Monmouth County Democrats to Host Presidential Mock Debate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
FEBRUARY 23, 2016


West Long Branch, NJ, February 23, 2016 - The Monmouth County Democrats will host a mock presidential debate at Monmouth University on March 3rd. Congressman Frank Pallone will be the surrogate for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while Assemblyman John Wisniewski will be the surrogate for Senator Bernie Sanders.

Both officials have publicly expressed support for their respective candidates.

Vin Gopal, Chairman of the Monmouth County Democrats, said that he is “excited to have such respected politicians representing the two candidates. Frank Pallone and John Wisniewski both care deeply about the campaigns they are endorsing. I can’t say for sure how the debate will turn out, but I can promise that the night will be informative and engaging.”

The debate will take place from 6:30-8:30 p.m. in the Wilson Auditorium. The event is free to attend, and all ages are welcome.

TEDxNavesink: Leading Thinkers Present Talks on Acceleration

Saturday, April 11, 2015, Pollak Theatre, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, N.J., 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

West Long Branch, N.J. (March 3, 2015) - Leading thinkers including a Pulitzer Prize winner, physicists, computer scientists, researchers, and artists will explore how today’s accelerators and change agents are shaping our future at the TEDxNavesink conference: “Accelerators” at Monmouth University. TEDxNavesink brings the mission of TED Talks to Monmouth County for an all-day live event for the third annual year.

The conference will be held on Saturday, April 11, 2015, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Pollak Theatre, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue in West Long Branch, N.J.

“Accelerators are the people, teams, systems that produce surprising growth, speed, progress,” said Gail Woods, chief curator, TEDxNavesink. "We selected the 29 speakers and entertainers from over 200 applications. More than half the speakers, we approached because of their thought leadership, and some come from Europe and California at their own expense to give the talk of their lives.”

“TEDxNavesink 2014 sold out the Two River Theatre a month in advance,” said event founder Brian Smiga. “Monmouth University helped us expand the TEDxNavesink in multiple ways: the 700 seat Pollak Theatre; intimate speaker lunches held in a dozen seminar rooms; a gala reception with entertainment, dinner, wine, beer, and a chance to mingle with speakers, sponsors, professors, and organizations—for an affordable $25 add-on.”

TEDxNavesink is a self-organizing annual Monmouth County-based event dedicated to education, community, innovation, and “ideas worth spreading.” Each year, a different theme is chosen to build the day of nonfiction theater. Hundreds of business and nonprofit leaders, students from local universities and sponsors have planned, managed and funded the all-day event. Sponsors include Monmouth University, Monmouth Medical Center, Sawtooth Agency, Two River Theater, Defined Logic, United Teletech Financial, CMDS Marketing, Phone.com, the NJ Economic Development Authority, and others. Several sponsorship opportunities remain open.

"The partnership between TEDxNavesink and Monmouth University is natural, and its benefits are many," said Stanton Green, Ph.D., dean of the Wayne D. McMurray School of Humanities and Social Sciences. "Millennials face unprecedented change as universities are challenged to create increasingly inventive learning environments. TEDxNavesink presents an amazing opportunity for Monmouth's faculty and students to prepare for the future using the knowledge and experience of a global community of thinkers."

Tickets cost $40 for millennials (those born after Jan 1, 1980), $55 for general seating, and $75 for reserved seating. Attendees are encouraged to add the Navesink Reception with entertainment, dinner, wine and beer from 5 to 8 p.m. for $25. Group discounts are available. To purchase tickets or for more information on the day's schedule and talks, visit www.tedxnavesink.com.

Speakers include the following (the complete line up at www.tedxnavesink.com):

Bora Joon is a composer, vocalist, sound artist and a 2014 TED Fellow. She was named on the list of "14 Artists Who Are Transforming the Future of Opera" by Huffington Post, and her pioneering works have been presented internationally.

Joe Iconis is a musical theater writer and fixture on the New York cabaret scene. He is the recipient of the Kleban Prize, Jonathan Larson Award, ASCAP Harold Adamson Lyric Award and MAC John Wallowitch Songwriting Award. He is also a nominee of the Drama Desk Awards and Lucille Lortel Award and composer and lyricist of the upcoming musical "Be More Chill" at Two River Theater in Red Bank, New Jersey.

Dan Neil is a Pulitzer Prize-winning car critic whose "Rumble Seat" column appears Saturdays in the "Off Duty" section of The Wall Street Journal. To date, Neil is the only award recipient of the Pulitzer Prize for criticism of automotive arts. He will discuss the ways in which accelerators are changing the rate at which work gets done.

Don Lincoln, particle physicist at Fermilab, uses the Large Hadron Collider (the world's highest energy particle accelerator) to study questions of matter's ultimate building blocks and the universe's origin. He will explore how the true testament to the collaborative potential of the human spirit answers questions that have perplexed humanity for as long as they have been asked.

Dr. Gary Lewandowski is professor and chair of the Department of Psychology at Monmouth University and director of the Relationship Science Lab. Lewandowski is co-editor/co-creator of www.ScienceOfRelationships.com. He will discuss how to break-up better and why break-ups don't have to leave you broken.

Dr. Lora Aroyo is associate professor of computer science at VU University in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Inspired by quantum physics, psychology and crowdsourcing, Dr. Chris Welty and Dr. Aroyo present a new approach for helping cognitive computer systems deal with context and make better assistants.

Annika Lorienne is co-founder and director of public relations of RadioFlag. Lorienne co-created the company's "Connective Listening" concepts and organized other instrumental aspects of its development. She will discuss how RadioFlag catalyzes empowering radio to better entertain, educate and enlighten people around the world.

Abby Daly is founder and executive director of the Bridge of Books Foundation, an all-volunteer nonprofit organization that has distributed nearly a half-million books to underserved children throughout New Jersey since 2003. Daly will talk about why it is time to stop assuming children across all income levels have equal access to books.

About TED
TED is a nonprofit organization devoted to "ideas worth spreading." Started as a conference in California 30 years ago, TED has grown to support world-changing ideas with many initiatives. At a TED conference, the world's leading thinkers and doers are asked to give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes or less. Through distribution networks, TED Talks are shared on TV, radio, Netflix and many websites. The TEDx initiative grants free licenses to people around the world to organize TED-style events in their communities with TED Talks and live speakers. Visit www.ted.com/registration for more information.

Time Banking Slide Show

Last week there was a presentation on time banking at Monmouth University. Ashley Lobbato and several other dedicated staff members at MonmouthCares are working toward implementing this program in Monmouth County.

Time banking is a way of buying the services you need by earning time for services you provide. Every hour of service has the same value no matter what the service, and transactions are tax-free. This alternative form of currency is an innovative way for people to meet their needs in a difficult economy.

Everyone has something to give and can participate in the time banking network, which creates a circle of giving that reconnects communities.

The slide show that was part of last week’s presentation can be viewed at the link below. It was created using an application called Prezi that allows for imbedded videos on some screens. Grab your family members and take a look to learn more about this really cool initiative.

Slide show:
http://prezi.com/ax2l-3q9nn6q/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

Best regards,
Linda Baum

Time Banking Presentation at Monmouth U. on Tuesday, 4/8

The following info was sent to me by Ashley Lobbato. I’m passing it along because I think folks might be interested in learning more about this really cool initiative. ~Linda Baum

***
When and where:
Tuesday, April 8, 2:30 - 3:45 pm
Monmouth University
Anacon Hall A & B (2nd floor of student center)

On April 8th, Ashley Lobbato of MonmouthCares will lead a presentation on time banking at Monmouth University starting at 2:30 PM in Anacon Hall (2nd floor of student center). The time banking presentation is part of a week-long Global Understanding Convention that is free and open to the public. Feel free to invite friends, family, and coworkers.

This a great opportunity to hear more about this innovative program that Ms. Lobbato and the staff at MonmouthCares are working toward implementing in Monmouth County.

Time banking is the alternative currency that uses time instead of money to afford services. In an economy that is struggling, everyone has an asset and something to give. This unique way of co-production and thinking fosters a network of sustainable resources that everyone can access regardless of socioeconomic status. The reciprocal service exchange where a person “banks” their time earned doing something for someone else and in turn can “cash in” their time credits for something they need/want is the tax-free way to regain control of our lives and our future.

Here is a link to the full convention program guide:
http://www.monmouth.edu/uploadedFiles/Content/University/about-monmouth/centers-of-distinction/the-institute-for-global-understanding/convention/GUCProgram2014.pdf

Pallone Calls for Stability in Student Loan Interest Rates at Monmouth University

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, May 2, 2013

Without Congressional action, student loan interest rates are set to double on July 1

Long Branch, NJ—Today, Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06) met with a small group of Monmouth University students to discuss the need for certainty and stability in student loan interest rates. Interest rates on need-based loans for more than 7 million students are set to double in July of this year, and the students asked questions and talked to the Congressman about the impact this interest rate hike would have for them.

“A college education should not be reserved strictly for the wealthy and fortunate, but it should be an opportunity for all those with the desire and determination to expand their educational horizons,” said Pallone. “With current interest rates at historic lows, and exceptionally high unemployment for recent college graduates, allowing student loan interest rates to double is unfair and makes no sense.”

The majority of student loans are federally backed loans, and if Congress fails to act on this issue, the neediest students will pay $1,000 in additional repayment costs per year. Last year, interest rates were set to double for student loans as well, until a public outcry compelled the Republican led Congress to extend the 3.4 percent rate through the 2012 - 2013 academic year.

Congressman Pallone has been a longtime and outspoken advocate for access to and affordability of higher education. In 2007, Democrats in Congress provided relief for students from high interest rates on need-based loans by passing the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. The law lowered interest rates on subsidized Stafford Loans each year until they reached their current low of 3.4 percent. Since then, millions of students have benefitted from lower rates.

The Monmouth University Polling Institute invites you to…

“A Conversation with…”
prominent national political commentators


The series kicks off with two well-known cable television personalities
who will discuss what’s at stake in this year’s national election.


s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

 

Monday, October 1, 7:00 pm – Wilson Hall

A Conversation with … MONICA CROWLEY

Monica Crowley is a host and political and foreign affairs analyst for the Fox News Channel, and the host of the nationally syndicated radio program, The Monica Crowley Show. She has also been a regular panelist on The McLaughlin Group and an anchor on MSNBC. She is the author of The New York Times bestseller, What The (Bleep) Just Happened? The Happy Warrior’s Guide to the Great American Comeback. She served as Foreign Policy Assistant to former President Richard Nixon from 1990 until his death in 1994, and wrote two bestsellers about her experiences, Nixon Off the Record and Nixon in Winter. She has also written for the New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and Newsweek. She holds two Master's degrees and a doctorate from Columbia University.

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

Thursday, October 18, 7:00 pm – Wilson Hall

A Conversation with … STEVE KORNACKI

Steve Kornacki is a co-host of MSNBC’s ensemble show The Cycle, which airs weekday afternoons. He is also Salon.com’s senior political writer. Before that, he wrote for the New York Observer and covered Congress for Roll Call. He also spent three years in New Jersey, chronicling the state’s political world for PolitickerNJ.com and co-hosting Power & Politics, a television weekly show on News12 New Jersey. His work has also appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New York Daily News, New York Post, Boston Globe, Daily Beast and Capital New York. He is a native of Groton, Massachusetts and graduated from Boston University.

s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

Monmouth University Polling Institute’s “A Conversation with…” series gives students, faculty, and the larger community the opportunity to interact with high-profile political figures from the national stage. The discussions are led by Polling Institute director Patrick Murray, with a period for audience Q & A.

These events are free and open to the public

To RSVP, please contact polling@monmouth.edu or 732-263-5860
Monmouth University s 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch, New Jersey 07764

Monmouth County Planning Board To Discuss State Strategic Plan; Public Hearing Scheduled

It's nice to see that one of our locally elected officials is hard at work at the job he was appointed to by our "Rockstar" governor.

For a hint at who that individual might be, take a look at the email address below.

Keep up the good work there Scharfy!

The Monmouth County Planning Board, under the chairmanship of Vincent Domidion, will discuss the Proposed final draft of the State Strategic Plan: New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, dated October 11, 2011., on February 20, 2012 at 2 p.m., at the Hall of Records Annex, 1 E. Main Street, Freehold, NJ.

STATE PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING

As part of the State Planning Public Hearing, a presentation will be given at Monmouth University on February 28, 2012 at 6 P.M. At 7 p.m. a Public Hearing will be held .

This presentation and public hearing will be held at Bey Hall, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Avenue, West Long Branch.

To access a copy of the Proposed Final Draft State Strategic Plan: New Jersey State Development and Re-Development Plan you may go online:

www.state.nj.us/state/planning/plan-draft-final.html

Or you may access by phone
609-633-8301
email: gerard..scharfenberger@sos.state.nj.us

It Was Grenafege Vs. Scharfenberger In A Heated Exchange During Budget Meeting

One of the more lively exchanges that took place during Tuesday night's budget adoption meeting in Middletown, was the heated words that flew around the court house between resident Jim Grenafege and mayor Scharfenberger.

There has been bad-blood between the two that dates back to 2008 when Jim Grenafege ran on the Democratic ticket for a seat on the Middletown Township Committee.

Durning that campaign Scharfenberger, who is a part-time adjunct professor at Monmouth Univeristy, was caught using the Monmouth University's email system to send out false and misleading campaign information about Grenafege and his running mate to Republicans and their supporters in Middletown.

Scharfenberger's ethical lapse nearly cost Monmouth University its IRS tax exempt status and was in clear violation of Monmouth University's Guidelines for Political Activity.

To this day it isn't exactly clear what disciplinary actions, if any, Monmouth University took against Scharfenberger. And since this time, whenever Jim Grenafege stands in front of the Township Committee to address a concern that troubles him mayor Scharfenberger usually looks away and ignores him, that was until Tuesday night.

Dustin Racippio from the website RedBankGreen.com caught the exchange and wrote about in his column:

"...Frustration mounted when resident Jim Grenafage, a meeting regular, criticized the committee for lacking transparency — a common complaint at the meeting — and accused it of withholding information from committeeman Sean Byrnes, the body’s lone Democrat.

Scharfenberger, clearly chafed by the “heavy accusation,” uncharacteristically let his frustration show, and got into a back-and-forth of raised voices and finger pointing with Grenafage.

“There’s much more of an effort to keep things opaque than to bring transparency to the town,” Grenafage said...."

If you would like to listen to it for yourself I have the audio posted below. I hope to have an expanded sound bite soon of the exchange because much of what is not captured in this piece of audio was very insightful and at some point should be looked into.

Patrick Murray: Conflicting Polls on the Teachers' Union? Not Really.

Patrick Murray, who is the founding director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute and is a frequent media commentator on politics and public opinion, has posted on his blog an explanation for the seemingly conflicting poll results that were released last week dealing with Governor Christie's budget, school aid cuts and state unions. He points out that even though the three polls seem to tell conflicting storys. they don't. The separate polls "really tell separate pieces of a cohesive – but nuanced – story."

Here's what he has to say:

A trio of polls were released last week on Governor Chris Christie’s budget, particularly focusing on school aid cuts and state unions. According to at least one report, these polls were “seemingly at odds” with one another (also here). But if you look at what the three polls actually asked, they really tell separate pieces of a cohesive – but nuanced – story.

The Eagleton Poll (and here) found 57% of New Jerseyans feel that school aid should not be cut and 72% are opposed to “making it easier” to lay off teachers to solve local budget problems.

The Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll found 68% of the public see the cuts as being unfair to some groups (with teachers being among the top “victims”) and Governor Christie is seen as the more negative party in the NJEA dust-up, and ultimately more responsible for the impending teacher layoffs.

The Rasmussen Poll found 65% of likely voters favor having school employees (including teachers, administrators and other workers) take a one year wage freeze to help make up for the deficit in state funding.

I really don’t find anything too contradictory in those results. Public opinion is rarely black and white (as national polling about the health reform debate dramatically illustrates). The real difference in these three polls is that each chose to cover a different facet of the issue.

Both the Eagleton and Monmouth polls asked residents about their opinion of the governor’s proposed budget and how it will affect them personally.

Eagleton also asked quite a few questions about what areas of the budget should or should not be cut and what, if any, tax increases the public is willing to accept in order to avoid those cuts (none, apparently).

Monmouth’s survey included questions on impressions of Christie’s budget in comparison to Jon Corzine’s first budget (trends are a wonderful tool for providing context) and a focus on communication with the general public, including the NJEA battle and reaction to key terms used to describe the budget (e.g. “tough” and “fair”).

Rasmussen’s poll asked four questions, mainly focused on state worker concessions to deal with the budget crisis.

In terms of election polling, Rasmussen has a very good track record and, by my reckoning, had the most accurate final pre-election poll in last year’s gubernatorial race. [And admittedly, Monmouth, along with Zogby, YouGov, and Democracy Corp, came up with the wrong end of the stick in the final days of that campaign. Eagleton did not issue a final election poll.]...

You can read more >>> Here

Mulshine: N.J. Suburbs Still Get No Respect

The Star-Ledger's Paul Mulshine had a pretty good column today, he points out how Chris Christie is making a big mistake by trying to court urban voters at the expense of the suburban voters. Mulshine points out that it was Monmouth and Ocean Counties that pushed Christie over the top, not Essex or Hudson. Why would he expect to make inroads in counties that are clearly opposed to his ideals?

Also of interest to residents in the 13th District, Mulshine gives another shout-out to Bob Brown. Brown ran as a Democrat in District 13 against Amy Handlin and Sam Thompson and did a better than expected job at the polls.

According to an internal Republican opinion poll that was leaked, Brown actually was leading Thompson with a week and a half left in the race but was done in by the anti-Corzine tsunami that washed over the bayshore area.

It's a good read, check it out:

After I wrote a column last week critical of Gov.-elect Chris Christie’s transition team, which is packed with Trenton insiders and McGreevey administration retreads, I got an e-mail from Bob Brown.

"Where is the average Joe, the taxpayer from the suburbs?" Bob asked.

Nowhere, that’s where. If Christie was in the mood to put Democrats on his team, then he might have considered a Democrat like his old Seton Hall Law School classmate Brown. Brown is an ex-cop from Old Bridge who ran for the Assembly as a Democrat more conservative than the incumbent Republicans.

Brown didn’t win. But he did succeed in highlighting the issue that should be the No. 1 priority of the incoming Republican administration. And that’s the need for property tax relief for the suburbs.

A Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released Friday revealed that "New Jerseyans want their taxes cut; no other priority comes close," in the words of the poll directors. And the tax they most want to see cut is the property tax, the poll showed.

But Christie made it clear immediately following his victory that the cities, not the suburbs, are his first priority. He spent the day after the election visiting Newark to kiss the ring of Democratic party boss Steve Adubato.

After paying his respects to Essex County, which went for Gov. Jon Corzine by a 65,000-vote margin, he blew a kiss to Hudson County, which went Democratic by a 46,000-vote margin. He included on his team a member in good standing of the Hudson Democratic machine, state Sen. Sandra Cunningham.

As for the aforementioned "average Joe from the suburbs," Christie will be making the transition without him, even though it was the suburbs that gave Christie his victory, specifically the suburbs in the middle of the state.

Patrick Murray of the Monmouth University Polling Institute notes that turnout was down this year in every county except Ocean and Monmouth. And those two counties voted Republican by unprecedented margins, 70,000 and 64,000 respectively. But Republicans can’t count on that happening again, Murray said.

"It’s not clear this was a sea change in the way in which Jerseyans vote," said Murray. "It was clearly just an anti-Corzine vote."
In Murray’s view, and mine, Corzine committed political suicide with that ill-fated 2007 tour of the state to win support for his plan to borrow $38 billion against future tolls. That was the main factor in his losses in Monmouth, Ocean and Middlesex counties, all of which are heavily dependent on the toll roads.

Another factor was Corzine’s decision not to go on radio station 101.5 FM, which hosted that "pigs will fly" Statehouse rally in early 2008. That decision meant that Corzine got bashed without rebuttal by the station’s always amusing talk-show hosts for two months leading up to the election.

This permitted Christie to win despite his strategy, which was to focus on the cities rather than the suburbs. That strategy was a failure.

"Look at Newark, they were upside down 32,000 for him," said Steve Acropolis, who is mayor of Brick Township in Ocean County. "East Orange was upside-down 10,000 for him."

What saved Christie were the big suburbs in the 101.5 listening area such as Brick, where he piled up an 11,000-vote margin, and Toms River, where he got his biggest margin, more than 12,000.

Yet in a post-election meeting with the Ocean County mayors, the governor-elect told them they can’t expect to be getting more state aid as a result of their support. Acropolis said the suburban mayors don’t want special favors, just an equal share of state aid.

"I don’t want him to say we gave him the second highest vote total so we’re going to get extra stuff," said Acropolis. "I just want what’s fair for our residents."

Suburban residents realize next year will be a tough one because of the budget problems facing the state, he said. But their patience has a limit.

"He’s got four years and if he doesn’t do anything, he’ll be a one-term governor," said the mayor.

That’s not a threat so much as a cold reality. The new map of New Jersey politics is not a promising one for Republicans. Bergen County used to ring up Republican margins as reliably as Ocean or Morris. But Christie managed to lose Bergen by a small margin. As for the cities, Christie is now the third Republican gubernatorial nominee in a row to fail miserably in a try at breaking the Democratic stranglehold on the urban vote.

That leaves those midstate suburbs as the battleground for any future elections. And they produced those huge margins not out of any great love for Christie, but out of intense dislike for Corzine, said pollster Murray.

"Nothing motivates a voter like anger," said Murray. "And Christie had better hope they’re not angry in 2013."

If he keeps up the way he’s going, they will be. And not at the Democrat.

Patrick Murry: Christie’s Message of Change Lacks Hope

This blog post is from Patrick Murry's blog "Real Numbers and Other Musings"and orginially appeared as a guest column for In The Lobby.

Chris Christie put out a new web video in response to President Barack Obama’s campaign stop for Governor Jon Corzine Thursday. Christie has been trying to use Obama’s “Change” mantra to unseat the incumbent, but has been having limited success in getting it to resonate with voters.

As I watched that video, the penny finally dropped on why this message wasn’t working for Christie. But first, a quick note about why Obama was here to begin with.

The inevitable question – or at least the question most reporters are asking – is whether Obama can really help Corzine’s reelection chances. The answer for that is found in two numbers: 87 and 64.

The former is President Obama’s job approval rating among New Jersey Democratic voters. The latter is Governor Corzine’s job rating among his fellow Democrats. Obama’s visit is not meant to sway undecided voters. It’s to get reluctant Democrats in Corzine’s column and out to the polls.

As part of our research strategy for this election, we have been tracking a panel of nearly 1,000 voters. Among the many shifts evident in this churning electorate, we’ve seen a small shift from undecided and other candidates to Corzine.

One Democratic voter who was leaning to Daggett in late September, but switched to Corzine in mid-October, said he was worried that the media would paint a Corzine loss as a referendum on Obama. As unhappy as he is with Corzine’s first term, this voter was reluctant to see the president suffer because of it. I assume he is not alone.

And that brings us back to Chris Christie. From the very beginning, the Republican’s camp has claimed that the electorate is in a “change” mood. Americans were unhappy with the way things were going in Washington and so they kicked out the Republicans in 2006 and 2008. Since New Jersey voters are similarly unhappy with the way things are going in Trenton, the Christie thinking goes, they’ll be just as willing to kick out the Democrats this year.

There are two problems with this line of thought. First, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hades that the Democrats will lose control of the Assembly. In fact, if they lose more than two seats, the GOP can claim some sort of moral, albeit meaningless, victory.

The bigger problem, though, is that Christie’s campaign communications folks apparently read only half of the Obama playbook. His message in 2008 was not “Change.’ It was “Hope” and “Change.” Or more accurately “HopeandChange” – sometimes even shortened derisively to “Chope” by his critics. But it was effective. [A recent Jimmy Margulies cartoon about Corzine played off the hope theme.]

And that’s where Christie’s campaign has fumbled the message. His new web video starts out by using Obama’s voice over images of homeless men in Camden, figuratively depicting New Jersey as being on a one-way street presumably to nowhere.

Frankly, I found it depressing. That’s when it hit me. Chris Christie is offering a message of change without hope. And not just in this web video, but throughout his entire campaign.

The punditry and the media have focused on his lack of specifics, charging that he has not given voters a clear policy proposal that they can hang onto. I have said before that despite their discontent with the incumbent, voters still need to be able to say, “Here is something concrete that Chris Christie is going to do,” before they will vote for change. But the problem with lacking a specific message is larger than just the policy details.

A specific campaign promise is, in itself, a message of hope. And Christie’s campaign strategy has been lacking that element of hope from the very beginning.

Yes, I know that the Republican nominee has used phrases like “hope is on the way” and “New Jerseyans hope real change will come.” But listen closely to Christie’s rhetoric when he talks about state government. The tone lacks a sense of hope.

That doesn’t mean you can’t attack your opponent’s record. In fact, it still amazes me that Christie has not used every opportunity offered him, especially in the debates, to point out specific Corzine weaknesses – i.e. the governor’s failed toll hike plan and the fizzled-out special session to reform property taxes. These are the reasons why Jon Corzine’s job approval rating is so low and are fair game in this race.

Instead, Christie has chosen to speak in generalities about how Corzine has raised taxes. And rather than leave the blame at Corzine’s feet, he follows that up by saying that the mess in Trenton is due to chronic mismanagement by both parties over the years. A common refrain from Chris Christie is that New Jersey is broken.

And therein lies the problem. Attacking the incumbent is one thing, especially if done well (which it hasn’t been in this case). But who wants to vote for a guy whose underlying campaign theme is that we are all headed down the toilet? Maybe his delivery is just a byproduct of the prosecutorial personality. But it doesn’t resonate with independent voters who need a positive reason to go out and vote.

New Jersey voters already believe the state is broken. That doesn’t mean they want to be constantly reminded of it. They want someone who is going to lead them out of the wilderness. Not someone who is going to point out every dried-up stream and dead tree.

It’s all about hope and change, Mr. Christie. Change and Hope.

Patrick Murry: As the Voter Churns

Patrick Murry, founding director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, posted the following piece on his blog Real Numbers and Other Musings:

The conventional wisdom in New Jersey’s gubernatorial race is the better that Chris Daggett does, the worse Chris Christie does. Certainly, Daggett’s rise in the polls over the past four weeks is a nearly point for point match with Christie’s drop in support.

That certainly is true at the aggregate level, as I have noted elsewhere. Specifically, if you compare this week’s Quinnipiac Poll to the one they released September 1, you will find that Christie’s support dropped by 6 points, Corzine’s increased by 3, Daggett’s increased by 5 and Undecided decreased by 1. While Corzine made some gains, it seems the big switch was from Christie to Daggett, with Undecided remaining stable.

I stand by this analysis, but there may be more to this phenomenon than the naked eye can see. Research conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute with a panel of New Jersey voters indicates that this “net” effect may actually be masking a lot more individual-level churning in the electorate.

The first round of our online panel was interviewed September 23-28 (Wave 1). A total of 340 of these respondents then participated in a second round of interviews on October 9-14 (Wave 2). [Note: the intention of this panel study is to track individual level change over time. As such, it is not necessarily designed to be representative of candidate choice for the full electorate. That is why I refrain from reporting “horse race” percentages here. We’ll leave that for our standard telephone polling.]

The survey analysis divided the vote choice question into 14 separate categories. Those who make a candidate choice (Christie, Corzine, Daggett, Other) were asked if they are either “very sure” about their choice or “might change” their mind before election day – leading to a total of 8 categories. Those who initially indicate they are Undecided were then asked if they “lean” toward a candidate – producing 5 categories (Lean to Christie, Corzine, Daggett, Other or do not lean to any candidate). The final category is for those who say they will not cast a vote for governor on the ballot.

Read More >>> Here

Monmouth Univ. Handling Scharfenberger Email Incident and Possible Loss of Tax Exemption Internally (For Now)

I was copied as a recipiant to the following email from Jim Grenafege, Democratic candidate for Middletown Township Committee, sent to Monmouth University's General Counsel Rhonda Rehm. Grenafege has been in constant contact with officals at the Univeristy over this matter and has said that he would keep us informed as to the outcome of this situation.

Dear Ms. Rehm:

I have carefully reviewed Monmouth University's policies -- available on-line -- related to ethics, political campaign related activities and Monmouth University's 501(c)(3) status. I did not do this prior to sending a letter to the Atlantic Herald -- on-line newspaper. Time constraints and campaign activities have occupied my time until now.

I realize that Dr. Scharfenberger has been reminded of university policy regarding utilizing university resources for political purposes: that the issue has been addressed internally. My deep concern is that there is the external matter of the impact that using his university e-mail account (resources) may have had on my and my running mate's campaign. The false and malicious nature of Dr. Scharfenberger's, 'electronically' written statement, in my opinion, was intended to damage my campaign by denigrating my character and injuring my reputation. I cannot and do not speak for my running mate, although I would be very surprised if she were not closely aligned with my perspective on this matter.

The fact that he sent this e-mail to thirteen people with instructions to pass his message to as many residents as possible is very disheartening and disturbing and instructive. The situation would make for an interesting discussion in an ethics seminar -- perhaps Dr. Scharfenberger could lead that seminar?

Although the university appears to have remedied the matter internally, my concern, again, is that the potential impact, consequences, of an university employee's action has not been remedied externally. What might this remedy be?

An immediate (as in urgent) straight-forward without equivocation e-mail to me and my running mate, Patricia Walsh, (duplicating all those addressed in the original e-mail) from Dr. Scharfenberger, using his university account, that acknowledges and repudiates the fabrications in the e-mail that is the source of this matter?

A press release in a daily newspaper (Asbury Park Press?) from the university stating its position and possible 501(c)(3) consequences regarding Dr. Scharfenber's use of university resources to promote partisan politics and my position regarding the elements of his message that I know to be pure fabrication?

Is it possible that both suggested remedies could be combined?

Is the the most reasonable remedy the first one noted because it best matches the incident in-kind that is the source of my grievance?

Are there other possibilities; what shall the remedy be?

As you can see I have copied others within the university's administration. Let us hope that "where leaders look forward" is grounded in leadership in the present.

Sincerely yours,

James Grenafege

Ethics and Truth Exiled

The  following is a  letter to the editor I received  from Jim Grenafege, Democratic Candidate for Middletown Township Committee:

In support of candidates Fiore and Brightbill, Republican Middletown Mayor Scharfenberger continues his practice of distorting facts whenever possible. When facts cannot be distorted he will fabricate them.

In a letter published in the Atlantic Herald (Middletown Mayor Supports Brightbill and Fiore for Township Committee, October 6) Mayor Scharfenberger stated: “Pam and Tony’s opponents … bring a record of astonishingly high tax increases, vocal support for high density development through low-income housing and support for the destructive policies of Governor Corizine and the Democratic Party in Trenton.”

As an opposing candidate for one of the open seats on the Middletown Township Committee, I unequivocally state that Mayor Scharfenberger has completely fabricated everything that he attributes to the “opponents”.

In a subsequent e-mail sent from Monmouth [University].Edu (message from the mayor, October 19). Scharfenberger duplicated this letter and as part of my alleged record added: “serious ethics problems”. This is more intentional fabrication. This letter was sent, publically published, using Monmouth University electronic mail resources. This letter is signed: “Mayor Gerry Scharfenberger”. In so signing, his political status as a mayor along with his partisan political message was solidly linked to his status as a Monmouth University instructor and employee. He sent it to thirteen people with the instructions: “Please forward to as many Middletown residents as possible.”

In his zeal to have Republican candidates win at any cost, I hope Mayor Scharfenberger has not damaged the “leadership” brand image and the political impartiality important to financial standing and credibility of the University.

My concerns in this matter were discussed with the University’s Assistant General Counsel. I have been told that Dr. Scharfenberger has been reminded of the appropriate university policy. As an internal matter it has been addressed.
As an external matter the intended damage by Dr. Scharfenberger to my and my running mate’s campaign has not been publically addressed by the University, nor has Mayor Scharfenberger publically repudiated his fabrications. Who really has serious ethics and integrity problems -- possibly Mayor, or Doctor, Scharfenberger?

James Grenafege
Democratic Candidate
Middletown Township Committee

Monmouth Univ. In Jeopardy of Losing IRS Tax Exemption - Scharfenberger May Face Disciplinary Action

Monmouth University has been put in a precarious positions and is in jeopardy of losing its IRS tax exemption status thanks to Middletown's extremely partisan Mayor Gerry Scharfenberger.

On October 19th the good mayor, who moonlights as an adjunct professor at Monmouth University, used Monmouth's email system to write a partisan letter of support for Pam Brightbill and Tony "the fibber" Fiore, the Republican Candidates for Middletown Township Committee. This letter also contained biased and untrue claims against their democratic opponents.

In his partisan zeal, he then emailed this letter which was titled "message from the mayor", to a dozen of his fellow Middletown republicans and asked them to forward it to as many residents as possible.

(click here for larger view of email)

This partisan act by Mr. Scharfenberger was  in clear violation of Monmouth University's Guidelines for Political Activity which states:

As an organization exempt from federal income tax pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, Monmouth University is prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening (including the publishing or distributing of statements) in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria are prohibited. According to the IRS, whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case.

POLICY
A. While the University encourages students and employees to exercise their civic duty by registering and voting, and further encourages political debate and discussion, the University prohibits the use of University resources to support partisan political efforts. In addition, University policy prohibits the following.

1. Employees are not permitted to utilize University resources to support political candidates. This includes the use of University letterhead, postage, e-mail accounts, message boards, or other University resources.
   
2. Employees should not post political statements (e.g., bumper stickers) on University-owned vehicles or uniforms.
3. No one is permitted to release the names of University employees or students to an outside party, including but not limited to providing such lists for political purposes.
4. Campaign contributions on behalf of the University are not permitted....
   

The penalties that may be incurred by Monmouth Univ. because of the mayor's senseless use of the University's email system for partisan politicking is as follows:

A. If the IRS finds that the University has engaged in prohibited campaign activity, the University could lose its tax-exempt status and could be subject to an excise tax on the amount of money spent on that activity.

B. In cases of flagrant violation of the law, the IRS has specific statutory authority to make an immediate determination and assessment of tax. The IRS can also ask a federal district court to enjoin the University from making further political expenditures.

C. In addition, contributions to organizations that lose their section 501(c)(3) status because of political activities are not deductible by the donors for federal income tax purposes.

In the coming weeks it will be interesting to find out just what the out come of this incident will be. Scharfenberger's careless  one-upsmanship and biased partisan politicking using Monmouth University's resources, is clearly a violation of Monmouth's policies that govern such activities and puts the university in clear danger of losing it's tax exempt IRS status.

This incident is just the latest example of how ethically challenged Scharfenberger is. 

Lets hope that Monmouth University decides to take the proper disciplinary actions against the mayor for putting the institution in such a potentially bad  situation.

SCHARFENBERGER USED MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY EMAIL TO PUT OUT CAMPAIGN LIES

According to Middletown Democrat for Township Committee Jim Grenafege, Middletown Mayor Gerry Scharfenberger used his Monmouth University E-mail account to campaign for Middletown Republican candidates for the governing body.

“It is disgraceful to use a university’s name to debase someone in a political campaign,” Middletown Democrat for Township Committee Patricia A. Walsh said. “Mr. Scharfenberger has done nothing than attempt to lower the dignity of a great academic institution in the name of partisan politics. Of course his nonsense fails, but he should be reprimanded for the attempt.”

Mr. Scharfenberger is an instructor at the university.

Walsh, a graduate of Carnegie-Mellon, in Pennsylvania, and Grenafege, a graduate of Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, both believe that Monmouth University is an institution that is on the rise academically where it involves its prestige and brand.

“I have full confidence in the ability of the university to address this matter externally, because university officials have already assured me that they have addressed it internally,” Grenafege said. Walsh echoed his sentiments.

Grenafege said that actions, such as Mr. Scharfenberger’s, open up the university for sharp criticism and even questions where it involves its not-for-profit status, not to mention the overall objectivity of an institution that is attempting to emerge as one that polls various public questions. “I believe that Mr. Scharfenberger’s actions were quite unfortunate,” Grenafege said.

Note: I made a few phone calls over to Monmouth University yesterday to inquire about Mr. Scharfenberger's use of it's email system for political purposes but so far I have not received any response. I'll keep trying in order to see how the University  feels about it.