2018 Petitions Filed

[gorja]

Lee,

As I understand the situation, the allegations have been publicly known since the 2016 election cycle. This is a judicial race, and the standards, in my world, are much higher. The apparent acceptance of the 2018 contribution goes well beyond "guilt by association." It goes to hypocrisy and sound judgment, IMHO.

Allegations are one thing. Innocent until proven guilty.

But this man pled guilty to a corruption charge on June 28.
2 1/2 months after the donation
Now, the money should be returned or given to a charity, if one is being ethical, IMHO

[mark blazejewski]

Allegations are one thing. Innocent until proven guilty.

But this man pled guilty to a corruption charge on June 28.
2 1/2 months after the donation
Now, the money should be returned or given to a charity, if one is being ethical, IMHO

There is an old saying Ms. Gorja, "When in doubt, don't."

IMHO, especially in a judicial race, when the advantage that attends the world of campaign funding transcends the world of prudent, objective caution, the issue of judgment becomes a valid component in the voter's overall assessment of a candidate's temperament.

[Lee Chowaniec]

So, Gorga and Mark, are you guys implying that if Kulpit does not return Panepinto’s $200 contribution or donate it to charity she should be deemed unethical and not worthy of election consideration? That Panepinto’s transgression marks her as being no better than him; that she shares / condones his values? Are contributions going to be the new paradigm for judging one’s qualifications for running for office?

I don’t contribute to candidates running for office – never have, never will. If I did I would never had been influenced by the likes of other donors on the list. In viewing the BOE contribution list for this year’s Town Justice race there are individuals on every candidate donor list that have lifestyle histories with shortcomings – IMHO! If I were to equate your new gold standard and not consider voting for a candidate based on contributions, there would be no worthy candidate.

Incumbent Justice Colby deserves being re-elected based on his past professional history and experience in current office. Jessica Kulpit should not be judged less than qualified because of a campaign contribution. This is a flagrant example of ‘guilt by association’ (IMHO).

[mark blazejewski]

So, Gorga and Mark, are you guys implying that if Kulpit does not return Panepinto’s $200 contribution or donate it to charity she should be deemed unethical and not worthy of election consideration? That Panepinto’s transgression marks her as being no better than him; that she shares / condones his values? Are contributions going to be the new paradigm for judging one’s qualifications for running for office?

I don’t contribute to candidates running for office – never have, never will. If I did I would never had been influenced by the likes of other donors on the list. In viewing the BOE contribution list for this year’s Town Justice race there are individuals on every candidate donor list that have lifestyle histories with shortcomings – IMHO! If I were to equate your new gold standard and not consider voting for a candidate based on contributions, there would be no worthy candidate.

Incumbent Justice Colby deserves being re-elected based on his past professional history and experience in current office. Jessica Kulpit should not be judged less than qualified because of a campaign contribution. This is a flagrant example of ‘guilt by association’ (IMHO).

Personally Lee, I concede to you that this business about returning money to an unknown charity(s) may be rather trivial if not feckless. After all, who is prove or disprove the return transaction? In fact, it may be compared to a curriculum for house-training a puppy, and the learning curve is how many times the trainer rubs its nose in the piddle after the event. But, I will leave such a standard to the eye of the beholder.

Entirely without regard to any previous situation, my issue with Kulpit is her judgment in accepting such monies in the first place. The high-profile, longstanding issue(s) with Panepinto were well known prior to the contribution. With that background, I can fully appreciate a viewpoint that her acceptance of the money may have given the appearance, albeit unwittingly, of reducing the serious nature and scope of the federal corruption indictment.

IMHO, and MHO only, Kulpit's acceptance of the contribution not only goes to the thin worlds of her political judgment and possible hypocrisy visa v identity politics, but most importantly, may suggest a recklessness in the pertinently substantive world of professional temperament.

Lastly, I have not argued along the lines of "guilt by association"- based qualifications. My argument is based solely on what I perceive to be professional judgment, as expressed above.

[gorja]

Originally posted by mark blazejewski:
Entirely without regard to any previous situation, my issue with Kulpit is her judgment in accepting such monies in the first place.

In that, I disagree Mark. There were only allegations at that time.

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:

So, Gorga and Mark, are you guys implying that if Kulpit does not return Panepinto’s $200 contribution or donate it to charity she should be deemed unethical and not worthy of election consideration? That Panepinto’s transgression marks her as being no better than him; that she shares / condones his values? Are contributions going to be the new paradigm for judging one’s qualifications for running for office?

It's in the eye of the beholder. This beholder, if in that situation would DUMP the money. Why would she even want his money after the plea? This beholder believes that this justice candidate's judgement is flawed.

My answer - 'yes' she would be deemed unethical and NOT worthy of election consideration. Just my opinion and standards

[mark blazejewski]

[SIZE=3][FONT=verdana]

In that, I disagree Mark. There were only allegations at that time.

Ms. Kulpit aspires to be a Town Justice. As a presumption of innocence is fundamental to our justice system, so too is the impartial administration of justice.

Some may view the acceptance of the money as politics as usual.

Some may view the acceptance of the money as breaking faith with her commitment to, and celebration of, woman's issues.

However, to some, the acceptance of the money may be viewed as honoring the presumption of innocence to the exclusion of impartiality. That is the one reason why I have raised a question about her judgment as it applies to her professional temperament.

Ms. Kulpit has an impressive credential in advocating for the full preservation of the rights accused, and that is a good, professional thing. However, a Town Justice is NOT AN ADVOCATE, but rather a practitioner of the fair and impartial administration of the law. It seems to me that Ms. Kulpit may have lost an opportunity to illustrate, by voluntary example, a pivot from the role of advocate to that of the impartial jurist, IMHO.

In my world, Lancaster does not need a prejudicial thumb on the scales of justice in favor of the accused or the accuser.

[Lee Chowaniec]

In that, I disagree Mark. There were only allegations at that time.


It's in the eye of the beholder. This beholder, if in that situation would DUMP the money. Why would she even want his money after the plea? This beholder believes that this justice candidate's judgement is flawed.

My answer - 'yes' she would be deemed unethical and NOT worthy of election consideration. Just my opinion and standards

Utopian ideals and standards in the dystopian world of politics, seriously?

[gorja]

Utopian ideals and standards in the dystopian world of politics, seriously?

Guess, I'm just old school