Response to Mathiasen

In this week before the election, I feel I cannot let Councilwoman Mathiasen’s posting of a letter to the editor at the end of September containing falsehoods and misrepresentations go unanswered, and allow the public to be once again misinformed by her.

First readers should know that I endorsed councilwoman Mathiasen in her initial election and in her re-election. I now admit this was a mistake given the agendas she has and continues to pursue which are to the detriment of our community. When she first ran for office I was contacted and asked to write a letter to the editor supporting her and now Mayor Dempsey. It was suggested to me that someone else could write the letter and I could just sign it.

I declined and wrote the letter myself.

Nobody tells me what to write or say - including your campaign, Councilwoman.

She seems to insinuate that I bear some bias due to her gender. This is completely ridiculous considering I endorsed her and several other women council candidates over male candidates they were running against!

With regard to her outrageous claim that I demanded she expose her personal life to the world and I forced her to read an email exchange between us in public:

Ms Mathiasen initiated an email exchange with me after my criticizing THE ENTIRE COUNCIL in September of 2023 on the length of time it took to hire a consultant for the fire apparatus. She chastised me for my comments in a sarcastic, condescending manner which alternated between admitting it took too long, placing blame on the fire department, and trying to justify the delays. After several terse emails from both of us I stated “ I have praised the council in the past regarding even acknowledging the aging apparatus fleet as an issue, but I repeat my assertion that, knowing this, getting to this point has needlessly taken far too long. If you cannot take criticism with the praise, despite your best intentions stepping down should be seriously considered”. This apparently triggered what I can only describe as a meltdown on her part as she responded with personal family details - which I NEVER requested nor wanted to know as it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our discourse - and her now familiar conflating of criticism with personal attacks. She asked that I not contact her again, and aside from cc’ing her on information I have sent to ALL council members I complied with her request.
When public comment was limited to 4 minutes - which she supported - the public was told council members could be contacted via email as well. At the meeting before she read her ENTIRE email response regarding her personal issues in public, I was protesting that fact and making the point that in her case I was told not to email her. THAT was the point I was trying to make! Instead of just reading the sentence asking me not to email her -which was what I wanted - she chose to read her personal information as well. I did not want that, and in fact when the local publications learned of my email exchanges with the councilwoman - prior to her reading it - I was asked if they could view them. This was my response to Ed Barmakian of the TAP:
“In the email she included several things of a personal nature regarding her family. I would like to first give her the opportunity to edit out all such family information as I would never want to bring someone’s personal life into this”. He agreed.
She was on vacation at that time, and read that particular email in public before I had the chance to give her the opportunity to edit its content in any way she saw fit. Had I wanted her personal information to be public I could have just turned the emails over to the publications in advance of her reading it. I didn’t. I did not give it to them until after she read it in public.

I would be happy to provide the ENTIRE series of email exchanges to anyone interested so you can judge the demeanor of BOTH of us.

Ms. Mathiasen has accused me of personally attacking her in the Courier and Tap, and attending council meetings to “ talk about Councilwoman Mathiasen”. Had she attended council meetings before running for office she would have seen me attending for well over a decade, also holding several administrations accountable.

As far as letters to the Tap and Courier, I wrote about her record, specifically:

- she voted to place 100 units in Post Office Plaza, and stated if the issue came up again she would once again vote for it as well as rolling reassessments! She refused to acknowledge this in a public meeting and only admitted to it in private

- she campaigned on the need to replace the aging fire apparatus, credits herself with taking the initiative on this, yet failed to hire a consultant until almost the end of her second term over 4 years later. The hiring of a consultant for PILOT programs took only months.
- a consultant was paid $18,000 dollars for the same information regarding apparatus purchases that myself and the fire department had been providing for over a decade. In the 125 year history of the fire department they NEVER needed a consultant to purchase fire apparatus and did a good job in purchasing equipment that has obviously lasted a long time. It seems a consultant was never necessary until she took office. This was a slap in the face to the fire department leadership and demonstrative of her lack of confidence in their ability.
- the delays in ordering the apparatus will now cost taxpayers over 1 million dollars additional due to price increases
- firefighters continue to respond on outdated equipment, which under motor vehicle law qualifies as antiques, until new equipment arrives which will be at least 3- 5 years. Two of the current apparatus are 30 and 35 years old and have required over $120,000 in REPAIRS, not maintenance, over the last 4 years!
- she acknowledged poor communication with neighbors regarding the temporary leasing of the Stanley Center to ECLC
- she boasts about her lobbying efforts in Trenton, yet despite her lobbying she stated at a council meeting the bill that passed in Trenton WAS NOT good for communities - that does not amount to a successful lobbying effort. Also, how hypocritical is it to oppose overdevelopment in Trenton when have advocated for it in your own town and have stated you would do so again

- she has advocated for making the mayor and council paid positions, and wanted it brought up in closed session. Had this been done the discussion would have been considered privileged. As such Mayor Kobylarz refused to keep the information from the public and was sharply criticized for this by Ms Mathiasen, accusing him of some sort of power play.
- She offers the absurd logic that paying elected officials brings in more qualified individuals. Have you checked out Washington lately Councilwoman?

She apparently equates reminding people of her record and agendas as personal attacks - which does not speak well of your record.
I highly encourage people to read the letter in the Courier for themselves and decide.

Councilwoman Mathiasen shows a propensity towards equating criticism with personal attacks and casting herself as a victim when that is not the case.

It is not personal; you are an elected official, I disagree with your past votes and agendas, I am publicly expressing my dissatisfaction, and in an election year voters are entitled to hear the opinions of other citizen - it’s called democracy!
If you hold elected office comments and criticism, whether you personally deem them fair or not, come with the territory.
Good leaders understand and accept this fact.

Bob Penn
Chatham Borough