I for one would like to see this e-mail...not that it would change my vote but I would like to judge it for myself.

"I think it's striking under the circumstances that Councilman Fulop, who is well aware of the situation, has not asked the HPNA to apologize to their former member. He is not responsible for their actions, but his silence is noted. The former Board member is one of his constituents. As Councilman, shouldn't he be standing up for her rights?"

Why has not Catrillo come out to ask the person who sent the misleading (I won't say lies, but wrong) accusations against Fulop to apologize? Shouldn't they both be held to the same standards?

You do not speak for me. And your one-sidedness is also noted.

"You understand that the first amendment is about protecting citizens from being punished by the government for expressing their views, right? No one suggested that the person spreading rumors should be prosecuted. The first amendment does not say that expressing oneself (especially in a poor or incorrect manner) should not have consequences to ones standing in the community. The first amendment is irrelevant."

You misunderstand.

The Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association (HPNA) is a non-profit organization. They can not inflict "consequences" as you say, on an individual member for his or her beliefs or the expression of those beliefs.

After the former-HPNA Board member in question sent this email expressing her concerns about Councilman Fulop, she was verbally accosted by the President of the HPNA and he demanded that she apologize to the HPNA for her expression of opinion. He would have had a right to do so if the Board member had violated any of the HPNA bylaws. But she did not.

Further, she was trashed over email by members of the HPNA Board who called her "stupid", among other niceties.

Nobody is suggesting that members of the HPNA committed a crime or even that action should be taken in civil court. Just that they actively attempted to stifle the opinion of one of their own due to the opposing political views that many of them hold.

I think it's striking under the circumstances that Councilman Fulop, who is well aware of the situation, has not asked the HPNA to apologize to their former member. He is not responsible for their actions, but his silence is noted. The former Board member is one of his constituents. As Councilman, shouldn't he be standing up for her rights?

Quote:

Whospeaksforyou: I don't think you have your facts right and there isn't much your candidate has to say that I agree with, but I'll say this - you should be speaking for him. You string together coherent thoughts into standard written form in a manner that is understandable to the reader. I've heard your Guy speak several times and... Whew! I walk away with a headache because it is so hard to follow what it is I think he's trying to say. Maybe he could hold up cards to music like in that old U2 video (the one where all the words rhymed with "eight" - can't remember the name.)

You understand that the first amendment is about protecting citizens from being punished by the government for expressing their views, right? No one suggested that the person spreading rumors should be prosecuted. The first amendment does not say that expressing oneself (especially in a poor or incorrect manner) should not have consequences to ones standing in the community. The first amendment is irrelevant.

The truth is that the Catrillo campaign was looking out for the rights of an HPNA Board member (since resigned) who was personally attacked for expressing her political views in an email. She has 1st Amendment rights and violated none of the HPNA bylaws in doing so.

Those who attacked her are vocal supporters of Councilman Fulop who have sent the same sorts of political emails in support of Mr. Fulop. The Catrillo campaign was correct to make an issue of this. Both because it is a winning issue; and because as a result, many who attacked the former Board member have now come forward and apologized.

Fulop should also apologize.

Full disclosure: I volunteer for the Catrillo campaign.

GrovePath wrote:

Quote:

Thank you, Grove Path, for posting another unimportant news story from the JC Reporter.

So, Catrillo thought it would be best to respond to the HPNA with sweeping accusations of "undemocracy"? Okay, that's amateurish and undiplomatic.

Quote:

Who the Board members support or "endorse" personally is irrelevant. For one, they're not important enough people for anyone to care.

It seems like the HPNA was either trying to circle their institutional wagons or clarify that the Board member's views were her own. Both are legitimate organizational motives.

Second, the HPNA "endorsement" probably doesn't mean anything. However, they should not circle their wagons around Fulop yet if they expect to have a legitimate debate.

Downtown JC council race heats up; accusations fly

Hudson Reporter

Five candidates are running for Jersey City's Ward E City Council seat, which covers Downtown, in the May 12 election. But two of those candidates, Steven Fulop and Guy Catrillo, are trying to turn it into a two-man race.

Through his campaign office, Fulop, the incumbent running for a second term, issued on Tuesday afternoon an e-mail taking issue with Catrillo's allegedly engaging in negative campaigning.

An excerpt from the e-mail reads, "In the past two weeks, Team Healy?s candidate, Guy Catrillo, has run two full-page negative ads about Steve in the Hudson Reporter. We chose not to retaliate with a similarly negative attack ad because, again, we want to avoid mudslinging and, instead, focus on the issues that are important to the Ward. This same advertisement was used as part of many of the invitations their campaign distributed during group discussions in which they participated downtown. Finally, yesterday morning, vocal and key volunteers to the Catrillo campaign started sending out emails (to addresses from community distribution email lists) and letters full of misinformation and exaggeration."

Fulop, running as an independent, has also put out a website (www.stevenfulop.com/factcheck) to refute any "misinformation and exaggeration."

Meanwhile, Catrillo's camp sent out an e-mail Tuesday alleging the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association (HPNA) asked a member of their board, a Catrillo supporter, to apologize for making her support known to a friend in a private e-mail, and requesting that the board member send out an e-mail "clarifying" her views. The Catrillo campaign sent out their e-mail one day before tonight's debate organized by the HPNA with all the Ward E candidates at the Cordero Elementary School, 158 Erie St from 7:30 to 9 p.m.

Stated in the e-mail is the following: "The Catrillo Campaign does not support this selective suppression of freedom of speech. In fact, we uphold, defend and encourage lively debate and dialogue of opposing views. After all, isn?t that the purpose of a debate? This business of requesting an apology from someone who expressed their personal views in a private email is an outrageous infringement on one?s civil rights and freedom of speech. "

In the e-mail, the Catrillo team also calls out the HPNA for allegedly having several board members who are supporters of Fulop, referred to in the e-mail as "the Current Councilman."

Also, the Catrillo team requests in their e-mail the HPNA disclose before tonight's debate, which Catrillo still plans to attend, "if any HPNA Board member, selecting questions for the debate, has publicly endorsed or supported the election efforts of any Ward E candidate ..." - The other candidates running are Jaime Vazquez, Joseph Tarrazi and Azam Riaz.

Check the Hudson Reporter's "up to the minute news" for more on these controversies, and comment below! - Ricardo Kaulessar