 |
| page 291- The 2005-2006 BoE wrote a $560K P.O. to itself- and paid itself $55.9K- BoE unable to provide supporting documentation to auditor. The SAME crew are behind the Move Forward BoE slate. |
My Dad used to call the comics section of our newspaper the 'funny papers' .
We've got funny papers here in Hoboken, they're called The Hoboken Reporter.
Unlike the funny papers I grew up with, ours are darkly comic. The punch lines are actual punches delivered by operatives whose spin goes to straight to print without fact-checking, concern for accuracy or fairness.
These funny papers never come with a retraction or an apology. The operatives are friends who confide in the paper about their next dirty truck. After it's done, the paper 'reports' the 'news' with a straight face, protecting the operatives while bleeding their victim in black and white. It's a symbiotic relationship; the ops churn out narratives, the paper gets news. Like making sausage. Everybody wins.
 |
| Read how this political operative tried and FAILED to plant a 'Nazi story' about this blog in the HR! |
Except for the losers.
And of course, real news which doesn't get reported.
Like Councilwoman Beth Mason's 501(c)(3) fraud charity. It employs political operatives, uses an alias, did not submit mandatory income and expense reports to the NJ Attorney General ever, and files e-Postcard federal tax returns instead of the required 990 form for charities with gross receipts of over 50K. GA sent all that to the Hoboken Reporter with documentation.
You'll never see it.
Because there is only one kind of news the Hoboken Reporter prints. The kind that helps their political friends. Friends who advertise, support the interests of its management and dispatch operatives to plant spin.
So what was in this week's funny papers?
Nothing about a Blogger's imaginary excursion to Queens. No ginned up political-operative dirty trick on another Blogger ( alleged 'threats' on a "toddler", a non-existent 'criminal investigation' or rigged Nazi 'death chamber' story.)
This week's funny papers 'exonerate' Russo on the the missing $18K from the Russo for Hoboken account. GA will look at that this week.
What caught my attention was the sappy letter from BoE member Peter Biancamano. In it he bemoans his vote to approve $268K in legal fees, which reminded me of this famous John Kerry stinker from 2004:
Peter B. was AGAINST it before he voted FOR it.
Huh?
GA found the reason for his public opposition to paying our lawyers- "taking money out of the classrooms" to be laughably ironic.
Because Biancamano is allied with Frank Raia to 'take back' control of the BoE from Kids First.
Kids First, the majority of whom are public school moms, and have been 'cleaning' the mess left by Raia and his ilk since they took control in 2009.
And Biancamano wants to give Raia, Russo and Castellano control of the School Board because THEY won't take money out of the classrooms?
 |
| Read all about it! |
HAW HAW HAW... oh, those funny papers.
Frank Raia and Carmelo Garcia were President and VP of the BoE in 2005-2006, the year THEY "took money from the classrooms" like it was going out of style. Jobs! Cell phones! Steak dinners!
The 2005-2006 Board used the schools' money like a personal slush fund. Jobs! Cell phones! Steak dinners!
 |
| Read all about it! |
GA sympathizes; no juicy steak dinners at fancy restaurants, mysterious hires, junkets for friends to Atlantic City, or free cell phones under Kids First. It's rough, actually using money for running the district.
Boo-hoo.
 |
| Read all about it! |
Well, Biancamano's disingenuous complaint inspired GA to peruse the 2005-2006 audit- all 297 pages, and oh boy... you'll see MORE shocking misappropriation of our kids' education money here in the days to come.
Folks, our schools are FINALLY being managed properly, and the hard work is getting done, but the people who ran our schools into the ground want their snouts back in the $60M kitty. We CAN'T let them.
So have a gander at the top image- a screenshot from the audit which shows the 2005-2006 BoE making a purchase order for $560K to ITSELF. And paying ITSELF $55.9K. What the hell for? The auditor couldn't say-- there was NO back-up documentation.
Under Kids First, those days are OVER. And that's why the Dark Side is fighting hard to Move Forward to the dark past.
forget that for a minute.....isnt mr barry the owner of the Hoboken Reporter, I always thought he was?
ReplyDeleteWell, i was very confident before i read the reporter in regard to the rent control question. Now Im not sure? everyone say's NO, now i don't know? It kinda reported, if you vote yes there will be no more rent control apartments. Where as i thought the new law added needed corrections to the town law.....im so confused
Tess, the initiative was proposed by a developer/real estate group; it is an initiative that is too extreme and would harm our community. I think we all want to ensure that any changes made to our rent control ordinance do not put our friends and neighbors at risk of losing their homes and should be proposed by our elected officials after they work with all interested parties to make a proposal. This is not the case with the current proposal and we should all vote "no." The Hoboken Journal has posted a more comprehensive piece on the initiative if you are interested in a bit more information.
ReplyDeleteIndie, didn't you lead the charge to put something on the ballot on rent control? Kind of hypocritical of you to blast the use of a ballot initiative on the topic and claim you want the CC to deal w/ the matter when you yourself tried the same tactic the property owners are using right now.
DeleteThe measure should fail or succeed on the merits, not on spin or fear mongering.
umm, huh? I'm not saying that it shouldn't be on the ballot. I'm saying the proposal is too extreme. What exactly is hypocritical about that? It isn't fear mongering to say that the initiative is too extreme. It's a statement about what the impact will be on our community.
DeleteYou did say "should be proposed by our elected officials after they work with all interested parties to make a proposal". That is what happened the 1st time around and you hated that proposal the CC passed so you yourself tried to pass a ballot initiative and failed. Now the landlords will try. Both of you are purely acting out of your own self interests and I think it is important for people to understand greed motivates you just as much as it motivates the property owners you and others pay rent to.
Deleteok there are two questions:
ReplyDeleterent control....so mile square what ever put this on the ballot? So NO to keep it the same.
Now the change of election .....this would be yes to keep it only once a year in November and no if you want to vote more than twice a year, ok, so only two questions......
there needs to be more clarity on these two question......
Hi Tess: There are actually 5 questions. Two are state public questions numbered 1 and 2 and three are Hoboken public questions numbered 1, 2 and 3. For Hoboken a quick break down is as follows:
DeleteHoboken Public Questions #1 is for the runoffs (Yes = eliminate runoffs/No = maintain having runoffs)
Hoboken Public Question #2 is on rent control (Yes = make MSTA changes to rent control/No = maintain existing protections)
Hoboken Public Question #3 is to move elections (yes = move municipal elections to November/No = keep municipal elections in May)
Hope that helps.
Tess, I heard from others in the tenant community that you had a question about the rent control public question, so I came here to clarify. Some of what is written here is correct. Thank you GA for allowing discussions about this topic and presenting this forum. Let me clarify further.
ReplyDeleteYou are confused, and no wonder. 3 years ago, the city council meaning both political sides in town, not just one worked with all of us to come up with some minor changes or "corrections" if you will. That's what went to the ballot last year.
Enter 2012. This year, the landlords/MSTA skipped all that and came up with some big changes they are trying to push through on us. They are counting on everyone to stay confused. Why not have another public process so this could be debated? instead they are fighting all publicilty and don't want you to understand.
So yes you should vote no on the question if you don't want these changes railroaded through.
Incidentally regarding your question on the Barrys. According to old articles on the Reporter website, they sold the paper back in the 1990s. Some say they are still involved, some say no. This will always be subject of rumors is my guess, that's how hoboken is whther true or not. For my part I will say that I have been sending them letters against certain local developments for more than 15 years and have also given quotes for stories about overdevelopment and they have always printed the letters even when they were against developments by the Barrys themselves. They have actually written more stories about overdevelopment issues in town more than any other media out here and there were times they could have left the issue undiscussed. But if it came up they wrote about it and did so in a fair manner. Even recently they have written about these issues. I know they get a bad wrap and that's normal but I just wanted to say that they have always been more than fair with me on development issues. on the politics, it seems to me the stories are pretty good at reflecting what is going on with all the political sides in town and obviously one will be happy all the time, it doesn't always mean a bias. You can read into it and find a bias toward either way. But that's just my opinion and trust me, I am not naive. I can come up with conspiracy theories too but I have been around long enough to know what's really cooking. I have had my issues with the paper but by and large it does a good job in my opinion. Everyone has their theories. New Jersey Now used to do much better before Summer Dawn left as well.
Long story short, read everything and trust no one on this rent matter. Thank you to GA for encouraging discussion and I appreciate your indulgence.