Quoted from GrahamBonnet

There is trouble in Socialist Workers Paradise. I think you should be more respectful of Ms. Dufek since she got your slate elected.

Are you suggesting quid pro quo?

No, I am just reminding him of what that woman did for their party, Treating her rude was kind of sad, especially considering that it is not a paying position.

Perhaps LD thought she would be entitled to this position as a quid pro quo? I can understand that since the liberal socialists are famous for that. Why should she be left out? Right? Perhaps she was promised 'something'....yes?

This could be the 'only' explanation for this letter to the editor. Anything else wouldn't make any sense. IMHO

Is DVR attaached to the Parks and Rec?????

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

There is trouble in Socialist Workers Paradise. I think you should be more respectful of Ms. Dufek since she got your slate elected.

More fighting for scraps at the lower end of the trough. The DEMS refuse to pass the salt. Hooray for me-screw you. Working together works!

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

There is trouble in Socialist Workers Paradise. I think you should be more respectful of Ms. Dufek since she got your slate elected.

A LOT of people worked on that campaign.   Not just one person. Also, I don't believe that is any excuse to politicize the parks.   Everyone is welcome to attend the meetings.  So there really is no problem.  

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

No, I am just reminding him of what that woman did for their party, Treating her rude was kind of sad, especially considering that it is not a paying position.

I have never treated her rudely.   What is rude - is going around bad mouthing the commission and never bothering to call me.   She knows my number and could have called me to discuss the matter.   When whoever at town hall changed the resolution -- they could have called me to let me know that there was an issue -- but no such call was ever made to me.

Sorry folks, but I have to agree with dvr on this one. It is clear that LD felt she was promised or believed that she was entitled to be accepted on this committee.....or at some level of 'importance' as a quid pro quo.

LD obviously thought she was a shoe-in since she deliberately missed required meetings....yes?  

I mean what the heck was LD's point by submitting this letter to the gazette? And any other explanation doesn't make sense.IMHO

Quoted from bumblethru

Perhaps LD thought she would be entitled to this position as a quid pro quo? I can understand that since the liberal socialists are famous for that. Why should she be left out? Right? Perhaps she was promised 'something'....yes?

This could be the 'only' explanation for this letter to the editor. Anything else wouldn't make any sense. IMHO

You folks have been around Rotterdam to know that something doesn't have to actually make sense to become a heated issue.

As far as "quid pro quo" --- no promises were ever made to anyone about positions on the commission.  The list of names recommended for appointment was determined by consensus of the Parks Commission at its December meeting --- and thee was absolutely NO influence from any party officials of any party.  And like I have said before ... we have never asked what party does someone belong to and people of all parties are represented on the commission  (except there aren't any Working Family members ... that I know of)

Quid pro quo is a reminder of the ST and Mertz days although the Dems are not above it either.

Quoted from boomer

Quid pro quo is a reminder of the ST and Mertz days although the Dems are not above it either.

Except as far as the Parks Commission goes ... Mr. Tomassone didn't limit membership to any political party.
He asked me to be a part of it and he knew I wasn't exactly his biggest supporter.     But  I will say this about tMr. Tomassone --- he shared my view that the Parks Commission should be non-political.    That it should be residents working together and focused on what was best for the town and its parks and recreation.   I am convinced that at least a working majority of the current Town Board shares that view.    So -- we will continue our
work.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

You folks have been around Rotterdam to know that something doesn't have to actually make sense to become a heated issue.

As far as "quid pro quo" --- no promises were ever made to anyone about positions on the commission.  The list of names recommended for appointment was determined by consensus of the Parks Commission at its December meeting --- and thee was absolutely NO influence from any party officials of any party.  And like I have said before ... we have never asked what party does someone belong to and people of all parties are represented on the commission  (except there aren't any Working Family members ... that I know of)

Again, I'm agreeing with you. I just don't know what point she was trying to make here. The letter makes one think that she was 'shocked' that she didn't get the nod. And YES....it implied that the decision was political and that it was 'politics' that screwed her over. That's my take on the letter any way.

She wanted to volunteer and was told to drop dead. She did 1,000 times more work to get that slate elected than DemocrapicVoodooRepeater. All he did was type 4,000 lying posts on the forum in record speed while he munched on stale Doritoes at the Bates Motel.

ST was the most political and polarizing figure the Town has..Mertz is a close second.

DVR-are you in charge of that commission?