Ron, I am puzzled lately. I don’t know if you are forgetful or just plain lying. After you quit the Township Committee, those of us who remained on the Committee named Veterans Memorial Park, to honor our Veterans.
Your favorite developer's “donated” scoreboards had a residents name predominately displayed in large letters, across the top and also across the bottom of the scoreboards, nowhere on the scoreboards, was there any mention of “Veterans Memorial Park" - a real stab-in-the-back to all the veterans who served and died for this country. That is why there was a dispute about those scoreboards. Also, the cost for 2-scoreboards was $7,000 plus installation. But, because it is a capped landfill, it will now cost $12,000 more for installation. Now after your favorite developer Joe Forgione, has gotten his approval for the 24-apartments, where no building was allowed before, he has refused to spend a penny more for the installation of the scoreboards. So, the town taxpayers will have to spend $12,000 towards the installation.
As for the flyer, it stated that I completed the fields after a seven-year delay. Would it have been more accurate if I had said "Under your administration for 6-years, it was not a priority for you, and you were unable (or unwilling) to get the fields in shape for playing. It was only after you quit the Township Committee, that I was able to pick up the ball, join forces with Rec, the sports Leagues and Friends-4-Hanover, that the pressure was put on the developer and township officials to finish the fields - which you had promised the residents would be playable 7-years ago.
Ms. Iradi - Judy, It is not me with the memory problem. Lets go over the facts as the record will show. Sal Iannacone and I negotiated the gifting of those fields for a public use zone and ball fields at the time that the Hanover Rennasaince was approved.
Some 66 acres at no cost to Hanover taxpayers. Not sure you were even 'appointed' to the committee then after Jack Korn's passing. I'm certain we did not negotiate the fields to delay them. We knew the importance and need.
The zone plan was worked through the planning board and almost immediately thereafter we were engaged in a litigation brought by one of your key supporters - fact. It tied the township up for over a year and cost both sides much tax payer dollars.
What proceeded next was an exhaustive investigation by the DEP over a complaint that the area was contaminated (wonder who that might have come from) - that took another year and a half and proved to be bogus.
Once DEP approved, the developer immediately proceeded to construct the fields - more time.
Had the score boards been installed at the time they were gifted and at the time of construction before the placement of the membrane 'cap', the installation would not have been an issue or a cost. What was an issue is the delay on the part of the Fariello administration to accept the score board(s) at that time wanting to be assured Iannaccone's name would not appear on the score board as the developer gifting it wished.
The bids you quote were for installation. Not the purchase of computerized electronic score boards. Lets get our facts straight. I was present when the bids to now 'purchase' were read.
As for your continued attacks on the developer, Joseph Forgione, by name, and Mr. Fariello's damaging letter to the Weekly Regional News of last week, I am rather certain it may initiate a punitive action against those involved. There is just so much slander that one can take.
This election can't be over soon enough. And I hope we have a long gap before the next one. This silly finger-pointing by EVERYONE is exhausting. And it's so overly dramatic it's actually funny...and borderline ridiculous. Focus less on what the other person did wrong (so you say) - focus more on what you can do right (so you think).
Wouldn't you rather win because someone actually votes "for you" rather than "against" the other person? It's not just semantics. Everyone running cares deeply for our town. Well...tell us about it. Re-enlighten us to the positive. Or would you rather we be reminded of the stumbles along the way? And let's be realistic...neither one of you has a "squeaky clean" record. You've both had a few questionable moves along the way on the TC. That's life - it happened.
So with all this negativity, I can think of a fews reasons to vote AGAINST both of you off the top of my head, but I'd rather focus on why I should vote FOR you. Wouldn't you? Give us something to look forward to under your tenure. Paint us a picture of Hanover in two years from now.
Msg. Francioli - Ron, Fact 1. If there was ANY question what-so-ever of contamination on the ballfield site, official’s not concerned private citizens spending their own money, should have investigated the site to guarantee the safety of our children - rather than rush through a zone change, for a favorite you-know-who developer, or were you willing to risk the lives of our children with another “Love Canal”? Even as it stands today, the township does not own the 66-acres; it only leases the land, because of potential future contamination issues.
Fact 2. In case someone does have a memory problem, in 2004 after Jack Korn’s passing, I was appointed to the Committee by a vote from you (the Mayor) and the entire Township Committee. I was then elected to the Committee in the general election by the second highest number of votes ever cast for a member of the Committee at that time.
Fact 3. I requested dedication of the, unfinished park or a Field in Jack Korn's memory, something you did not agree with, stating, Jack Korn already had the Sewer plant named after him, and any dedication memorial should be at the Sewer plant - something his family soundly rejected.
Facts 4. The park was named “Veterans Memorial Park” and former Mayor Fariello and all the TC, wanted to be assured that ALL veterans would be honored, and that "Veterans Memorial Park" would appear on the scoreboards. After the developer refused, I even requested Sal Iannaconne be contacted top see if he knew HIS name would be taking the place of "Veterans Memorial Park" at the top of both scoreboards (note - this request was denied). Being a veteran himself, I doubt Sal would agree to this.
Face 5. Since being elected to the TC, I am not only subjected to continuous; slanderous remarks against me, harassment and intimidation (as the lone Female on the TC), but also costly vandalism. When I first ran for office, my new car was "keyed" - the newspapers covered this vicious cowardly act. And now this year AGAIN my car received a two-foot long 'keyed" scratch - down to the metal (the cost of repair is not covered by my insurance). My cars were scratch only two times in over 33-years living in Hanover and a life-long resident of this area, and BOTH times when I was running for elected office in Hanover! I don't consider this a coincidence! Also in numerous places around town my campaign signs have again been mangled and made unusable, while other campaign signs in the same location have been left untouched - coincidence?
Fact 6. Maybe instead of concentrating so much on scoreboards and zone changes for Hanover’s favorite you-know-who developer, you and the TC should have been more aware that the newly renovated multi-million dollar Municipal Building, was being built without a Fire Sprinkler system. And now our insurance costs are probably higher and all the office doors have to be closed because of this! As for he-said-she-said, I stand-by whatever I have said to be factual, as any review of the actual records that I am aware of, will prove.
Resident: My post is just a response to, and a dispute of Mr. Francioli's previous accusations. It is not meant to be an attack on Ron Francioli - as a person or as a candidate.
With respect to “Fact 2”, weren’t you appointed to fill Jack Korn’s position on the ballot by the County Committee after he passed away?
Wasn’t that committee then made up of, to name a few, yourself, your husband and at least 8 of your supporters?
Weren’t you appointed to fill that ballot position over at least two other candidates who both had many more years of public service on the Planning Board than you?
Didn’t that happen after you lost, by a large margin, your bid to be one of the two republican candidates? And wasn’t the reason that you did as well in November as you did because you ran unopposed in Jack Korn’s ballot position?
Please stop with the revisionist history and trying to make your assent to the committee anything more than it was, an appointment by your friends who held all the cards.
As to “Fact 4” I notice you don’t really deny that you objected to having Mr. Iannacone’s name on the scoreboards. Really, who cares if the donor wanted to honor him?
Was this a valid reason for not accepting the gift and having them installed immediately or was it simply “spite work”?
Stop the drama, Judy. Take responsibility and keep your dignity. Our Township is important to all of us. It's time to realize that it's about the local community and our needs, not the politicians. Whippany Village was a scam for the Fire House and our volunteer firefighters. What a shame. THE THREE OF YOU were totally nontransparent. Let's not become Washington and their antics.
Oh give me a break, Jodi! The first part of your message can be completely directed at Ron. Why do you think he's conveniently running in this particular election? Because the committee is more in alignment with his beliefs. HIS beliefs. Doesn't that completely defy your "about the local community and our needs" statement? His motive for running is based on the politicians sitting around the table. Do you want me to provide you with Ron's own words? Because he admitted it himself...he quit because of the administration. Don't be so selectively blind to the reality of the situation. And now to address the second part of your statement.
There were published articles in newspapers talking about the Whippany Village development. Since when does "nontransparent" include making statements in public media? Even Ferramosca is quoted in the article. Even a Whippany Fire Commissioner. So if you ask me, A LOT of people seemed to be openly included in the Whippany Village loop...and then word spread via newspapers. So how is it that people were secretive on the matter? And if something were inaccurately published, why wouldn't anyone step in and correct the record? Especially on a matter so relevant such as the Whippany Village development. Could it be perhaps because the article was accurate? Maybe you're trying to find blame where it isn't deserved. And if you really feel that they were being "totally nontransparent", then learn to search newspaper archives and educate yourself before making false assumptions. Because it's all written in black-and-white. Literally.
my dear simpleman9... why don't you sign your name to your postings. you totally missed my point!... jodi (06/07/10 8:32pm) REPLY
Jodi,
It is illegal for the Town Committee or Planning Board to consider any "deals" for a new Firehouse in hearing a zone change or site-plan. We all relied on the Developer & Individuals behind-the-scenes negotiations and assurances that the developer would honor his committment to the firemen. It was stated on the record at many a public meeting that the developer was going to relocate and build a new firehouse. Nowhere on the record is it stated that the builder would NOT pay for building the firehouse.
Think Jodi. If they knew the developer was never going to pay for the firehouse, why wasn't the potential financing started 3-years ago. And why after 3-years, is a meeting to discuss the financing of the firehouse being held - after tomorrows election. Kind of Convient - don't you think.
Also, it is a fact and it is in the public minutes that you can review for yourself; FOUR COMMITTEE PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF, VOTED AGAINST PROCEEDING TO LOOK INTO A SHORT TERM NOTE TO PURCHASE THE DOHERTY PROPERTY - AFTER MORRISTOWN DROPPED THEIR PLANS TO PURCHAGE THE PROPERTY FOR A GARBAGE GARAGE.
The Whippany Village developer offered to construct a Butler building (a sheet-metal structure) which might have cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars at best.
They also offered to construct a building to the Township’s / Fire Commissioners design but NOT PAY FOR IT. That was a sincere offer. His offer was limited to providing the actual manpower and construction services and labor (excavation, concrete work, walls roof, etc) since they were already on site. Perhaps that is where the confusion is. Building a building is not the same as paying for it!
As it turned out, he would not have been able to do this anyway since it was a public project, the actual construction would have to go out for bid. If the developer of Whippany Village was not the low bidder, he would be out of the picture.
The bottom line here is that the Fire Commissioners are doing everything in their power to put together a package where the Township will end up with a new fire house while at the same time minimizing the cost to the tax payers.
The developer has already prepared the site for utilities, drainage, and egress including curbs, etc. so they are working with within the spirit of assisting to the extent that they can.
If Iradi, Fariello & Coppolla keep up these false claims and maintain that they were unaware of these details then this whole thing could easily fall apart with the end result of no new fire house or one that will end up costing the taxpayers more than it should have. The more they insist on maintaining their version of the story the more incompetent they look. They were in the majority and if they really believed their own version of the story, then how did we end up with no guarantee to back it up.
Judy, Lenny, & George – you can’t have it both ways. Either you’re right and collectively incompetent, or you’re knowingly wrong and trying to make this into a political issue. Knowing Lenny, he is just using this as precursor for his announcement to run as an independent for Township Committee.
Judy... I'm not writing here to defend my position. I was at THAT Township Committee Meeting sitting beside a volunteer firefighter in Whippany and living in Parsippany. I remember asking him what did HE understood to be what this segment of the open meeting was to be about. I took notes, myself. The three of you did blunder and bamboozled THEM. I remember, too, that there could have been a lawsuit with the developer under the leadership of Len Fariello. Forget about the newspapers! I'm one who doesn't believe in what's written in the newspapers. It's only blah, blah, blah. Let's not insult anyone's intelligence here. It is what it is. Sure political irresponsibility on the part of the majority.
And who's talking about the Doherty Property. I'm talking about Whippany Village!
Respectfully,
Jodi Merrill (06/07/10 8:30pm) REPLY
Dear myhanovertownship.com,
I read a recent post under a fictitious name, Joe P., who wishes to support their candidate for township committee by laying blame. Negative campaigns never work well with Hanover voters. When mayor of Hanover Township, chairman of the Committee, I served with Fariello, Iradi and for a short time, Copolla and I can tell you this.
Over the years before these, much progress was accomplished with quality rateables in our township keeping us debt free - still are in spite of some incumbents voting this year to bond for 3 million dollars. Ken Schleifer voted against this resolution. New parks (Central, Riverside, Skurla Field, to name a few) and ball fields, a recreation center, top quality neighbors like Tiffany, Kraft, CAE and many others, were added to our tax roles in those earlier years.
In recent years our progress was interrupted. Blocking the development of Veterans field, turning away positive uses for key properties such as Berlex, American Way and a host of others along with top brands such as Whole Foods, Sunrise, Red Bulls, etc, etc.
How? By the use of frivolous laws suits, Instigated DEP investigations to consume much time with their baseless complaints, blocking votes on committee with 2 to 2 stalemates, stalling Whippany Village for over 2 years, turning away the Red Bulls Soccer Club after 18 months of legal horang. (they have since told us they are not coming to Hanover).
I could go on and on with the damage report and what we left on the shelf that could have kept our tax base stabile, but unfortunately, to some, that was 'development.' Most who know me know I have always been pro quality development in Hanover - the past results are evident. A recent campaign flyer from one candidate said they had worked for over 7 years to get Veterans Filed accomplished. False. The field was a donation to public use space by the efforts of Iannacone and me. That candidate never worked to move the project forward and furthermore stalled the 'gifting' of a $67,000. score board for that field because it would have had Iannaccone's name on it - foolish.
There is not enough time or room on this site to bring the disappointing facts of all that has been turned away, blocked or delayed, by the tactics of a few over recent years - it's time to remove the road blocks and re-group with a forward thinking team.
So, Mr. P., who ever your are. Do the voters a favor by adding a 'real' name to your posting rather than a continuation of falsehoods in facts and names. This is my name, my real name,
This is in response to Tommy Harrington's endorsement of Ken and Ron. When I think of either one of them, I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling regarding your "protect our greenways and natural areas" comment. In fact, I feel as though both of them would rather build and pave their way out of this recession. What makes you think otherwise? Because lately, if it smells like open space and/or recreation in Hanover, it gets brushed aside. Through the years, many of them under Ron's watch, I've seen too many of our "natural areas" torn down for development. Meanwhile, there are vacant abandonded lots perfectful suitable for fresh construction without having to infringe upon undeveloped land. How many more of these eyesores will continue to rot as our dwindling open and/or recreation space is gone forever? And what makes you think Ken will protect the land? He's said it himself, to paraphrase, that if he can't hunt on it, it's useless. All I'm saying is, don't support the guys based on false pretense. Because I'm pretty sure I've shared with you more facts than opinions, and the facts speak otherwise to your hope that they will protect Hanover's green space.
I'm not really sure why Ken and Ron are trying to pin Judy as being misinformed when it comes to the agreement between Vision Equities and the Whippany Fire Department. The strange thing is, being that he's actually on the fire department, Ken is the one who is mistaken. Perhaps he should check with the president of his own fire company and get the facts straight before trying to make someone else look bad.
Judy's (correct) understanding is that Vision Equities would construct a new fire department using hardly any taxpayer money. And Ken and Ron clearly (and wrongfully) said the agreement was solely to swap the land. How can Ken and Ron both be so flat-out wrong on that? Especially since one of them is actually on the fire department. We're not mindless voters. We can read newspaper archives, you know. And now I wonder how Ken can be trusted to make decisions for the town when he's not even sure what's happening in the same building.
I know each of the people running for election personally on one level or another. I know they're all very nice people. My perspective is unbiased as I truly have nothing to gain nor lose by choosing sides. But I'm tired of cronyism or regimes winning out over best interest. So while Ken and Ron are good guys, I'm finding more reason to doubt their reelection. And don't forget that Ron actually quit when the administration didn't favor his agenda! And that's not reassuring to me. When the going gets tough, Ron quits. He said it himself - "Yeah, I quit". And now that the waters are calming, our fair-weather leader is ready to retake his thrown. So what happens when things start to unravel again? Is he going to step down and sit on the sidelines until the smoke clears?
I'm sorry, but Ron's resignation and convenient comeback doesn't seem worthy of a warm welcome. That being said, I'm finding that Judy and Dom are swaying me in their favor. Judy has clearly taken quite a few hits...and she swings back even harder! And why Dom? Because he's calling for unity amongst leaders to move Hanover forward. Isn't that truly refreshing?
Weren't you appointed to fill Jack Korn's spot on the ballot by the County Committee after he passed away?
Wasn't that Committee made up of among others your husband, yourself, and at least 6 other of your political supporters?
Didn't you get appointed to fill that ballot position after losing your prior bid to be the Republican candidate over at least two other candidates who both had years of service on the Planning Board as opposed to the year or two you served? And wasn't the reason you won by such a large margin because you were running unopposed by filling Jack Korn's slot?
Please stop the revisionist history and trying to make your assent to the committee sound like much more than the appointment by your friends that it was.
Weren't you appointed to fill Jack Korn's spot on the ballot by the County Committee after he passed away?
Wasn't that Committee made up of among others your husband, yourself, and at least 6 other of your political supporters?
Didn't you get appointed to fill that ballot position after losing your prior bid to be the Republican candidate over at least two other candidates who both had years of service on the Planning Board as opposed to the year or two you served?
And wasn't the reason you won by such a large margin because you were running unopposed by filling Jack Korn's slot?
Please stop the revisionist history and trying to make your assent to the committee sound like much more than the appointment by your friends that it was.
To anyone that knows me, it should come as no surprise that I am writing this letter of support for Ron Francioli, candidate for Hanover Township Committee. I have come to know Ron over the last 10 years as a consistently honest person, and one who has demonstrated a selfless dedication to Hanover, not only in an elected capacity, but also as a dedicated citizen volunteering his time for numerous private and charitable organizations.
Ron Francioli has served Hanover for over 28 years with a good portion of that time as our mayor. As mayor, Ron was a positive force who always pursued a reasonable and conservative approach towards governance, and above all, always listened to all sides. His experience taught him the importance of not letting the “issue of the day” affect the long term picture. Unlike many who find themselves in a position of authority, Ron was never one to grandstand his successes, and he didn’t shy away from the tough decisions (politically unpopular or otherwise) either. As mayor he fully appreciated the importance of presenting a unified position of the Township Committee, one that would always represent the best interests of the taxpayers.
Ron Francioli continues to be involved in several township boards, and he is the current Chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee, EDAC. As chairman, he is responsible for developing and implementing a broad long-term plan to maintain and attract new businesses to Hanover Township. His occupation as partner in a public relations company, in particular, lends itself to the goal of the EDAC, which in the end, is to lower the tax burden for the Hanover Township residential property owners. I have no doubt that under Ron’s leadership; the EDAC mandate will be realized. In fact the rebuilding of the tax base has already begun.
Why should you vote for Ron? Certainly not because of my endorsement, but rather for his proven record of accomplishments. He has a track record of consistently making the right decisions for Hanover and perhaps more important, a record of leadership and consensus building within the governing body which is crucial when you are trying to move forward. He is also a person that you can go to with a problem and count on to follow through.
Ron Francioli has a solid reputation beyond Hanover Township as well including the adjacent municipalities, not to mention public officials at the county, state and federal level. Again, the result of Ron’s experience and proven performance, he has earned their respect. These relationships will help in the future as we try to do more with less.
So for those of you that already know Ron Francioli, these words come as no surprise.
For those of you that have not yet made up your mind, please consider Ron Francioli as an extremely qualified candidate, one that has a clear track record of past performance, and one who can be counted on to make the right decisions for Hanover Township.
