Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

DeJoy’s Appointment Is Interesting Choice

February 17, 2013

Mayor Sam Teresi’s appointment of Vince DeJoy as Jamestown development director is many things....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-03-13 8:11 AM

Prediction: Teresi runs runs against Goodell. Dejoy runs runs for mayor...only way this selection makes any sense...

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 12:28 PM

khulumzurug, only YOU can change your unhappy, miserable self. Move on. One less to dig a hole for.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 12:26 PM

Duckster,and you are one of those hairs in the armpit. Why don't you move? Afraid your check won't find you?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 3:17 PM

any objections are purely of a political nature--great choice, mr. mayor.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 2:07 PM

Again, Aaron shows his ignorance with his comments. The editor suggests that this decision process should have been made public. Do they mean like Edwards decision on Bill Daly and Jim Calfish were? The fact is these are decisions made by the person in charge, as they should be. In this case, not only did the mayor interview 4 people (as he stated), he consulted with various trusted local business associates, as well as the council. He did not have to do that. It sounds to me like he made a decision based on many things. I like the editor's comments on a new set of eyes. Mr Centi did some very positive things for this town, as I am sure Mr DeJoy will also. I know it is difficult for some, but an open mind goes a long way.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 11:06 PM

Jamestown needs to staff a development director... so we can make this blighted armpit of a city look even more like a scene out of Clockwork Orange or Soylent

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 10:32 PM

I think a very good choice was made. It was fast so that the opinions of the uninformed would not have to be sorted through before making a right decision.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 4:45 PM

nothing to develop, except cemeteries for the city to crawl in to. dead.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 4:39 PM

Your funny Howard,msnbc does not have 1 show that even remotely says anything positive about repubs or conservatives.Maddow is a partisan hack.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 3:14 PM

It seems likely the editor had no strong opinion either way but listed pros and cons possibly in the hopes of provoking discussion. More likly than not, better ideas might come from the public rather than insiders involved with the process.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 12:28 PM

departments across mayoral terms and political agendas. Maybe it just makes too much sense for it to ever occur.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 12:28 PM

Just one last point; if the editorial staff reviews these comments it might have been a more poignant editorial if there was a suggestive course of action that the City could take in the future. Perhaps the editorial could have encouraged city council to review the city charter to see if there is a more effective way to operate the departments of the city. With ever tighter budgets, decreasing state and federal resources and smaller department staffs maybe now is the time to eliminate department head appoints and go to a competitive hiring process with longevity based upon performance review and not on the mayor’s term. Out of necessity department heads need to be fully functioning, working managers. From a taxpayer standpoint, I believe that it would have the support the majority of property taxpayers in the city as valuable resources would not have to be committed to training an appointee in the operation of their department. It would also allow for uniform operation of city...cont

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 11:46 AM

I think Howard may be giving too much credit to the the editor on this. The more I think about it this is probably more about editorial inexperience than being to have it both ways. Editorial staff has changed since retirement of Christie Herbst and the new editor may not be willing or able yet to call it as he sees it. His wavering though does not reflect positively on the paper. He would have been better to just not write this piece and remain silent on the issue.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 11:30 AM

It just hit me. This editorial has Bill O'reilly written all over it. Bill will be against an issue and then bring on a guest that disputes him. He then will mildly agree with the guest so he will have two sound bites to choose from however that particular issue folds out. Pay attention as he does this almost nightly. Now the P-J is taking strategies from O'reilly. One unrelated post: Please watch or record the Rachel Maddow show Monday at 9:00 on MSNBC. If you only believe that black is black and white is white and there is no grey area in-between then never mind - you could write an opinion on that show today. However, if you have even a piece of an open mind please watch and listen carefully - it will be a VERY interesting hour. Thanks, looking forward to your responses.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 10:10 AM

Agree with Howard. What is the PJ stance? Are they afraid of the Mayor? We should expect more than a weak go along to get along stance. Their tag line for editorials of "TRUTH ABOVE ALL ELSE" is really in question with this one.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 9:11 AM

I agree with IKE1952 that it sounds like two different people wrote this editorial. The story here is the editorial itself. What is the opinion here? Is the P-J afraid of the mayor?

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 9:00 AM

IKE: Good point. The Mayor stated that he consulted with community leaders, council, etc. This is a cabinet position and the appointment is sole discretion of the Mayor. We may disagree and vent but in the end it is his decision. Also, noted that the editorial seemed to be placing the bar pretty low with the level of expectation to see development in the near future almost non-existent. Neighborhood blight is not a new occurrence. It has been prevalent for 3 decades. Vacant storefronts are not new to downtown. Maybe a fresh voice will help but how is this to be measured?

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 8:37 AM

PJ took an interesting look at this. Using terms such as “cloaked in secrecy”; “insider in the public’s eyes”; “political back scratching” and then appearing to confirm and endorse the selection? I agree with IKE. What was the point of this editorial? Taking the last half of the analysis one could assume that the Mayor should seek to switch out all of his Department Heads with non-professionals so that there is a “fresh voice” across all departments. Is the paper looking for someone else to do their job of investigative reporting and they can stick to soft-peddling what might be an appointment for political gain? This one is really confusing.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 8:22 AM

By the way, I heard the Mayor on the radio say that he did do a search, interviewed several candidates and consulted with council members, staff members and numerous trusted community advisors before making and coming forth with his decision.

Sounds like a reasonable process to me.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 8:17 AM

The Development post is not just another mid management job or even a position like that of a School Superintendent.

It is a top level cabinet appointment working directly for the Mayor and whose term ends with the Mayor's. Just like cabinet positions with the President, Governor, County Executive and all other Mayors.

To suggest that the Mayor would or should have picked someone for his cabinet by doing an open search on the internet or paying for exdpensive and fruitless newspaper ads, and then setting up some kind of community review committee, is foolish and absurd.

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 8:09 AM

What is truly interesting is this editorial.

A week after the fact and it sounds like it was written by two different people.

The first half slamming the pick and the second half reversing field on every point and praising the pick.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-17-13 4:52 AM

"Teresi could have taken the safe choice and the easy route. Easy and safe is not always the best choice.

Let's see where the hard road takes us." If fact, the route taken was easy and safe for the Mayor; the perfect no-brainer, we would say as Taxpayer who should be involved in spending our monies!

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 22 of 22 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web