11/04/2017
************PLEASE READ************
The SI Advance Editorial Board endorsed Debi Rose this week in an article that was intended to summarize the positions of both candidates and present our different visions.
Unfortunately, the summary provided was filled with inaccuracies and incorrect information— which is concerning. Due to the presentation of our positions, I am unsure if the Advance is creating their own version of the meeting to support their decision or is simply uninformed. For these reasons, I would like to present corrections to some of the misleading statements about my positions, about me, and about my opponent.
About My Positions...
- I DO NOT agree with Councilwoman Rose about moving the 120th Precinct. In our discussions on IS 49 being a “persistently dangerous” school, I offered different solutions to improve the educational environment for our students. In an effort to create a greater police presence and to improve resident relationships with our officers, I suggested the creation of an annex to the 120 on the vacant Hill Street site next to the school. This location would be in addition to the existing precinct site and would serve as an NYPD Community Center. None of this information was provided in the Advance summary.
- One of my other suggestions for improving IS 49 also mischaracterized. I suggested a program of guidance counseling outside of school hours to allow for more parental involvement in their child’s development and to stop rewarding misbehaving students by scheduling guidance sessions during the classroom time that they may be trying to avoid. Instead, my idea was presented to suggest that I wanted to leave problematic kids in the classroom at all times. Let’s be clear: I do not advocate leaving disruptive children in classrooms where other students are trying to learn. I also explained that School Safety need to be better positioned when children are not in the classrooms, to deter some of the violent and criminal incidents that have occurred during recess, lunch time, and between classes. This information has all appeared in the “Vision” section of our campaign website for some time.
- The Advance also failed to address the Graniteville Wetlands-- a matter close to the heart of both my campaign and the community. Despite the significant outcry from impassioned residents, no coverage was provided of our press conference, it was barely discussed in the meeting with the Editorial Board, and I was omitted in the coverage of our October 28th rally on South Avenue to protect this area and its natural storm surge barriers.
About Me...
- I am not a Republican. I am a registered Conservative who is running with, and is honored to have, the support of both the local Conservative and Republican parties.
- I am not currently employed in the financial services industry. While I previously worked in that industry, I currently work in healthcare management for a borough-based practice.
- I have established history of community activism. Currently, I am president of a dedicated civic group, the Ward Nixon Association. I have also served as a local advisory committee member to the Bay Street Corridor, a member of the Rebuild Cromwell Coalition, and a supporter of the Save Mt. Manresa Coalition. None of this history was mentioned in the article.
About My Opponent...
- I raised new points in the Editorial Board meeting about Councilwoman Rose's consistent pattern of absenteeism. The Advance article mentions our discussion of her Council record, and her response that she had medical issues and a family death during the time period. The article fails to mention our discussion of her ten-year Community Board 1 record, where her Full Board General Meeting attendance record is below 60%, which is lower than her Council record. We covered this on our social media page, but somehow the Advance doesn’t believe that this news is significant enough.
- Councilwoman Rose introduced a new Monorail idea when questioned about her support of a Bus Rapid Transit plan. In response, I asked how both plans could exist when they both use use the same right-of-way. This managed to be edited out of the Advance publication as well. Instead, they admitted that the plan was “pie-in-the sky, but it's something we feel should be pursued.” I don’t disagree with their comment that “anything that gets cars and buses off the roads cannot be a bad thing,” but how close is this to happening? The Councilwoman has had eight years to improve North Shore traffic and transportation, and over the past several weeks she continues to suggest these two “new” solutions. Why are we still at the stage of selecting ideas? Why hasn’t she move forward to start actually implementing one of these plans? The Councilwoman also touted smart traffic lights for the North Shore to rescue us from all of our traffic woes, repeating an idea she presented in her 2013 run for re-election. That hasn’t happened yet either. Will electing Debi Rose to a third term get us any closer to either one of these solutions? If her history offers any suggestion of our future, the answer is an obvious NO.
I only ask that the Advance present the facts.. Let the voters have all of the information possible and let them choose for themselves. For this reason, I am asking the Advance to release the meeting audio and transcripts.
I believe that voters should hear Councilwoman Rose say that IS 49 is not the only "persistently dangerous" school because they are the only ones who reported it. I believe that they should hear her retract that statement and claim that it is not for the record. I made some mistakes and misstatements in that meeting too. There is no reason to hide them.
Let’s stop being politicians and be transparent. We are just people.
Let the voters see the candidates as we are, human beings, with all of our successes and errors— warts and all. The voters should truly know the people they choose to represent them in office, not just the filtered, edited, and not completely accurate version that the Staten Island Advance has presented.
The three incumbents have proven their ability to serve the Island's interests.
