I want the rights to this video! Looking for a new reality show about local NJ politics- Great drama and passion!
Better than the "housewives"! Does this woman have an agent! Can't wait for the second episode to see what happens next! Working title- "Mad Woman" or "Traffic Lights of New Jersey".......

How about calling it "Political Hack Pops Out Of Politicians (Mayor) Pocket" Carauana wanted to be mayor and was TOLD by the Republican party that it wasn't his turn. Maybe he is setting his campaign up for when Skibitsky's term is up. Typical politics in this town. He was a plant. He set that woman up and then bully's her with his finger pointing. Tough guy.

The key issue here is SAFETY. It's NOT about PROPERTY VALUE. It's about keeping pedestrians and motorists on that portion of Central from being injured or worse. I understand the Council's stance that, from time to time, the town must put up a sign or a speed bump or whatever, for the greater good and that, unfortunately, this will sometimes have a negative effect, imagined or otherwise, on a particular resident. I get that. And, that's the stance of the Council. For the purpose of this argument, the Council wants nothing more than for Ms. E and Ms. C to keep arguing that "property value" issue. The reason the Council likes them to focus on the property value argument is that it allows the Council to then spin it back against Ms. E and Ms. C, saying that "sometimes, one homeowner must take the hit for the common good the rest of the population." When spun that way, sure, what the Council says makes sense, and Ms. E and Ms. C, one could easily conclude, are two crazy ladies, upset in "perceiving" that their home values may have declined. There is NO DOUBT (!!) that the values of their homes have declined due to the light (not just the economy!). THAT'S BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO LIVE IN DANGER OF HAVING CARS CRASH INTO THEIR HOMES. That drops the pool of potential buyers and thus the value. The home value decline for Ms. E and Ms. C is a side point. The real issue is SAFETY. LIGHTS BELONG AT INTERSECTIONS - MOVE IT A FEW FEET NORTH BEFORE SOMEONE GETS RUN OVER!

It would be helpful if the Patch could set up a voting mechanism on the website with regards to this issue. EVERYONE I know thinks the light and corresponding white lines create an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS situation. It would be interesting to see where Patch readers stand:
(A) The light should be at the intersection of Central and Clover.
(B) The light is currently in a well-chosen location.

I'm glad Sal Caruana put this woman in her place. I'm tired of reading about this nonsense. The Town Council should be worrying about how we can improve safety in other areas of the town. How we can reduce costs. Howe we can make Westfield a better place to live. I't obviously a "not on my property" issue if she supposedly is bring in realtors. What do realtors have to do with safety?

I used to live in the Jefferson district and the kids had no place to cross. Now they do. This light makes it safer for the children.

I would be embarrassed if I were Carluccio. Based on the video, she is looking like a ranting lunatic ready to become undone.

The property value issue as well as the safety issue are two arguments that can be debated. The one issue that can't be debated is the one of how Mayor Skibitsky and some members of the Westfield Town Council have treated the citizens of Westfield. M. Carluccio and A. Enculecu were lied to when thay first appeared before the town council. They were told by Mayor Skibitsky that the project was a "County" project and to call the County. It has since been proven that the location of the pedestrian light and crosswalk, mid-block, was a concept brought forth by Westfield's engineering consultant Gordon Meth with the backing of the town council. Mayor Skibitsky has since acknowledged that the placement of the light off the corner of Clover and Central was in fact a decision made by Westfield. Mayor Skibitsky also advised me that any reports requested should be requested from Union County. I have not only obtained reports from Union County, but also uncovered those that were generated by Westfield's "experts" which the town did not offer up without the submission of an O.P.R.A. request. Mayor Skibitsky has used diverion as a means to deflect who was responsible for the placement of this project away from the original proposed location at the intersection of Central & Clover.

Why does the mayor need a former councilman to defend him? Why does the mayor allow more than 10 minutes of time for his defense to speak, when others cannot. Obviously this benfits the mayor, but how does this benefit the taxpaying public? Very interesting seeing Sal C show up again in Westfield politics. I had one incident a few years ago when I requested assistance / advice from both Mayor Skibitsky and my then councilman (Caruana). Both were absolutley worthless and offered zero helpful advice (the mayor failed to even respond). Sal could not help me at all, but thought he did awondeful job and was due praise. I had hoped that he was no longer involved with local politics.

Being a former councilman does not exclude Sal Caruana from voicing his opinion as a citizen of Westfield. Especially in decisions that he was involved in as a councilman. Please let the mayor and council focus their attention on other matters .

Westfield needs The Rock to come to these meetings, guys. Nobody knows what THE ROCK's been cookin'!

I would like to clarify one thing. In the last night meeting, during her comments Maria Carluccio started to say “Praising Councilwoman Neylan…..” but she was stopped by Mrs. Neylan who understood “crazy” instead of “praising”.
True fact: Mrs. Carluccio held in her hand the Letter to the Editor “Thank you Councilwoman Neylan, For Spurring Removal of Tree ”published in The Westfield Leader” pg. 4 on May 12, 2011 with the intention to ask the Councilwoman ,as the article stated: to “take immediate action on a resident request” in the Central Avenue crosswalk –traffic light issue because it is such an unsafe spot and it is as undesirable in our neighborhood as so many residents (approximately 150) expressed their opinion. I showed to Mayor Skibitsky the piece of the newspaper clipped next to the article written by the Mayor himself on pg. 4 of “This is Westfield” May edition ,

At the end of the last night Council meeting the things got out of hands when Mr. Carauna exploited a misunderstanding trying to discredit Mrs. Carluccio, and after the meeting when as everybody can read in the article and see in the video Mr.Carauna addressed to Mrs. Carluccio:
• “You are a fraud”.
• “You are a bully.”
• “You are out of control,” Caruana said
• I don’t like how you talk to me,” Caruana said.
• You are threatening people,” Caruana said
Some people could be more emotional, more passionate, but this lady did not insult anybody and did not deserve this treatment.
I had no idea who Mr. Carauana was, what he has been and what he envisions for the future but I have never imagined that a gentleman, especially a former or present official with high aspirations for the future should be capable to insult so terrible a resident of Westfield without any justification

Vicki Kimmins for Mayor- solves all problems.....

Maria Carluccio has every right to question the integrity and character of the Mayor and some other members of the town council that have lied to her concerning who was responsible for the mid-block location of this pedestrian light and crosswalk. By initially evading the truth as to the town councils role in the whole process, Mayor Skibitsky has undermined the "transparency" that government preaches but does not practice.

Gregory Kasko. I just did a keyword search to find out about you. You call for evading the truth, but according to the Westfield Leader from 2007, you don't exactly seem to be a "model citizen" yourself.:

"The town suspended Mr. Kasko with pay on July 7, 2006 for making “false statements of material facts to
superior officers during an administrative hearing while under oath” during a disciplinary hearing held in
May, as well as for statements allegedly made during a police investigation
conducted by superior officers.

The town previously suspended Mr. Kasko for four days on charges that he demonstrated “arrogant and disrespectful behavior” towards Mr. Gildea and for publicly criticizing the actions of former Police Chief Bernard Tracy during an altercation in the town administrator’s office on November 3, 2004.

He was suspended six days for sleeping on the job and failing to back up an officer on a motor vehicle stop
in January 29, 2006. Mr. Gildea said the agreement is “global” and “takes care of all outstanding
matters between Kasko vs.Westifeld"

Why should anyone listen to you? According to th suit, you made false staements in the past, start alteractions yourself and sleep on the job? Why should anyone believe what you have to say?

scotch plains rules

Richard Clark,

You forget to give the outcome of the departmental charges levied in my case. The charges were dismissed and I retired in good standing. I am proud to have served my community. Its unfortunate that the town chose to offer a settlement but its understandable why they did so. The actions of former police chief Bernard Tracy as well as the testimony of current police chief John Parizeau and police captain David Wayman at my hearing was no doubt the deciding factor in the town dropping all departmental charges. Their testimony was not credible. I find it interesting that you Richard, just like Mayor Skibitsky, attack the messenger instead of the message being brought forth. You evade the facts. The facts are what they are and when one can't refute the facts they attack the person exposing them. This issue is about the pedestrian traffic light and crosswalk, not about frivolous departmental chargess levied by a corrupt ex-chief or his followers in an attempt to keep a lid on the corruption within the WPD.

I'm just going by what I read. I've been reading Patch for months and recently joined the site. I've been in Westfield for over 10 years. I'm no traffic expert, but I've never accidentally turned into this driveway or see how it is an accident waiting to happen. South and Central is much more difficult to navigate, has much more traffic and is more prone to accident that this location. The owners of the property are beating a dead horse. I read this site because I'm interested in the town and what is going on. Most residents could care less and this constant banter at Town Hall meetings does not serve anyone's agenda in a positive way.

There are only two crazy people in all of this. Ms. C and Ms. E. Move on already get a life!

Your grossly exaggerating the situation. We all have our complaints life is not fair or perfect. You may not understand why the light was placed where it was but the fact is that is where it has been placed. We can't help there are stupid people in this world and they can't figure out what is a driveway and what is a street and that they are supposed to stop at a red light but they will be here on this earth reguardless of where the crossing light is.

I did not "trash" talk anyone. Except for the anonymous "stupid" people out there in the world. I simply cannot imagine how in the world someone could mistake a driveway for an actual street. They don't even look the same or have the same dimensions. Besides most of the time there is a car parked in the driveway. Would this not be a really good giveaway? To answer your question the reason the pedestrian light was placed where it is was a result of many surveys, inquiries and conclusions by people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to this type of situation.

I don't know Enculescu and Carluccio to comment on their mental status, but based on their comments and the video, they are looking extremely foolish with their exaggerations. They are making a mockery of the system. The light is in place. If there is a legal route for them to take then they should pursue it, not rant and rave each week like lunatics. My asssumption is there is no legal argument againt the Town or County so they have to rely upon their useless banter.

Richard, as much as I don't agree with them either, no one should be questioning anyone's mental state or even suggest that it is in question. It isn't right, especially since this is a public board and you don't know who reads this or how they interpret posts. They have a right to protest the decision and express themselves. This is a democracy.

Lynn, I agree with you on your question about why people would mistake the driveway for an intersection. I drive this road every day two times a day and never, NEVER have mistaken the driveway for an intersection, even after the installment of the light. Even if I did, I only would have made the mistake once. I have also never seen anyone else attempt to make a turn into the driveway.

I didn't mean to come across that way. I was replying to the comment of "there are only two crazy people in all of this. Ms. C and Ms. E." posted by Lynn. They are crazy in their actions and that is all. I understand that they are upset, but the method they are using is not very positive.

I've read a lot of character attacks on Ms. C and Ms. E as PEOPLE. But, what I have NOT SEEN AT ALL are well thought out points made in a convincing way that INTELLIGENTLY lists/discusses the issue as follows:

Light/crosswalk at INTERSECTION of Central and Clover - Advantages and disadvantages.
vs.
Light/crosswalk at MID-BLOCK of Central - Advantages and disadvantages.

Does anybody have a copy of that report from the consultant who supposedly did that analysis? Does Patch have a copy that can be posted online?

It would be very easy to just leave the light/crosswalk where it is but, like many people making comments, I feel it has created a very dangerous situation. My motivation for posting comments is that I do not want to see anyone get hurt from an unnecessary traffic accident involving motorists not familiar with the area/issue. I'm not motivated in any way to increase the value of anyone's home (though I do think it's an unfair hit to the resident affected). I am strongly motivated to do what I can to potentially keep pedestrians (and motorists) in the area safe.

Please stop the attacks on Ms. C and Ms. E as people - Please keep on topic with the issue itself! Facts, measurements, statistical support, data supporting your points, etc. The personal attacks on them are getting old.

Go to the following link to view the Traffic Warrant Analysis. The Warrant Analysis Conclusion specifically states the location for the device.

http://07090.blogspot.com/2011/03/hot-topic-central-ave-pedestrian.html#more

When is the evaluation period completed. Did the Mayor ever say that he wouldn't review this after 90 days?

The mayor said that at the time the light was installed, if not before. He was merely expressing his opinion that he didn't believe the data would show that a move would be necessary. Of course he would be biased, since he worked on the plan. I would hope he would have had the confidence in the decision to back it up. That doesn't mean that if presented with data that shows he was wrong that he wouldn't be big enough to make the change. Mr. Kasko, it is you who we can see right through.

Because you have your name to clear, Mr. Kasko and the more you make the Town Council look bad, the better you look.

But NR9, isn't it you who almost made this mistake more than once? From your concerns about driver distractions, I'd like to know what goes on in your car that you are such a distracted driver. The concerns you express would happen regardless of where that light is placed. Anyone crossing that light regardless of where it is placed could be hit - it is a busy road. If a car travelling so close to the one in front of it that if cannot stop happens where the light is now, then it can happen anywhere. If a driver is distracted by a passenger, then it will happen regardless of where the light is. If property values were a huge concern or the fear of cars running into their homes, then anywhere on Central Ave would present that risk. Cars can run into any one of those homes or businesses from East Broad St down to teh Parkway entrance.

The Traffic Warrant Analysis conclusion contradicts the location of this pedestrian light and crosswalk. The placement of the light, mid-block, was at the request of the Town of Westfield and not Union County as Mayor Skibitsky had intimated and has since "flip flopped" on the issue. The need for the pedestrian light and crosswalk is not in question. The current location of the light and crosswalk, and the process that took place to move the light from the original proposed location of Central and Clover to the current mid-block location is what is being questioned. The Mayor and Town Council never expected to be questioned on this issue.

Mr Kasko, of course you have knowledge of the issue and how the town works - you were a part of it until you were caught. You then turned on those who were doing the same things or worse. You would not have been retired if there wasn't a settlement.We know the myriad of reasons why towns settle. My opinion is that both you and the town had things on each other and to save expenses and reputations, there was a settlement.

All one has to do is look at the link where you linked the voting to see the real motives and intentions. It is more than just supporting these two women. It is a gossip mongering site desinged to expose and to make select people look bad.

Now, my position on this issue? The light is in an unusual spot. I would not want it in front of my house or driveway. I'd be angry, too. I know the feeling because my neighbors and I went before a previous Town Council to express our concerns about something we felt would impact our quality of life and home values. We were dismissed and they voted against our wishes. Now,years later, the problem is still as bad. The fact in this situation is that anyone who buys a home on Central Ave knows that there are risks involved. The light had to go somewhere. Let the decision stand, express oneself in a respectful and decent manner, keep God and the Bible out of arguments, stop the ranting and raving and behave like adults (even though it is their 1st amendment right to express oneself as one sees fit).

NR9, then maybe your drivers license should revoked and you should be re-tested.

NR9, I am not necessarily saying the current location is more safe. There is no proof that it is less safe, except these silly anecdotal stories and "what-if" scenarios, including the ones you are writing about. If you were such a safe driver and alert as you should be when you are behind the wheel, you wouldslow downas you approach the first flashing yield sign, then the following yield sign and if it is blinking red, the light above the road. Also, you would never have almost turned into the driveway once nevermind twice.

Mr Kasko, I am not naive enough to think that you were the only one and that abuses have been and probably still are going on in a fraternal, patriarchal and unionized environment like this. It is the dark side of this kind of organizational culture. It often occurs in public orgnizations where the leadership has been monopolized by a political party, group of individuals or a particular individual for too long. Our town is not immune, but I do not want to excuse any illegal, unethical or bad behavior by anyone. My issue with the way you expose it, Mr. Kasko, is that you were as much a part of it as anyone and to give the impression that you are somehow better than they are is not right. It was your duty to report it, but you were guilty too.

I am so tired of this story. It is just impossible to mistake that driveway for a road. Does anything else go on at Council meetings or is it just this over and over?

Mr. Kasko, I don't know where that came from, but without knowing me, you are left to conjecture. I am not affliated in any way with the town doings other than living here for so many years. Truth be told, I don't have a very high regard for those in elected public positions of any kind. Politics or political positions turn even the best people ugly. My bias is that, while they give their time to serve the public, they do so mostly for themselves and their self esteem - very much more for selfish motives that they try to play off as altruism and selflessness. Doesn't matter whether the position is a BOE member, Town official, city, county, state or federal government representative

I value the work Westfield police and firefighters do. In the worst case scenario, both will put their lives on the line to save mine. With that said, I have often seen the ugly behavior from some "men in blue" here in Westfield. Some of them, quite frankly do seem to think they are above the law. When I am offended, I think of two times when the police helped me out in a situation when they did not have to.

If I was affiliated with the way things are in this town, it would only be because I, like most people in this town looked the other way rather than fight.

This will not go away.

What a cast of characters.

A disgruntled, shameless ex-cop, who should have been fired for dereliction of duty, but insted gamed the legal system and the tax payers of Westfield for a retirement package, willing to latch on to any issue that would place the current and previous town administations in a bad light.

A ranting woman, throwing tantrums like a spoiled child that did not get their way.

A homeowner on the busiest street in Westfield claiming that there is some sort of conspiracy in the placement of a stop light intended to aid school children crossing this busy thoroughfare.

And me, a long time, tax paying, Westfield resident watching the town council getting dragged through the mud by this bunch when there are many more pressing issues within town to deal with.

What's next?

Many Patch readers have voted so far. Out of 59 votes yesterday and today, approximately 80% agree with the traffic safety engineer hired by the town who said that THE INTERSECTION of Clover and Central (not mid-block) is the best place for the light and crosswalk. It looks like Ms. C and Ms. E might have a lot more supporters out there than the Town Council would like to believe.

For those who have not voted, here is the link again.
www.07090.blogspot.com (poll is at the top right of the website page).
The choices are whether or not you think the best place for the light and crosswalk are
(A) at the current MID-BLOCK location or
(b) at the INTERSECTION of Clover and Central.

And please stop the attacks on Kasko. Regardless of what you think of him, his past, what he may or may not have done, etc., it's in our town's best interest that we focus on the issue and related facts. Even if you don't like Kasko, Ms. C and Ms. E as the messengers, please read and consider their factual comments. Not doing so is a disservice to yourself, your fellow Westfield residents and motorists/pedestrians who go by the location each and every day. Please... focus on SAFETY and FACTS and constructive observations of the location. Please don't stoop to 3rd grade lunchroom behavior.

NR9, please be sure to remind everyone that this "poll" is not scientific or official. The question is phrased in a biased way to begin with and one person can can vote several times (I was successful in casting different votes for each option several times). This trash site also attracts those who see one viewpoint, so even the voting is biased. I also hope that issues like this are not decided by a popular vote. Even if 59 people voted, so what? The census of this town is roughly 29,500 people. That means .2% of the population is represented here and that only .16% are in favor of moving the light. I don't issues like these decided by people who are not experts in traffic study, public saftey, urban planning, etc. even if 100% of a statistically representative sample were collected. I will laugh out loud if I hear Ms Carluccio or anyone else use the stats of this poll at the next meeting to support the cause of moving the light.

You can vote once. The site recognizes the IP address of the voter and will allow one vote.
I don't believe that the entire population of Westfield would concern themselves with this issue so to expect the entire population to vote is ludicrous.
The question was phrased "Locate the Central Ave. Pedestrian Light and Crosswalk"........and gives two choices. How is that biased?
The site has attracted teachers, lawyers, doctors, police officers, firemen, council members, other town employees, "soccer moms", and the list goes on.
The use of satire, sarcasm, innuendo and facts have all contributed to the success of the site.
When facts are exposed and they can't be refuted, there are those that will attack the messenger and ignore the message.

You're assuming I voted from the same computer. Whether or not it is realistic that the whole town would vote on this while valid, does not mean you don't need a statistically significant sample. You know full well, that there is an inherent bias or affiliation of philosophy in the people who go to your site. One markets to target a particular audience. I am not saying you don't have facts buried in there, but the data you present is one sided. That's why you don't see them in more respectable places.

wow, does this stuff go on at every council meeting? i actually feel really badly for the mayor & councilmen & woman who have to listen to this ranting and raving.
ms carluccio, you've been heard, you're message has been delivered, it's time to admit defeat and just stop the insanity. until you have a new tactic or message, you are starting (?!) to sound like an unhinged lunatic.
as far as mr.caruana is concerned, he sincerely lowered himself to ms. carluccio's level and it was incredibly unattractive. not cool to lose control like that, and then to bandy about the "threatening" term for the benefit of the police offer was disingenuous. would not vote for him for mayor based solely on that performance (not that he's running, right?).
i think ms.carluccio would be a welcome addition to the real housewives of nj cast -- the screeching, the finger in your face pointing, the "i got your back" mentality; except for that house on central ave, she could be one of those RHONJ ladies!

I'm a Jefferson School Dad who is very nervous every time I cross at the new light. I'm especially nervous when I cross with my kids.

To all the people who don't believe how an accident can happen at this light, I know there has been one major accident that required an ambulance (I saw it myself as I was about 7-8 cars behind the accident on my way home). I believe there has been at least one more accident as well.

Also, my scientific analysis goes something like this. I ride my bike with/or without my kids almost everyday and have crossed at that light almost everyday since it's been working. I would say that 50% of the time at least one car blows through the light when it's red.

It's terrifying when my kids are standing with me.

To just add a quick note to my post above. IMHO, the problem is that people don't expect a light that isn't at an intersection. Thus, when they aren't expecting to stop, often they don't. I've seen it many, many times already.

The issue here is simple: the Town Council allows this debate to consume about 90-120 minutes each session. Then they pass all resolutions and ordinances by voice vote in 5-10 minutes, and adjourn. There is no chance for education or debate on specific resolutions related to property demolition or ordinances relating to town matters of all different categories.

From a legislative perspective, this does the Town a disservice by blocking debate and questions about these other resolutions and ordinances.

Once again, who benefits?

What would happen if the US Congress met for 5 minutes once a month and passed every law they had agreed to in non-public committee sessions by a quick voice vote? People would become suspicious of what those laws actually did.

Just sayin'.

Mike wrote: "I'm a Jefferson School Dad... To all the people who don't believe how an accident can happen at this light, I know there has been one major accident that required an ambulance... I believe there has been at least one more accident as well. I have crossed at that light almost everyday since it's been working. I would say that 50% of the time at least one car blows through the light when it's red. The problem is that people don't expect a light that isn't at an intersection. Thus, when they aren't expecting to stop, often they don't. I've seen it many, many times already."

This is a VERY helpful comment. IT IS ON TOPIC. It is NOT, like so many other comments, a character attack on Ms.E/Ms.C/Mr.K.

I find it interesting that many comments in support of a light at the INTERSECTION are like this one by Mike whereas many comments in support of a light at MID-BLOCK are character attacks with no further support.

The issue is NOT whether you like or don't like Ms.E/Ms.C/Mr.K
The issue is... Which of the following TWO OPTIONS is the SAFEST and WHY do you support one of these locations more than the other?
(a) Current MID-BLOCK location.
OR
(b) INTERSECTION of CLOVER/CENTRAL.

That's it. That's all that should be commented on.
This SHOULD NOT be a contest of whether or not you like or don't like particular people involved.
Those who attack the messenger are probably doing so because they are unable to come up with solid evidence to attack the message!

if it is determined that the current location of the light is more dangerous than at the intersection, then I would support the move. There isn't any proof that the light is less safe than if it were moved. Attributing the cause of the accident that occurred because one driver was too close to the car in front of him/her automatically to the light is suiting the desires of those who are bound and determined to get it moved no matter what the facts say.

I have seen accidents almost happen every day along Central Ave. I have seen drivers pull out into oncoming traffic from the side roads (including Clover) and then stop suddenly to make the first turn off the street. I'd be willing to bet that even if the light were moved, there would still be an accident at the light. Would you be so willing to blame any accident that would occur there to the placementof the light? What about the accidents that happen on Central and Sycamore/Clifton? That is an intersection.

Greg Kaskso said in defense for falling asleep on the job: "The officer that you claim I failed to back up, had backup on the night in question. In fact, it was btoadcast over the radio that another patrol unit was going to back the other officer up. "

Are you kidding Mr. Kasko? So your defense for not responding while you were sleeping on the job is, "someone else will be there." Very weak!

Mr. Kasko, Assume that I accept your argument that the current location is not more safe than the intersection of Central and Clover. Now that the light is where it is, what proof do we have that the current location less safe? We don't know.

NR9, in fact I believe the light should be moved. I was simply responding to an indensible act that Mr. Kaskso himself posted..which in fact also relates to public safety. Where are your comments to Mr. Kasko to remain on topic?

NR9 - Relax...take a deep breath. Clearly your passionate about this topic...however limiting people's right to free speech isn't the way to go. Unless you own this site, which you clearly don't, you shouldn't expect people to follow your rules just because you say so. If you can't deal with a free give and take, then I suggest you go to another forum.

Mr. Kasko said: " But I'm sure you already have your mind made up about the whole set of circumstances." No, my mind isn't made up. But since you said this, I am curious for further clarification. You said an audio CD depicts other officers responding...that I understand. But then you said you can't respond to a transmission that isn't received...so you're saying you didn't hear the transmission? Can you clarify that?

I am not going to continue to facilitate this discussion while the issue is about the mid-block pedestrian crossing. What I will do to answer your questions is to post the audio I have obtained and will dedicate a Sunday evening Internet radio show on the topic. Feel free to call in and ask me anything you want. You can go to www.07090.blogspot.com to access both the show and audio after I have posted it. I will post the date and time of the show on the site. You can also contact me through the site's email address. You can also listen to any of the archived radio shows I have done by accessing them on the link provided on The Fact of The Matter at www.07090.blogspot.com

I thought the topic of the article and the accompanying video was about the appalling and uncivil way that the stop light advocates from both sides were conducting themselves.

I had totally forgotten about Kasko's indictment until he reemerged- I think the Patch should look into his background as an unbiased party so we know how credible he really is or is not. That story literally dominated the headlines for months.

Your choice of the word "indictment" to describe the departmental charges that were dropped is no different then Mayor Skibitsky suggesting that my employment was terminated when he knows that I retired in good standing. He signed the paperwork. The isuue did not dominate the headlines for months, it carried on from November of 2004 when I first tried to report the use of police computers to do illegal background checks on residents until I retired in November of 2007 which could be construed as years. It is now the holiday weekend, enjoy the great weather.

Wow!! This seems like a very mature and useful debate that is really contributing to solving the problem. This is a town where the mean income and education level is well above the national average...heaven help us all!

"I’m just getting started,” t-shirts and bumper stickers are now on sale.