Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Mary Kless' Removal: Is This The Internal Matter?

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Yes, they don’t need a reason to not reappoint an election inspector, but unless there is cause to deny reappointment they do.

    Commissioner Mohr stated there was malfeasance by Kless that resulted in her being denied reappointment and Kless contends she received no notification of the infractions:

    Ralph M. Mohr, Republican commissioner for the board, said Kless was not among the election inspectors listed for the November election because she made two serious mistakes.

    “In a primary election, she handed out the wrong ballot to members of a political party, so people voted in the wrong primary election,” Mohr said. “She also handed out a second ballot to a person who had already voted. Those are the worst things you can do as an election inspector.”

    But Kless questioned why she was not told about the infractions.


    I suggested Kless FOIA for records indicating reported infractions and who provided the information to Mohr that accuses Kless of the malfeasance. Transparency is critical here as both parties are making serious charges and others are informing me that there could be cause for Kless not being reappointed.

    If there is no documentation attesting to the charge of malfeasance, should this not be considered hearsay and/or suspicion warranted that this action was politically motivated; especially with the shenanigans taking place in the recent primary.
    Lee, I gotta say that your first paragraph is one of the most stunningly incomprehensible things I’ve read since an Obama speech.
    Let me see, they needn’t have a reason not to reappoint unless they do need it? Is that what you’re saying? Well, do they need one or don’t they? Here’s your answer: No. Her term was up. Period.

  2. #17
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,710
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    Folks, they don’t need a reason. It’s a term appointment and her term was up. She wasn’t “dismissed” part way through her term and she had no entitlement to reappointment. She’s not tenured faculty for heaven’s sake.
    Grump,

    Ralph Mohr is pretty much the scum of the earth.
    Some posters will blame him no matter what the facts are.
    I don't know the facts, do they?

    I do agree with you. The lady's term was up. She was NOT reappointed.
    End of story.

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  3. #18
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    Grump,


    Ralph Mohr is pretty much the scum of the earth.
    I certainly disagree with characterizing any human being in such a way.

    Some posters will blame him no matter what the facts are.
    What poster is blaming "him" for "anything?"

    As for myself, I am just asking some questions which were prompted by the Buffalo News article.

    That is pretty much the end of my story.
    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

  4. #19
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    Quote Originally Posted by grump View Post
    Lee, I gotta say that your first paragraph is one of the most stunningly incomprehensible things I’ve read since an Obama speech.
    Let me see, they needn’t have a reason not to reappoint unless they do need it? Is that what you’re saying? Well, do they need one or don’t they? Here’s your answer: No. Her term was up. Period.

    You deem a comment "incomprehensible" for the lack of a comma?

    Seriously?

    Instead of struggling to rephrase the comment in such way that seems to suit your rather constipated black and white view of everything in the world, why not try a more simple approach to seek clarification?

    Let me presume to help you out.

    Instead of this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Yes, they don’t need a reason to not reappoint an election inspector, but unless there is cause to deny reappointment they do...
    ...consider this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Yes, they don’t need a reason to not reappoint an election inspector, but unless there is cause to deny reappointment, they do.
    There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

    BTW, you seem to have a lack of patience and an arrogant contempt when evaluating and assessing older folks, like Mary, Lee, and myself.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; October 10th, 2019 at 09:48 PM.
    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    You deem a comment "incomprehensible" for the lack of a comma?

    Seriously?

    Instead of struggling to rephrase the comment in such way that seems to suit your rather constipated black and white view of everything in the world, why not try a more simple approach to seek clarification?

    Let me presume to help you out.

    Instead of this...



    ...consider this...



    There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

    BTW, you seem to have a lack of patience and an arrogant contempt when evaluating and assessing older folks, like Mary, Lee, and myself.
    Yes, it was poor grammar on my part. The sentence should have read:

    Yes, they don’t need a reason to not reappoint an election inspector, but unless there is cause to deny reappointment, they regularly are.

    How can anyone state her term was up and use that as a simple explantion for the non reappointment when Mohr gave reasons for Kless not being reappointed.

  6. #21
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Yes, it was poor grammar on my part. The sentence should have read:

    Yes, they don’t need a reason to not reappoint an election inspector, but unless there is cause to deny reappointment, they regularly are.

    How can anyone state her term was up and use that as a simple explantion for the non reappointment when Mohr gave reasons for Kless not being reappointed.
    Thank you Lee, but I certainly do not think that your lack of a comma made your post "incomprehensible," or otherwise clouded the meaning of your comments.

    Frankly, I share your bewilderment because I simply do not understand why some choose to fuse a publicly stated dismissal for cause with an unrelated and non-applied option.

    In that connection, since Mr. Mohr publicly linked the reappointment issue to purported mistakes, is it not reasonable for Ms. Kless to seek further amplification?

    Does not the absence of such amplification perhaps stimulate and encourage rather troubling, speculative comments such as...

    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Is it at all possible that the individual may be suffering from some mild cognitive impairment?...
    ...and this comment?...

    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    I do know that she has been struggling the last few years.
    In my opinion, Ms. Kless' personal interests, as well as those of the general public, would be best served by a forthright explanation replete with particulars, rather than by the quizzical musings and the gossipy pronouncement(s) of amateur diagnosticians.

    Just sayin'.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; October 11th, 2019 at 01:10 AM.
    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

  7. #22
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,710
    Originally posted by mark blazejewski:
    In my opinion, Ms. Kless' personal interests, as well as those of the general public, would be best served by a forthright explanation replete with particulars, rather than by the quizzical musings and the gossipy pronouncement(s) of amateur diagnosticians.
    Or canvass her co-workers at the polls before musing that the non reappointment
    was political.

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  8. #23
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Yes, it was poor grammar on my part. The sentence should have read:

    Yes, they don’t need a reason to not reappoint an election inspector, but unless there is cause to deny reappointment, they regularly are.

    How can anyone state her term was up and use that as a simple explantion for the non reappointment when Mohr gave reasons for Kless not being reappointed.
    Lee, please don't worry about grammar. As anyone can see from my posts, I never do.
    You're right. Mohr did give reasons for the non-reappointment. As Mohr is despicable in his political ways,
    it doesn't necessarily mean that in this case, it was politically driven, IMHO.

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  9. #24
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Or canvass her co-workers at the polls before musing that the non reappointment
    was political.
    Maybe Ms. Kless did not "canvass her co-workers", because she knew what was really told to her before Mohr presented his version to the reporter?

    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    I just wonder if the article reflects the full gravamen of the entire interview with Ms. Kless, and her version of the conversation that she purportedly had with the suggested "Board" official/representative?
    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

  10. #25
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    61,940
    In the end it's only a 1 year term with no guarantee anyone will be reappointed to the position correct? Why are you guys still focused on this?

  11. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,679
    I agree. Why worry about grammar. After all, the rules of grammar only determine the meaning of language. It’s how we structure our thoughts when putting them into writing to share with others. One of the reasons that millennials and others like them have such difficulty at work is that they’re unable to express themselves with anything like clarity. That said it seems that Mohr offered an explanation where none was necessary in an attempt to show that the action wasn’t completely arbitrary. Does anyone have any proof that he lied? On Election Day 2016, a Democratic elections inspector handed out multiple ballots to at least 2 Democratic voters who checked in to vote. When I inquired I was told that the machine scanner might not read the first ballot so 2 were needed. I complained but he still is there on Election Days thereafter.

  12. #27
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    Quote Originally Posted by WNYresident View Post
    In the end it's only a 1 year term with no guarantee anyone will be reappointed to the position correct? Why are you guys still focused on this?
    At no time did I argue that renewal was based on meritorious service, nor did I argue that Mohr/BOE was not acting within his/its rights.

    I can't speak for others, but I have been reacting to all of the elements of a published news story and have responded to posted online comments.

    Bear in mind, one of the elements of that story was the assertion that "cause" was the actual reason for a negative exertion of the renewal option.

    In that connection, Mohr seems to be the one who awkwardly fused "cause" with optional reappointment. These are the reporter's characterization of Mohr's words; it does not belong to me...

    Ralph M. Mohr, Republican commissioner for the board, said Kless was not among the election inspectors listed for the November election because she made two serious mistakes.
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; October 11th, 2019 at 01:27 PM.
    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

  13. #28
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,710
    Gregory A. Sojka, chairman of the Lancaster Republican Party since last October, said he believes there is a different reason why Kless was not included in the list of eligible election inspectors: She wrote a letter critical of Erie County GOP leadership to the Lancaster Bee that was published on Aug. 7.
    Just another Sojka conspiracy theory. Or maybe Sojka helped author that letter and had heard about Kless's issues at the polls and knew she wouldn't be reappointed.

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  14. #29
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    2,627
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Or maybe Sojka helped author that letter and had heard about Kless's issues at the polls and knew she wouldn't be reappointed.
    Talk about a conspiracy theory, yikes!

    Ms. Kless I believe is a former copy editor for a local newspaper, and she frequently writes her own letters to newspapers. Attached is one such example.

    Also, I know that Mary Kless is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, as she does so often on WBEN Radio's Sandy Beach and Bauerle and Bellavia.

    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff

    I do know that she has been struggling the last few years.
    Originally Posted by*gorja*

    Is it at all possible that the individual may be suffering from some mild cognitive impairment?
    Good grief Gorja, are those communication skills referred to above, symptomatic of one "struggling" with a "mild cognitive disorder?" For two issue-kindred individuals to seemingly ascribe those speculations to Ms. Kless, now, that resembles a conspiratorial roll-out of a well-planned destructive narrative.


    [IMG]
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by mark blazejewski; October 11th, 2019 at 09:43 PM.
    "With all due respect Ron, you don't know what you're talking about."---Supervisor Johanna Coleman, September, 2018

  15. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,440
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Just another Sojka conspiracy theory. Or maybe Sojka helped author that letter and had heard about Kless's issues at the polls and knew she wouldn't be reappointed.
    Bingo!!!!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Listening is key in internal investigations
    By Business News in forum News Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 15th, 2019, 09:20 AM
  2. Ice dam removal buffalo ny
    By WNYresident in forum Home, Landscaping, Flowers and Vegetable Gardening
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 7th, 2015, 12:31 PM
  3. Deer removal
    By WNYresident in forum Cheektowaga, Depew and Sloan Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 26th, 2011, 12:07 PM
  4. Internal War With the Town
    By shortstuff in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 5th, 2010, 04:33 PM
  5. VA Hid Suicide Risk, Internal E-Mail
    By Riven37 in forum USA Veterans issues and Wars in the Mid East
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2008, 10:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •