SOS wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
... does this new position mean that McGreevy maybe collecting another pension check in the future?

Did you miss this? From Steve Fulop's reply in this thread:

"2) He was not hired for the pension credits as the agency is not in the same pension he is in
"

So to collect a pension in this system he'll be starting from zero.

TheBigGuy wrote:
... does this new position mean that McGreevy maybe collecting another pension check in the future?

JChomefornow wrote:
Quote:

StevenFulop wrote:
Yvonne
You have always been reasonable and I appreciate the posts but speculation is really not fair.

1) Jim was not hired for the money as he was already employed despite a columnists opinion.

2) He was not hired for the pension credits as the agency is not in the same pension he is in

3) He was not hired because he wants to get into politics because he will never do that again.

4) He is not a relative nor a long time friend so nepotism as you reference is not an issue.

5) he was never offered any other post as you mentioned. Not business administrator or anything else

I made this hire because the goal is to revamp the employment and training department to be a national model. We have a chance to pick up an individual with huge credentials in the field and the ability to vault a second chance program to the next level because of his relationships in the private and public sector. I fully expected that some people who can't look past his time as governor would have this opinion but we live in a forgiving society that I am looking at his last 10 years which has been a model on this issue. in this situation Jersey City has huge upside potential with no downside at all.

This is a great editorial of many that were run on this decision. This is worth a read

http://observer.com/2013/07/editorial-a-lesson-in-humility/

I can say with my head high that I have been so careful and thoughtful on each leadership hire I have made to make jersey city proud and really give the chance for a difference maker. I understand and anticipated what some would say but we need to look forward not backward. Just my opinion.

?Forgiving???????
Steve, you?re a pretty funny guy.

Anyone that has paid any attention to you knows that forgiveness is not in your nature. Where was your forgiveness for a guy that didn?t betray the publics trust, but embarrassed himself due to his disease of alcoholism? In fact, you used it as part of your crusade to save us from all things bad.
And now, you open the door for the poster child for corruption, the guy that prompted the pay to play laws to be written, to step right into JC while telling us that we should look forward, not backward. Why? Because Steve said so.
Are you really giving us a puff piece on McGreevy from a Kushner publication? Really? You?re funnier than I thought.
McGreevy, Kushner and DeCotiis, perfect together, especially in JC.
McGreevy the new job commissioner. Kushner , McGreevy?s money man and Decotiis. Ahhh yes, DeCotiis, the no-bid contract attorney and Spectra Gasline lobbyists that gave your campaign thousands which you returned after a year ONLY because of public scrutiny. The troika who made pay to play a necessity.
THIS is what Steve thinks is good for Jersey City:

http://www.lenehan.org/McGreevey%20reprint.pdf

As someone said before, Councilman Fulop would be screaming , ?Corruption!! Cronyism!! STOP!!?

Eight years of harping on corruption, character assassinations and always playing a victim. You?ve shown the world who you really are, just another two-bit politician selling the city down the river. I guess if you take the money you dance to their tune.

StevenFulop wrote:
Yvonne
You have always been reasonable and I appreciate the posts but speculation is really not fair.

1) Jim was not hired for the money as he was already employed despite a columnists opinion.

2) He was not hired for the pension credits as the agency is not in the same pension he is in

3) He was not hired because he wants to get into politics because he will never do that again.

4) He is not a relative nor a long time friend so nepotism as you reference is not an issue.

5) he was never offered any other post as you mentioned. Not business administrator or anything else

I made this hire because the goal is to revamp the employment and training department to be a national model. We have a chance to pick up an individual with huge credentials in the field and the ability to vault a second chance program to the next level because of his relationships in the private and public sector. I fully expected that some people who can't look past his time as governor would have this opinion but we live in a forgiving society that I am looking at his last 10 years which has been a model on this issue. in this situation Jersey City has huge upside potential with no downside at all.

This is a great editorial of many that were run on this decision. This is worth a read

http://observer.com/2013/07/editorial-a-lesson-in-humility/

I can say with my head high that I have been so careful and thoughtful on each leadership hire I have made to make jersey city proud and really give the chance for a difference maker. I understand and anticipated what some would say but we need to look forward not backward. Just my opinion.

StevenFulop wrote:
Yvonne
You have always been reasonable and I appreciate the posts but speculation is really not fair.

1) Jim was not hired for the money as he was already employed despite a columnists opinion.

2) He was not hired for the pension credits as the agency is not in the same pension he is in

3) He was not hired because he wants to get into politics because he will never do that again.

4) He is not a relative nor a long time friend so nepotism as you reference is not an issue.

5) he was never offered any other post as you mentioned. Not business administrator or anything else

I made this hire because the goal is to revamp the employment and training department to be a national model. We have a chance to pick up an individual with huge credentials in the field and the ability to vault a second chance program to the next level because of his relationships in the private and public sector. I fully expected that some people who can't look past his time as governor would have this opinion but we live in a forgiving society that I am looking at his last 10 years which has been a model on this issue. in this situation Jersey City has huge upside potential with no downside at all.

This is a great editorial of many that were run on this decision. This is worth a read

http://observer.com/2013/07/editorial-a-lesson-in-humility/

I can say with my head high that I have been so careful and thoughtful on each leadership hire I have made to make jersey city proud and really give the chance for a difference maker. I understand and anticipated what some would say but we need to look forward not backward. Just my opinion.

StevenFulop wrote:
in this situation Jersey City has huge upside potential with no downside at all.

MightyOz wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
and their names are ?

It took me 3 whole clicks from this thread and zero typing to find their names.

http://observer.com/masthead/

Which is not really relevant to the question is Jim McGreevey suitable for the job?

On the one hand is his deceit, incredibly poor judgment and character issues from his prior political life. On the other is his record since then and the work he's been doing. His capability as an executive is established, his experience in re-entry is solid. Whether you like the guy or not, he has the capacity to do a great job, and is a quantum leap beyond what we have had.

If you're suspicious, then watch him closely. McGreevey should be judged on the job he does for Jersey City and the people in his program.

It was a risk for Steve Fulop to pick him, but the potential benefit is huge. Fulop as a candidate said he was eager to try some new things. He's delivering on that promise, now they just have to work, something nobody can know this month or next. Good managers take smart chances, then watch how they go and make corrections when needed.

I think we've got the kind of Mayor he said he'd be, and I hope like hell it all works out.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
and their names are ?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
http://observer.com/2013/07/editorial-a-lesson-in-humility/

Interesting read however who is the actual author of the article as the timing of it makes me squint on its true nature ?
Nice to know the actual name/s behind 'The Editors' that wrote it?

JamesBeard wrote:
McGreevey is an obvious sociopath just looking out for himself and a way back into politics. God, religion and helping others is just a ploy to make himself look better. He tried to become a Priest, but they realized he was nothing but a "Jackass" -- Episcopal Diocese of Newark.

Jersey City should not accept him.

rescuelife wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I saw this article today, interesting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uK ... SZdUfko7zrfPLI/edit?pli=1

it's good you're not posting an anonymous google doc with huge speculation and no citations in it, that makes enormous assumptions. oh wait...

Yvonne wrote:
I saw this article today, interesting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uK ... SZdUfko7zrfPLI/edit?pli=1

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I sense that Fulop had a whisper in his ear to maintain some sort of political party compliance if he wants to move forward in his career !

it sure smells like that, right? why else would you want to have McGreevey's cloud over your head? it doesn't give off the best appearance..

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I sense that Fulop had a whisper in his ear to maintain some sort of political party compliance if he wants to move forward in his career !

SOS wrote:
We're lucky to have McGreevey on board. We're getting top quality talent at a big discount. Unlike some posters in this thread I'm willing to give people a second chance.

SOS wrote:
We're lucky to have McGreevey on board. We're getting top quality talent at a big discount. Unlike some posters in this thread I'm willing to give people a second chance.