LIVE CHAT: Roland Van Liew
Welcome to our first live chat in our series of live chats with the 2013 candidates for the Chelmsford Board of Selectmen.
Hello Chelmsford!
Election Day is less than a month away, and today we begin our series with live chats with the candidates.
Today we're talking with Roland Van Liew. Feel free to ask him your questions!
All we ask is that any questions do not contain profanity and are questions instead of comments. People using real names will also be given preference and we will give everyone a chance to get their question answered before we let folks ask a second question.
We head from Roland to candidates Bob Joyce on Friday, March 8 at noon and Matt Hanson on Friday, March 15 at noon. We've also put in calls to Janet Askenburg and Pat Maloney and will aim to hold live chats with them as soon as possible if they agree.
We'll also aim to get video candidate minutes with the other candidates like we've done so far with Van Liew and Hanson.
And stay tuned for tomorrow night's Telemedia debate at the Chelmsford Center for the Arts as well!
Jeff Apostolakes
1:46 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
How did the Chat session go with the candidate. I had to step away for a bit.
John Gault
2:14 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
The candidate gave "Blah Blah Blah" as one of his answers and accused another questioner as being a lawyer. So, depending how on you feel about those items, that's how the chat went.
Andrew Sylvia
2:24 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Hi Jeff,
You can click on that little "play" symbol above to see the transcript.
We'll also have the highlights in a separate article tomorrow.
Jeff Apostolakes
4:19 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Andrew, Thank you I will check it out. Good forum. Look forward to the other candidates also
Peter Roy
3:07 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
I took the time with an open mind and read his responses ....
Wow, I think I will take RVL advice and I won't vote for him ....can you just imagine the bottle neck in progress , if he doesn't get his way ...if he is elected. the temper tantrums will be epic ...
John Gault
4:59 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
That's right, the candidate also told people not to vote for him, answered one question with "You've got to be kidding me" and made several references to a posse.
Rob C.
5:27 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
So what i gather from his non answers is if a vote doesnt go his way he will sue the town. Way to save us money there Roland.
By the way is he one of the people that complained about the lines painted on High St? Those PERMANENT grinder marks down the middle of the road are much nicer to look at when i cut through that part of town than the faded painted lines. Way to "beautify" the town on that decision.
I always have to laugh at the "scenic road" classification of High st. Its a regular residential st.
Paul
6:52 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Interesting that the anti-Van Liew trollers will point out how much it cost the town to have a recall vote, but when we have misguided DPW work done they just laugh. Never anyone's fault. Nobody reprimanded or loses their job. You might like this article about one of our finest. He only got a three day suspension even though someone could have died because of his incompetence: http://www.mass.gov/anf/docs/csc/decisions/discipline/murphy-robert-092806.pdf
Rob C.
7:19 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Interesting read, He should have been fired, but you cant fire a union member so a suspension is the best we can do. He was probably suspended with pay too.
As for the painted roads, I remember reading about it in the Lowell Sun and it appeared to me in that article that the company that painted was hired to paint lines 100 or 200 feet before and after the crossing of the bike path. What I read was that they were only paid for that, the company screwed up and did Robin Hill and High St. A couple people cried about having a couple lines on the road, instead of waiting for them to fade, they are almost gone now, they decided to send a grinder up the road and it looks much worse now and it is permanent. The reasoning that people couldn't walk on the road because of a line up the middle was the silliest thing I had heard of in a while. I read that in the Sun, they are not the most accurate paper around. If you have a link to another version I will be more than happy to read it and take in that point of view.
I wouldn't mind seeing speed bumps like the center has on High St though, I see people going WAY to fast on that road when I am on it.
Jon Kurland
9:36 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Paul - How is an incident that occured a dozen years ago relevant to anything that is being discussed today? No one on the BOS or in the Town Manager's office was around back then. But let's discuss character. Today (two years too late) Roland admits that Rita Savard allegedly misquoted him when she published on the front page of the Lowell Sun that he said I was involved in back room deals. His comment was in response to a direct question she asked him. She wanted to know why Roland wanted to recall me since I voted against the 9 North Road project and this was his response. Now his story is completely different but at least he admits that I was NOT involved in any back room deals. If I had been misquoted and the misquote impugned the integrity and reputation of another, I would have been on the phone to immediately correct the misquote because a person's reputation is important to me. Even a person I don't care for. Roland did not call or take any measures to rectify the record. I am of the opinion that he intentionally maligned me since it was his way of trying to justify recalling me. The fact is that a person of character would do something to clear someone's name but Roland never did. It seems as though he cares little about other people's reputations if they can advance his agenda. If you don't believe me, ask Phil Stanway. This, as much as anything should tell you about Mr. Van Liew's character or lack thereof.
Fran McDougall
6:41 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
What the heck is this posting? I have a headache after trying to follow it. Why not a video?
Andrew Sylvia
7:30 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Hi Fran,
It was a text based conversation between Van Liew and voters, right here on Patch! And we've got more coming up too!
There's also a video in the body of the article text above.
Laura McLaughlin
8:16 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Although Mr. Van Leiw may have useful business experience, I expect elected officials to demonstrate the ability to use effective communication skills to both enhance and expand useful dialogue. Mr. Van Liew's use of sarcasm and defensiveness does not reflect the ability to collaborate or resolve conflict. Chelmsford needs leader with solid business experience, effective communication skills and the ability to work openly with others.
Camille
8:39 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
The Stanways have proved that they are classless. Everyone should vote for Roland. Phil Stanway has attempted to ruin every interaction with this candidate and the public.
Jon Kurland
10:06 pm on Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Camille - Maybe you would be more sympathetic with the Stanways if your character was attacked and that attack was baseless. All they want is for Roland to remove the post he has on the internet falselessly accusing Phil of back room deals. I know what they are going through because Roland did the same to me two years ago. It is only in today's chat did Roland admit that I was not involved in back room deals. During the recall he specifically told a Lowell Sun reporter that I was involved in those deals which is why he sought to recall me. If you don't believe me ask Rita Savard. You may call the Stanways classless but it is truly classless to make false accusations and refuse to correct the matter.
Phil stanway
4:56 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Camillie, Van Liews allegation that I was in a back room deal with a selectman and a logging company is a lie. He knows it and yet he will not remove it from his web site. I asked him if he would remove this lie the matter would be over. A sad attempt to use logging plan submitted to the entire committee as an example of forestry as a plan for Oak Hill is insulting to residents and myself. I have said for months to either "prove it or remove it". His response is instead to say I have something to do with wanting to build on Oak Hill? More nonsense. He is aware that if you google me this will appear and by naming it "Phil-Stanway" it appears higher on the google list and I have to explain this to people who look into myself or the COSS Program. Why when this is a total lie would he not just remove it? I will continue to fight to clear my name on this until it is removed. As I have said over and over once this is done the matter is closed. Why did I tell him to go to the chair? Easy it was an allegation of wrong doing and I wanted it dealt with at once. It was and found totally groundless. fighting to clear your name on a lie is not classless.. Why if this was a allegation of misconduct would he not name the selectman or the logging company? Its easy they do not exist except in his mind. Again Mr Van Liew if you remove this allegation this matter is closed... however I will never support you for town office.
Jeff Apostolakes
10:07 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Phil after reviewing the interaction yesterday I found it interesting that I believe James asked for the name of the selectman accused of a logging deal in the works with you be named. Would have been a perfect opportunity For RVL to expose this selectman given the upcoming election. I am sure people would want to know and take action. So my question is "RVL is running on a platform of Good and Honest" Why would he not then be honest with James and answer the question. I for one would love to know which selectman was involved in the purported inpropriety. Holding back information is anything but good and honest
Andrew Sylvia
9:18 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Comments have been deleted due to violations of the terms of use. If a comment is nothing other than an insult of another user, it's gone. I've been asked by readers to take a hardline on this, and that's what I'm going to do.
Rob C.
10:12 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
Camille,
The Stanways are classless? How So?
Roland just admitted yesterday that he was "Misquoted". It took him this long to admit that. I don’t believe that is the case, I believe he was correctly quoted and is now looking for a way out. If I was misquoted by a newspaper in such a drastic way as he was, I would be demanding a retraction and set the record straight.
All Phil is looking for is for Roland to remove a false accusation of a public figure from his website. Something he could do in 30 seconds yet he refuses to do so. If it was me I would also be demanding a public apology for the false accusations.
If it is not a false accusation, then please release your evidence so that all the voters can see it and make up our own minds.
As for professionalism, the answer of “blah blah blah” is the kind of answer I would expect from my kids. I would not expect this type of answer from somebody running for office when asked to actually answer a question about something that he has made an issue.
I have never met Phil but in my opinion he has done nothing wrong and has shown way more class than Roland has.