Running for BOT - 3 incumbent Trustees are uncontested; 2 women competing for VP seat

mbaldwin said:

JCSO said:

And I like the idea of writing in Rob Sandow. 

 I like the idea, too, but he's asked us not to write him in. 

 He did?  I don't remember that.    Frankly, I don't care who is endorsing whom.  All one has to do is look at the level of commitment to South Orange and the track record of both to see that Sheena is the best choice for President.   

In this thread on March 10th Rob Sandow welcomed voters to write him in. Earlier, he said he would be happy to sit on the BOT but felt it was too labor intensive and costly to run a campaign without a full line of candidates.

So, write in Robert Sandow as Trustee.

truth said:

In this thread on March 10th Rob Sandow welcomed voters to write him in. Earlier, he said he would be happy to sit on the BOT but felt it was too labor intensive and costly to run a campaign without a full line of candidates.

So, write in Robert Sandow as Trustee.

If you do your job, being on the BOT is labor intensive. So, its too labor intensive to run a campaign but not to do the work needed for being on the BOT.

If Sandow really said that, does he expect the BOT job to be handed over on a silver platter?

truth said:

In this thread on March 10th Rob Sandow welcomed voters to write him in. Earlier, he said he would be happy to sit on the BOT but felt it was too labor intensive and costly to run a campaign without a full line of candidates.

So, write in Robert Sandow as Trustee.

 I stand corrected.

I thought he said it was not practical to compete 1 v 3.  Lets face it, a ticket of three candidates can cover more ground and meet more people than any single individual.  

A 3 person ticket also shares the fix cost (both in time and money) of running a campaign.  Its a pretty big advantage.

BG9 said:

truth said:

In this thread on March 10th Rob Sandow welcomed voters to write him in. Earlier, he said he would be happy to sit on the BOT but felt it was too labor intensive and costly to run a campaign without a full line of candidates.

So, write in Robert Sandow as Trustee.

If you do your job, being on the BOT is labor intensive. So, its too labor intensive to run a campaign but not to do the work needed for being on the BOT.

If Sandow really said that, does he expect the BOT job to be handed over on a silver platter?

BG9 said:

truth said:

In this thread on March 10th Rob Sandow welcomed voters to write him in. Earlier, he said he would be happy to sit on the BOT but felt it was too labor intensive and costly to run a campaign without a full line of candidates.

So, write in Robert Sandow as Trustee.

If you do your job, being on the BOT is labor intensive. So, its too labor intensive to run a campaign but not to do the work needed for being on the BOT.

If Sandow really said that, does he expect the BOT job to be handed over on a silver platter?

 Silver platter?  What are you talking about? Why would anyone serve a baloney sandwich on stale bread and a mushy banana on a silver platter?   It is a thankless job and everyone knows it. 

Yes, exactly. I thought it was was pretty clear what Rob wrote: it takes much more energy and money, and gives a lower chance of being successful, to run as one candidate against a full slate. That's not just opinion, that's based on first hand experience.

BG9 said:

truth said:

In this thread on March 10th Rob Sandow welcomed voters to write him in. Earlier, he said he would be happy to sit on the BOT but felt it was too labor intensive and costly to run a campaign without a full line of candidates.

So, write in Robert Sandow as Trustee.

If you do your job, being on the BOT is labor intensive. So, its too labor intensive to run a campaign but not to do the work needed for being on the BOT.

If Sandow really said that, does he expect the BOT job to be handed over on a silver platter?

I have not been vocal on this thread, but I just hate being misquoted.  What I said, to paraphrase, was that a solo campaign against a slate is not very likely to win.  It is too labor intensive and costly (I personally spent about $2500 on my last campaign), to run a solo campaign, which has virtually no chance of winning against 4 incumbents.  No one has asked for a BOT seat to be handed over on a silver platter.  In fact, if you look at my record of running a clean, honest, positive campaign against tremendous odds, it is quite the opposite.  I ran, and put in all the effort and spending, knowing quite well that a win was unlikely.

I'll write Rob in with the hope that if he wins he will take over the position of being liaison to the Health Department. Its my second time pulling out sick and dying cats from a South Orange hoarding house in only 4 years.

And now over one year without the service of an animal shelter.

evandepol said:

Yes, exactly. I thought it was was pretty clear what Rob wrote: it takes much more energy and money, and gives a lower chance of being successful, to run as one candidate against a full slate. That's not just opinion, that's based on first hand experience.

Full disclosure.  Erik Van de Pol was my campaign manager, so when he says it was based on first hand experience, he knows what he is talking about.

I can second the comments of vandepol and Rob.  BOE elections, around 8 years ago.  I ran by myself against a Slate.  Came close but the Slate won.

Been there, done that.