So the 4 member committee had a choice between three possible candiates: 1)Laura Ali Nonnenmacher who received 553 votes, almost exactly half the votes in yesterday's election; 2) Joseph Contorno who got 20 votes, and Karen Swartz who got zero votes. Do we think that Bailey Brower and Nicole Hagner are more concerned about their constituents and letting citizens decide, or letting their own petty personal feelings dictate their votes? Chatham Township, please take careful notice how your elected official behave, some for the betterment of the Township, and some solely for selfish personal gain.

More reasons for Laura to run as independent in Nov----

Shame on the Chatham Township Committee. Had Joseph Contorno gotten the 553 votes, I'm quite certain he would have been voted in by the Township Committee with no argument. This just proves to me that this is a personal issue. In the Patch article, Brower is quoted as saying the vote was 2 against 2. Well, to the two who voted No to Laura Nonnenmacher, I want to remind you that you were elected to your positions by the Township residents to represent their interests. If you've voted in a manner that put your interests over the residents 553 votes for Laura Nonnenmacher then I think perhaps you've been on the Council too long and have forgotten that you represent the voters. And to those of you who say Contorno and Swartz didn't really run in this past primary, let me remind you that Ms Nonnenmacher's 553 votes exceed the highest vote earner in last year's contested primary - Bailey Brower at 491 votes.

Seems like a no brainer to me.... A large number of residents have made it quite clear that it should be Laura Ali Nonnemacher. Why is this even a question?

Mayor Hagner is quoted as saying that "the three candidates they [the Republican Committee] presented all had good qualities and experiences." Yet only ONE of them actually ran in the primary, only ONE of them walked door to door to speak to residents and only ONE of them received 553 votes from the taxpayers. I would like an explanation from our Mayor and Mr. Brower as to why this "small" fact of 553 votes is inconsequential.

Thank you Kathy Abbot and Bob Gallop! We all need to give you credit and praise for your strong leadership and for standing your ground, the Ethical high ground. You are the only two officials who are representing the voters and your constituents. It can’t be fun or easy going against the self serving personal preferences of messrs. Brower and Hagner. Hopefully, news venues like the “Star Ledger” among others will publicize your heroics and shine a spotlight on the personal motivations of your counterparts.

Chatham Township Republican Committee now is your opportunity to also demonstrate your ethical integrity. . . we respectfully await your resolution of this unfortunate blemish on our community perpetrated by Nicole Hagner and Bailey Brower.

The logical choice would be Laura Nonnenmacher. Seriously, this is an interim position, so please listen to your 553 fellow Republicans who believe that she is more than capable to handle this position. Don't disappoint us!

LETS READ A RAG THAT CAN SPELL

de·ci·sion   /
noun
1. the act or process of deciding; determination, as of a question or doubt, by making a judgment: They must make a decision between these two contestants.
2. the act of or need for making up one's mind: This is a difficult decision.
3. something that is decided; resolution: He made a poor decision.
4. a judgment, as one formally pronounced by a court.
5. the quality of being decided; firmness: He spoke with decision.

If what Mr Templin says is true, then Nicole should be impeached. I can see the signs now, impeach Nicole. I know at least 533 people who will vote yes.

Impeach Nicole. She is a phony and is disconnected from the community.Bailey lost his seat on the Chatham Township Republican Committee to a newcomer..He is done. Change is coming to Chatham.

Wow! I leave for a few hours to run a few errands and we've already got a conspiracy and a recal!! Well, if it's true that the market ordinance was passed and that two of the elected officials who voted on the market ordinance stand to benefit in a significant monetary way from the ordinance they passed, then that would seem a text book conflict of interest. In organizations that I serve, I would recuse myself from a vote where there is such an obvious conflict. Are you saying Mr. Brower and Ms. Hagner did not recuse themselves from this vote? I'm sorry. I'm a bit in the dark on this whole thing. Was there any disclosure of the conflict in the meetings to discuss the market ordinance? I don't really know all the facts so I'd personally be more comfortable asking Ms. Hagner and Mr. Brower to comment on this directly. Perhaps the Patch can ask them on our behalf. In the meantime, Mr. Templin, do you know if these conflicts would be documented in the Township meeting minutes from that time?

Okay, so I should have searched the Patch before I wrote that last one. The Patch quotes the Township attorney "Woodward said Hagner and Brower did not need to recuse themselves from voting on an ordinance with "broad municipal applications." Ordinances, he said, "obviously are going to have an effect on everyone who lives in the town, including the people who vote for it. Given the broad coverage of this ordinance, I do not consider that to be a conflict of interest, either." Is this debatable?

"Broad coverage" . . . I would be interested in knowing 1) How many people could take advantage of this tax break; and 2) How many do/will take advantage of it. Ethically speaking, I would have recused myself based on the appearence of conflict. Mr. Templin,or others who are most familiar with this issue, do you have anything to add about this additional information?

Wow! I am an audit partner with a global accounting firm and there are so many red flags here it is ridiculous. They would rather give the seat to someone who dropped out or another who was not even on the ballot then the person who list by 20 votes (I would audit THAT process for sure). The Boards and Committees I work with SEEK diversity of thought and experience to improve and serve their shareholders so why is that touch to ask for the residents of Chatham Township?

We did bring up the conflict of interest issue for Brower, Hagner, and Abbott. On every occassion, Carl Woodward, our Township Attorney, gave a BS reason why they did not have to Recuse themselves. Chatham Township actually has an extremely strong Code of Conduct since they copied the State standard. Regretably, they don't follow it nor leave each other accountable.

JD is absolutely right. I am a compliance expert and I can tell you these guys are so far off the reservation that they are lucky that Cristie's successor isn't after them yet. They just bagged the Mayor of West New York. Maybe Chatham is next.

The thing that blows my mind is that you can play these games elsewhere. However, this is Chatham and we got some smart people here with the resources to make our elected officials accountable. By my account, just this conversation here has at least 1 JD, 3 Masters, and 5 Bachelors degrees all sharing insights. Plus we are not out of work types, we all have successful careers.

Can you please explain the tax break that an eligible party that takes part in the Market Garden Ordinace recieves?

I read the market ordinance on line. I guess the one part that stands out for me is "No market garden may be conducted on any lot that is less than three (3) acres in total area." My guess is that would eliminate about 95% of the homeowners in Chatham Township. How is that "broad municipal applications"? And it is definitely not an ordinance that is "going to effect everyone who lives in the town". I'd be curious to know what percentage of homes in Chatham Township are on properties greater than 3 acres. Also, I did not see the < 3 acre exceptions included in the on-line version of the ordinance but that would be even more disturbing. Like Dave 2, I also want to find out what kind of tax breaks we're talking about.

Pretty sure Dave 2 was asking a rhetorical question, Stacey. There are no market garden tax breaks. There is no conspiracy or conflict or monetary benefit. I know you ardently support Laura Nonnenmacher and you want to find some wild reason why she wasn't elected or appointed to the twp committee, but taking a lead from Templin should be used for entertainment purposes only.

I don't think we should get into personality traits of anyone.

BUT conflict of interest is fair game. Shameful behavior.....

Jim Novick,
If we are talking about entertainment purposes, isn't that what Nicole uses you for. Take some advise, if you ever intend on getting that wring on your finger, you better learn to leave the politics to the big boys. If Nicole or I want your opinion, we will let you know.

Mr. Novick, if there is one thing I am certain of, it is that I have no idea why 2 members of the Township Committee did not vote to appoint Laura to the Committee in light of the 553 votes she garnered in Tuesday's election. But I am not looking for a smoking gun in the market ordinance. I am simply trying to get up to speed on a whole bunch of information that surfaced as a result of the Committee's inability to make a decision clearly supported by their constituents. Regarding my interest in the market ordinance, I am aware of the concept of "gentlemen farmers" and the tax breaks all 50 states provide to farms and I wasn't sure if this ordinance opened the door to "gentlemen" farming which can lower taxes dramatically. Some may think that's a conflict of interest.

Stacey, as Mr. Templin so eloquently explained before, I am engaged to Nicole but I am not a big boy politician entitled to speak for her. That out of the way, I think your question about the appointment is totally fair, I don't know the answer and frankly don't care, but I am sure there is no benefit garnered by selecting any one of the candidates. Personally I believe that Laura and Kevin Sullivan should both have kept their names off of the temporary appointment list as they were actively campaigning for the elected position. The argument that Laura should be appointed because she had x# of votes more than the other candidates seeking the appointment is illogical. They chose to seek the temporary appointed position, test the waters I assume, and my run for election in the future. They are all on the same level; why is Laura any more deserving because she has run for election twice?

Bailey and Nicole endorsed Kevin because they genuinely believed he would be better for the town and I assume better to work with for the town. This is no different than if you had to choose a group for a project at work or your kids had to pick teammates for a game. I assume that all four committee members looked at the appointees the same way, and they could not come to an agreement. Disappointing, yes. Conspiracy, no. Again all my opinion.

As far as the market garden ordinance, Templin has you looking for a smoking gun where I absolutey assure you there is none. If there is some way to benefit from this ordinance theme by all means tell me and I will split the profit. I would argue that this ordinance makes it even harder to get farmland assessment because it expressly limits the scope of "commercial" activities that can take place, and I believe further restricts landowners from seeking relief under the right to farm act. I believe that prior to this ordinance one could seek a variance allowing a far greater range of activity than will be allowed now: even with a planning board denial, an appeal to the court could open that door. Yet any planning board application can be prohibitively expensive for anyone looking to make a modest profit, and I am personally in favor of allowing people with a decent sized property to grow some veggies to sell: this ordinance does make that process simpler and more cost effective.

I also understand why some like Templin may object. However I do not appreciate the manner in which he objects. Speaking for Nicole and I, we do not have enough property to qualify for farmland assessment. Believe me I looked into it many years ago. Even if we did, this ordinance would do nothing to further that effort as far as I can see. Bailey must have enough land, but pretty sure he didn't suddenly have an epiphany about farmland assessment now that he's advanced into his late, uh 60s. Now in the interest of full disclosure I did plant a garden this year, and if anyone out there is willing to pay for my expected bumper crop of 12-16 cucumbers then by all means, sold.

Rich,, did I misstate anything there?
And what are you talking about as far as unfair? I know she spoke with you several times and took your concerns into consideration. But what was unfair? What went differently? In what way did she or anyone else act with the intent of harming you or benefitting themselves?

Jim, now we know why Nicole never takes you out of the house. Does she know her couch warmer is offering opinions for her or is she talking through you? A puppet couch warmer. If you dont care then why do you make assumptions?

Actually Jim, you are completely wrong here. Laura and Kevin BOTH should have put their name in the ring. There was no conflict with submitting your name for intention to take the role 6 months earlier than expected while campaigning. Because Kevin didn't want to do that, Laura was begged to take her name OUT of the ring. Ask her yourself. Yet she didn't think that was the right thing to do expecting she would win. Why would anyone want a 'lame duck' in there for a six month period when they could have the person who would eventually have the role. Now it is a tough situation yet Laura is still willing to take it on despite the all the public debate. Your girlfriend doesn't like her and she never did. Bailey the same. They are entitled to that - everyone is. Yet there is a strong difference between acting out your public role motivated by a personal agenda and doing the right thing. We live in a democracy, not a monarchy. Shocking yes to some but thats how it is.

Well said Tom. Thank you.

Well said mgt. Thank you. Nicole? Bailey? Jim?

@Tom....your last point was PERFECT!!!! Hagner and Brower are behaving like teenagers. This is clearly personal....what a disgrace!!!! Props to Laura for running a tough campaign and despite everything that has transpired, continuing to have a desire to better our community. Also, thumbs up to Abbott and Gallop for making the intelligent and fair choice!!!

Mr. Novick, Thank you for your willingness to participate in an open, informative discussion. The more Township residents are informed and encouraged to actively participate in the legislative process, the better the outcome - particularly in this town where the talent pool is unbelievably impressive. Having said that, I have to disagree with your comparison of the 2 votes against Laura to choosing teammates for my children or choosing a group to work with at the office. I don't know about where you work but, more often than not, we do not get to select the folks we work with nor do my children get to select their teammates. Most people are assigned our teammates, our staff, our bosses, our colleagues and we just have to learn how to work effectively together. So what's the point of all this, while I can appreciate Nicole and Bailey's right to endorse Kevin Sullivan, their official Township Committee role of selecting the interim Committee member is a completely different matter. As officials elected to represent the public's interests, their desire to get along with their prospective "teammate" must be secondary to following the interests of the people who put them in their elected position.

Let me get this straight. Roughly 10% of the residents of Chatham Township thought it important enough to vote. Is it just me, or could that because the other 90% already know the fix is in? The Township is the definition of an oligarchy and has been for decades. To suggest this will change because 4 or 5 people ranting on the Patch think it should is almost as naive as suggesting the way Chatham government operates will change regardless of who is on the committee. The character, or lack thereof, of those on the committee is directly connected to the utter lack of interest on the part of the lion's share of voters. Of course those in power not only welcome this apathy...the work hard all year to ensure it.

Jim, I agree with Templin - that was below the belt. You don't even know Laura. You are just being mean. No one with any business sense would think the two people running for an open position on the twp committee should opt out and not apply for the same seat they are running for, 6 months ahead of schedule. Let's take all of the personal stuff out of the equation. What's best for the town? Having one person take the seat for 3.5 years and get the benefit of consistency, momentum, preperation etc. . . .or having one person step in for 6 months, do basically nothing but nod their head yes or no. . .then have another person take over and have to get up to speed themselves. How can anyone say that is good for the town? Again, this is putting petty personal interest ahead of the good of the town. I'm not sure how to get this point in to everyone's head but this kind of stuff has to be stopped. And I bet if Laura gets the interim seat, she does alot more than nod her head. Its obvious that's what two people don't want.

Jim, you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps the strings on your puupet hand malfunctioned. Go back to watching cartoons. You are uninvolved and therefore, uninformed and ill-advised. What do you believe the phrase "conflict of interset" to mean? Its not a conflict of interest to pass legislation that an elected official will financially gain from, yet it would have been a conflict of interest to appoint Laura to the interim position? Are you aware that Laura was invited to throw her hat into the ring? Tell us about the process that you referred to. Do you know what that process is? I have been on the Chatham Township Republican Committee for more than a decade. As a result, I am fully familiar with the process.Based on the process, any one else would have been appointed to the interim position by virtue of the results of the previous election. But not Laura.Nicole and Bailey would have none of that. I am very suprised that Nicole has gone to such great lenghts to alienate Laura considering that Nicole does not have a political friend outside of Chatham ( assuming she has any left within Chatham). I can tell you this, I know 553 Republicans that will never cast a vote Nicole's way, not even for school crossing guard. Bob and Kathy's agenda is integrity,Who are you trying to kid by putting Nicole and Bailey in their same class and by implying that their alienation of Laura was not agenda oriented.

Jim, how dare you insult Laura. Do you have a job, do you work, volunteer, leave the house?.

Rich it's tough for me to follow and respond to each of your entries above and would like it if there is some way for us to respond directly to each other in one thread. I guess cut an paste if I miss something and I will stick with replying only to that entry. I do not think that I am hitting below the belt or harassing anyone as I am trying to give my honest opinion on the appointment issue because I do not agree with the arguments that the process has been handled inappropriately. People are entitled to their opinion, and if some feel disenfranchised or want to believe that this township is ruled as an oligarchy, I probably can not convince them otherwise.

I do however take issue with some of your posts, as some genuinely interested people like Stacey may put too much value in your accusations without knowing the facts. I think you often go overboard, especially when you call Nicole's and others' employers to complain or bring up issues with people. As far as your other concerns I will try to address them all, starting from the top of page.

You tried to put together a recall vote last year, and to the best of my knowledge you had no more than 12 supporters. You had some oust Hagner online poll and had about that many responses, several of which were from people that do not live here.

Mr. Novick, It's great to see you standing up for Nicole, defending her from a growing tsunami of anger/resentment towards her/Bailey. The single best thing that could happen for Nicole now is for this mushrooming negativity to end. Each day draws many more people into this battle, the vast majority siding with Laura and her supporters. Your debating a very popular/respected mother/community volunteer like Mrs. Ewald sure isn’t going to help Nicole in this towm. Truly, the only way for Nicole to stop further image deterioration and help her future ambitions, especially among women, it to squelch this now, and that will only happen if Laura gets voted in, Monday. Nicole would look great, and regain some respect if she votes for Laura on Monday. Hitching her wagon to Bailey was beneficial in the past, but now its a noose. Bailey isn't in the long-term future of this town, and his image has really sunk. It’s time for Nicole to cut ties, like when she was a Democrat. You’re a good Fiancé, help Nicole to climb back up the latter. If you think Nicole’s image is suffering now, just wait to see what happens during the days, weeks, months ahead if Laura isn’t voted in on Monday.

Jim, how long do you think it would take me to get the necessary signatures to have Nicole removed from office?

AMAZING!!!!!! I just figured it out . . . Templin you’re Brilliant!!!!!!!!

The two people most responsible for getting Mr. Templin elected come November. . . Bailey Brower and Nicole Hagner! Yup, that is an indisputable fact! Bailey and Nicole have successfully driven a divide right down the center of the Township GOP, which the brilliant Mr. Templin will cruise through to victory.

Mr. Templin, you are so, so shrewd!! I bet you knew all along that the Achilles heel of the mighty Bailey Brower was personal ego. Your ante Bailey/Nicole rhetoric k is all a facade!!! You probably also think the Township GOP are too stupid (we’ll see come Monday) to see your stroke of genius, and by selecting someone other than Laura on Monday will gift you the election come November. Man Templin, you sure are one savvy chess player!! At a minimum, you should send gift baskets to Bailey, Nicole and the rest of the GOP committee members that vote for someone other than Laura Monday night.

I think this has been a very exhausting conversation with more things said than people wanted. So, in the spirit of change, how about my latest Brower joke?

Did you hear that after leaving office, he is going to start remaking movies (as he feels they should have been made)? Here is a list, see if you can guess the original movie.
Twins: the Bailey and Nicole Story
On Noe Pond
Deliverance (the unrated version)
Bedtime for Brower
Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolf & Eva
Mr. Brower Goes to Washington
The Man with the Savage Golden Gun
The Toxic Avenger: My Story of Rolling Hills Landfill
All the Committeeman’s Men
Flaming Saddles – The Short Story about a Black Sheriff!

I'm shocked...shocked to find personal insults, inuendo and false accusations in local politics! Who knew? And for all these years I thought local politicians were in it for the town, not themselves. Issues? What issues? It's all about the cult of personality with not a single mention in any of the pre or post election blather about what any of these people would do to improve the town...and absolutely nothing about HOW they would do it. Alterier motives, vendettas and personal destruction have become sport in this town. Are we really dragging girlfriends and relatives into this drivel? Where are the IDEAS, the VISION and the KNOW HOW to truly change the way we do things? So far it's all hat and no cattle. 553 votes in a town of over 10,000. 'Nuff said.

Ho, ho, Templin keep trying to convince us. I am still laughing about how you have played Bailey and Nicole like ignorant pawns, getting them to do all of your bidding and driving votes to your election by the hundreds (and Republicans votes at that!!!!!) . . . Brilliant Sir, simply brilliant! Man, if I were Kevin Sullivan I would be apoplectic and would call Bailey and Nicole immediately, saying “What the heck are you doing?!! You’re killing my chances!! Don’t you see that Templin in playing you like a cheap fiddle?!! Come on Bailey, you went to Princeton for cryin out loud!!” - That’s what I’d say if I were Kevin Sullivan.

Hi everyone,

Please remember the comments are not a forum for personal attacks, defamatory or harassing material, or anything that is "inaccurate, false or misleading in any way" (taken from our Terms of Service, which you can read here: http://chatham.patch.com/terms).

Please remember to keep it clean, don't try to mislead the readers and treat others as you would like to be treated.

Sincerely,

Laura Silvius

As one of only about 13 Democrats to vote in the primary (and one who wrote Laura in as a candidate in a symbolic) I needed to watch this train wreck from the side. However, I did want to use it as an opportunity to suggest that maybe it is time to revive the Democratic party in the Township and run some strong candidates who will upset the status quo.

So after all the excitement ... when and how will the seat be filled???

Hi Route124,

The Chatham Township Republican Committee will choose one of their three candidates—Laura Ali Nonnenmacher, Joseph Contorno or Karen Swartz—to fill the seat at their meeting Monday.