Lessons From The Freeholder Selection Process
Dispatches From San Juan
First the candidate pushed by the party bosses didn’t win. Of course I am not sure which candidate was being pushed by the party bosses because different candidates where pushed by different bosses. Actually the lesson is, there are no more “Bosses”. The process was fair and relatively democratic without some of the histrionics that took place when the process of candidate selection was first opened up. Yes the chairman had a candidate he preferred as did certain elected officials. Guess what. They are allowed to voice an opinion. Just because they do does not mean their candidate is being pushed down our throat. So there you have it. All you conspiracy theorists can now go home. Please.
Second we learned some people are better at building coalitions then other people.
In case anyone hasn’t notice there is one guy who seems to be really good at it. Jim “the Shadow” Gianell (visit http://monmouth-bull-moose.blogspot.com/2008/04/who-knows-what-evil-lurks-in-hearts-of.html/ to learn how he earned that moniker) also known by his friends simply as the Greek.
In the last ten years Jim has only failed to back the winner once. That was John Curley in his second run. Here is a guy who isn’t even a municipal chairman, holds no elected office, has no cushy government appointments yet he gets people nominated. Rich tried to get the nomination twice and failed. It was not until he got Gianell’s support that he got the nomination.
How does he do it? He appears to have the confidence of a lot of people and he is good at convincing people to back his candidate. He did this first as the architect of the once influential Two Rivers Chairman Group and more recently by working with like minded chairmen scattered about the County. He also is a tireless worker for “his Guy or Gal”.
It seems that if you want to get the Monmouth GOP’s backing Jim Gianell is the guy to go see.
TR
More from my site
Blame Hoover
The Big Myth
Dispatches From San Juan
Is Religion Relevant?
Watch the Second Democratic Gubernatorial Debate
Lessons Learned After Three Months on COVID-19 Front Lines
The Arnone Report: You need to get out & vote!
Trial begins for former Wall Twp. schools boss charged with official misconduct, theft- Freeholders Set To Approve Union Contracts
Republicans Take Control In Belmar
but, technically, Jim’s last name’s spelled Giannell..hope his gang really hangs around and digs in to help the whole ticket this year, they will need it..making a point is one thing, geting it done with a total victory is another..
Hey Knucklehead,
Art didn’t write it I did. Don’t give him credit for my good points.
Whatta ya mean by “making a point is one thing”? Don’t just throw that statement out there without explaining yourself. What point? To who?
My Apologies to Mr. Giannell for mis-spelling his name.
Dear Art & TR
Thanks for the kind words !
There were, however, may good people involved in the process of obtaining the nomination for Gary Rich. Gary’s victory belongs not only to Gary, but to that great group of supporters. We are all quite confident in Gary’s abilities and believe he will be, not only an excellent Candidate, but, more important, an excellent Freeholder.
Congratulations should also be extended to the other 3 candidates and their supporters for a job well done ! All could leave Saturdays meeting with their heads held high. All were good candidates and as we all know, it is quite difficult to make a single choice when you have a talented group seeking only 1 position. No one really “Lost”, they were all “Winners”.
Special congratulations are due to Chairman Joe Oxley. He has managed the MCRP with honesty and dignity. Knowing a little about the history and events of the MCRP over the past few years, I can only emphasize how fortunate we are to have Joe Oxley as Chairman.
By the way; it was so nice to hear from TR again ! Your 1st paragraph was, as usual, “Right On” ! Viva La Revolucion !
Sincerely
Jim Giannell
Decided to join the conversation, as there are some very interesting things apparently going on. As an “observer” and admittedly only “semi-active” Countywide (2 or so County and up GOP events per year, but very active locally and follow as best I can through news sources, blogs, etc) I look for the insight of Art, TR and all those much more “in the know.” My input/questions:
1. Jim G (not sure of the definite, correct spelling of he who is also called “the Greek,” though had not heard that term before) has been an active and effective advocate for quite some time and agreed that he was instumental in Gary Rich gaining the nomination.
2. Also, agreed, gaining the support and hard work of Jim G is a distinct advantage for an individual seeking to garner the screening committee endorsement as he is a committed, hard working individual without (seemingly, for what I have been able to ascertain) a hidden personal agenda.
3. However, as to my town and I expect others, some of the support for Gary had nothing to do with a)Jim G and/or b) “anti-Wall.” While I did not personally speak to very many people about this, NEVER did I hear that this nomination was in any way an “anti Joe Oxley” nor “anti-Wall” movement. Candidly, the only negatives about Joe Oxley I have ever heard were from anonymous posters (who all could be the same person), and I think we should all be celebrating the recent Monmouth Republican successes. As I speak to many people just going about their lives, trust me that most rank and file just never hear about all the “sub-plots” that go on in the world of cyberspace.
4. Reality check is that individuals within our party have various connections, relationships,etc. that have been created/nurtured due to different political, personal, business interactions. It was refreshing that for the most part this “campaign” (for the spot to run with Lillian Burry) was more positive about the individuals seeking the nod than a negative against any of the potential candidates.
5. The almost equal 3 way vote confirms that there is no “fix” and there was a split in who was “the best” choice.
6. My 2 cents on the voting by municipal chairs – it SHOULD be the result of the county committee having the opportunity to meet/question the candidates and then (whether or not it is the Chair’s personal choice) the Chair should be bound to vote for the person receiving the most votes after polling of the county committee.
7. I am member of county committee and my Chair followed the above procedure.
8. Suggestion, but not sure if this could be binding on the municipal committees (ahh..welcome to you lawyers out there who care to comment) : Monmouth County GOP could have by laws that sets forth the membership of the Screening Committee (now muni chairs, present and past elected officials, etc??) and provide that municipal chairs are to vote per the polling of their own committees. As I really have no idea who are the others entitled to vote (of course I know who present elected are as well as some of those “in the past” ie John Bennett Tom Gagliano ) I doubt I could come up with more than a few of this group. Putting online at the county gop site the names and contact info for municipal chairs as well as the other members of the screening committee would let all potential candidates know who would be assessing their qualifications and also provide party building with the reaching out to individuals who otherwise may not know one another. (this is particularly important if there is a relatively new, young person that wishes to advance). This way, the process is “open” and anyone seeking to be considered would be able to reach out to those that have a vote.
9. I have a call into my Chair but know that he had conflicts this weekend (and even changed plans to be able to attend the Saturday am Freehold vote) but looking at the vote count and adding the numbers..25+23+22+1 = 71 I am curious as to who was there and how many of those entitle to a vote were present? (Did a voting member have to be present or could he/she send in the vote otherwise?) Very curious about the process. My Chair confirmed he made it and gave some names as to who he saw, but he said he did not know the total “potential votes” (…he did not think this was “secret” as he expected that the candidates must have had this info – he just said he had not really thought about this before and just did not ask anyone). As the vote was so close, and our town’s consensus fell short by such a small number I have to think that others are wondering about this issue as well. Also, there were apparently others present in Freehold that just attended with out being voters (not confirmed, just that my Chair seemed to think he saw people that he did not think were voters). I am curious about this and if there a list as to who could vote, and out of those who did and did not show up. Can anyone confirm that non-voters attend?
10. While my choice did not prevail I actually had a difficult time deciding who my choice WAS and was pleased that (I believe) it was a fair process. I really had decided that I would have no problem supporting any of those who decided to seek the nod.
Chairman are not elected to be megaphones for their committee.
Certainly they should listen but they should not be “bound” by the committees decision.
If in the end you disagree with the chairmans exercise of his judgment. Then replace him.