it civil and please do not drag in family members into the discussion.
Once again TOM to set the record straight!
Howard Olsen and all other previous HTSAC appointees and other board appointees, who did not respond as requested (like all others did) that they wanted to be re-appointed to the Substance Awareness Committee - were not re-appointed. AND subsequently, the TC has had no correspondence from Howard Olsen stating that he actually did want to be re-appointed. Also, I understand, but correct me if I am wrong that Judy and Trisha Olsen voted to remove Howard from a non-profit organization, because he was not doing his share of the work-load. So what's the big deal? I have never told anyone an 'untruth' about Howard Olsen and I challenge Trisha to prove me wrong.
I stand corrected! I was not aware of the protocol for re-appointment and unless Howie can demonstrate otherwise, he did not comply with it. I was told that a letter had been sent to the Township Administrator regarding this matter and that no response was forthcoming. The ball is clearly in Olsen's court.
I appologize if a letter was sent to the Administrator. I don't remember discussing one, but that doesn't mean one wasn't sent. I'll find out what happened and let you know. Judy Iradi (05/13/09 7:01pm) REPLY
No letter was received by the township or any Township committee person from or on behalf of Mr. Olsen requesting appointment to the Substance Awareness council.
Additionally in January, Olsen's 2008 seat on the council was a TC Liaison on the council since Olsen was no longer on the TC - that was filled by Ken Schleifer in 2009.
I did hear from someone that just this last Thursday (after your post) that an email was sent to the township requesting Olsen's appointment to the council. The email was not sent to me, I have not seen the email nor have I been official informed of it. As long as I have been on the TC, when a person has not been reappointed to a positions there has always been very valid reasons why. Most recently it has been for a non-response to a reappointment request or potential conflict-of-interest reasons.
Thank you once again for detailing the process and explaining why Mr. Olsen was not re-appointed to the Substance Awareness council.
If I read this correctly, he would have had to have been appointed as a private citizen to that post as his prior appointment was the result of him being on the Township Committee and that leaving the committee did not guarantee that he would be considered for that post. It makes sense to me.
For him to not have responded would imply that a letter was sent out to him in the first place. I will get in touch with the Township Administrator for a copy of the original letter.
Tom, It is the same letter you and all other appointees who are up for re-appointment receive every year in the Fall from the township Administrator. Even if it was 'lost in the mail', everyone especially a long-time Committeeman like Olsen knows the rules. Before I was on the TC Marty, a longtime very fair and valuable member of the Planning Board, was not reappointed because (I was told) he did not make it formally known that he wanted to be reappointed. There should not be two sets of rules. I am a strong believer that everyone should abide by the same set of rules. What was good for Marty, should be good for all others. Judy Iradi (05/19/09 1:03pm) REPLY
Judy,
I picked up a copy of the letter which was sent to Mr. Olsen, dated November 3, 2008 and it was very clear he needed to reply or the offer to serve would be withdrawn.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, he didn't reply and he wasn't re-appointed. Makes sense to me.
I also fully agree that there should only be one set of rules and they need to be followed.
If there is some other prior communications initiated by Olsen or someone on the SAC regarding this, they need to provide proof that it was sent to the Township or at the very least a copy of the letter.
In my mind at least, this is a closed issue. Thank you for looking into this.
Tom (05/19/09 1:18pm) REPLY
