Sour grapes. You lost, move on.

my vote was also declared "invalid" by the board of elections because my signature "did not match" the one of file. of course, this isn't determined until AFTER the election. what a crock. never had this happen before, so it was very strange to me. personally, I'd like to see a runoff.

This is no longer about what Cwerner believes is "best" for the community. Instead it's about little more than her struggle to maintain power and title. A runoff is a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars that nobody can afford right now. I call on Ms. Cwerner to let cooler heads prevail, get the lawyers out of her ears and allow the will of the people to stand.

Yes I want the "will of the people to stand" and if Cwerner got those votes, they should count.

What is so terrible about making sure every vote is counted? Obviously it is important to Cwerner or else she never would have run in the first place. These procedures are simply a part of the democracy we live in and I am happy she is pursuing things.

For me it was actually a close call between Shah and Cwerner and so I don't feel like I really have a horse in the race. But I'm offended by those who object to Cwerner pursuing a remedy when there is actually evidence of valid votes being disallowed. Shame on all of you.

Perhaps it will turn out that there were just as many votes of Shah's that were lost because of this process, and it won't change the outcome.

"f Cwerner got those votes, they should count" .. indeed.

Andrew you make the most sense. There were two recounts already. This is a volunteer position and she should bow out gracefully. What a horrible example for our children. I'm sure Shah could "find" votes too, but she has too much integrity. Get over it and move on Werner before no one vote for you next year. You lost twice and are wasting taxpayers money.

I didn't vote for Shah either, but I would knock on every door in the township to get support for Shah. People should know how ridiculous this all is. If Cwerner lost a runoff would anyone really believe she would stop?? She has lawyers and taxpayers money. Too bad she couldn't take all this energy and do something productive for the community.

Agree with Fred that every vote should count, and that it's great that the absentee ballots that were improperly invalidated will be examined and counted. That's part of the recount, not just re- adding the numbers. Let the process play out- I don't think it's a personal ego trip. Cwerner has a lot of supporters who want to make sure that the results are correct and who are encouraging this effort. Why in the world would they concede an election they might have won? Why is that a lack of integrity- just the opposite! In a close case, it's important that the results be absolutely accurate, not, let's just declare a winner because we can't be bothered.

The election was over twice. That's the point! She will not stop even if she loses the run off. She will keep this going and going. Once people hear about this, Shah will win in a landslide. Wasting taxpayer dollars because she cant accept she lost to a no name competitor. She's digging her own grave.

I know Bev Cwerner very well and she is not someone who does things simply for power. She truly believes in her job and wants to serve the children of this township. If she earned those votes, she's entitled to them.

As long as it's legal to vote by absentee ballot, it's not legal to tell people that their valid vote isn't going to count because it might cost us money. If people challenge the denial of their ballot on improper grounds, that's their right. If when all the legit votes are counted there's a tie, so be it. Of course, either Shah or Cwerner could concede in that event, or they could both agree to flip a coin, as other candidates have done, but it's not all on Cwerner. Count the votes- that's in the best interest of America.

Not entirely sure how many times I can reiterate the fact that the votes have already been counted. Twice.

Yes, Andrew, they were counted twice. And errors were found BOTH times. What is wrong with seeing justice and having the correct amount of votes being allocated to the winner? Isn't our judicial system based on accuracies and democracy. I feel Cwerner deserves a recount. Since when should ballots be dismissed because someone doesn't think the signature matched?

To those casting aspersions on Bev Cwerner's character and motivation, I would suggest you talk with her someday. I’m confident you’d find your assumptions about her ego and quest for power are far off the mark. Excessive spending? PLEASE don’t ignore that: this board has achieved more for our children with less spent per student than any other in the state -- likely the entire country (see story link).
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/05/best-schools-for-your-housing-buck-business-beltway-greatschools.html

Our board isn’t perfect (it could improve its transparency and communications skills, to be sure), but we’d be foolhardy to undervalue its nationally recognized track record. And to paraphrase Cwerner on the value of our schools to EVERYONE's property values: "Why do you think a 1960s ranch house is worth $800,000 in Basking Ridge?" Ask a realtor.

My opinion (and that’s all it is) is that Priti Shah appears to be an honorable, hard-working citizen who would work hard to learn and serve us well. But Cwerner already has an intimate grasp of the incredibly complex process of negotiating with Trenton, getting the most for our students, and our tax dollar at a time when we can’t afford to lose ground.

It’s not about counting ballots one more time or 'finding' votes. It’s about real votes that might have been improperly dismissed. This election shows how important every single vote is. That lesson alone is worth it. Let’s get this one right, okay.

Actions speak louder than words, Mark. I'm sure Ms Cwerner is delightfully charming, a wonderful mother and a concerned citizen in her private life. However, her actions show her to be a power hungry, bitter and very sore loser.

I've said before that I supported NEITHER of these two candidates for election to the board in the April elections. I have no preference for one's platform over the other so your campaigning on Cwerner's behalf is wasted on me. I am speaking only to her actions AFTER the election. They reek of someone who is desperate to cling to power she assumed would be hers for years to come. Let us not forget that this is an unpaid position.

If she'd like another shot at the job she is welcome to run again next time. Just like everyone else.

I just read this thread and cannot believe this has landed in the hands of the court. Clearly Andrew and Sarah are objective commentators. Clearly it's all about how far she will take things until she wins. Until that goal is achieved, it will not stop. If Shah "finds votes" which I'm sure cannot be too hard after the fact, will this keep going on until one "finds" the most votes? I'm sure Shah is now paying exorbitant amounts of money to procure an attorney while trying to focus her efforts on her current volunteer job. Shame on Cwerner for being a sore loser. To think I voted for Cwerner. If there is a run off, i will not vote for her and will persuade EVERY SINGLE PERSON I KNOW to do the same. Cwerner has shown her true colors. She doesn't care about fair, she cares about winning. She will stop at nothing to make that happen. She will drag this out until next year's election if that's what needs to happen. It won't stop unless she wins. It has nothing to do with fairness. She will find a problem with every step that doesn't land her as winner. She's done it twice already and is armed and ready with lawyers.

There were many irregularities in this election, and have been in the past, and that is a problem. It is not acceptable that people's votes are not counted, that their ballots are erroneously rejected, that people are turned away from the polls without having voted (happened this year, has happened in previous years). This comes from the lack of proper training of poll-workers, and has been a problem for a while. Poll workers, by law, are ALWAYS supposed to allow people to vote with a provisional ballot (even if that "ballot" is a slip of paper), no matter what. In this community, people have been told "go home and come back later, we've run out of ballots" (wrong), they've not been allowed to vote provisionally, and I know someone who's vote last year was rejected because his signature did not match the one on file. He was furious.

In my opinion, when a vote difference is incredibly small - 4 votes - then it should be required BY LAW that a re-count is done, because there is a significant probability that there are errors in the voting. Bev Cwerner should not even have had to pursue it herself - re-counts should happen automatically by the county when the vote difference is tiny because of the sheer noise and error in our voting system. This is the only way to ensure fair elections. And if votes are not perceived as fair, then faith in our democratic system is diminished.

Do we or do we not want to know who REALLY won the election? Isn't that important?

By the way, every vote was not counted twice...my wasn't counted even once. I really don't care who wins or won this election, I only think it's fair that my vote (and the entire ballot) be counted. So for all of you saying that the election is over and every vote was counted so just get over it, it's easy for you to say because YOUR VOTE WAS COUNTED.

I'm confused - aren't we supposed to count all votes in an election? When a vote is contested (because the difference in votes is within a reasonable confidence level of error), shouldn't ALL votes then be counted? Why should we stop counting votes at some mid-point and just give up? During this re-count, ballots were found that were erroneously rejected. That means that votes made by real people were thrown out BY MISTAKE. Why do some of you say that those votes should not be counted? I really don't understand that reasoning. We know for a fact that two votes for Bev Cwerner were rejected by mistake. That means we know for a fact that the vote was a perfect tie. How can some of you then say that Priti Shah is the winner?

The sheer fact that legitimate votes are thrown out is reason for ALWAYS having automatic re-counts when the vote difference is extremely small. When the vote difference is large, we can assume that the errors that naturally occur in any election are probably not enough to sway the result, so no re-count is necessary.

But when the vote difference is statistically tiny (4 votes out of 2,384, or .08%) , then, given all the errors in the election process, I can not feel confident that the true winner has been selected until ALL the votes have been counted. This is the way I feel about every election, not just ones where my candidate won or lost. It's very important in any democracy that people have confidence in fair elections.

So let me get this straight. In your first post, your only concern was fairness. You insisted that "every vote should count". Now, as long as there's a big enough margin, not every vote counts.

Got it.

What you are implying is that despite TWO different county certifications of the vote that deemed Shah the winner that you are in possession of insider knowledge that show Cwerner to have tied. No other count shows them tied at all so I would suggest you check your facts or reconsider carefully your statement. Otherwise, please show me where anyone has stated or shown that this election is actually a tie.

The reality is that no amount of bickering online is going to solve or prove anything. In my mind Bev Cwerner has, at last, shown her true colors. While her words point us in one direction her actions show us something quite different. I am resigned to the fact that this election will likely end up in the hands of one person - a judge - rather than in the hands of the people where it truly belongs (and has already been decided). Rest assured that while I supported neither Shah nor Cwerner in the BOE election, I plan to invest as much money and time as I am able in the Shah campaign should a judge decide in that direction.

The best leaders know when to follow. And Cwerner should prove that by stepping aside.

So, Andrew, despite your not supporting Shah up to this point, you'll now invest as much money and time as possible to support her simply because you're annoyed with Cwerner? Where is the logic in that?

Gosh, Andrew, you're so angry at Bev Cwerner for requesting a re-count - are you angry at every candidate in the United States who requests a recount when election results are very close?

It's really simple - vote margin is .08% of total votes cast. Many states have AUTOMATIC recounts when vote margins are .25% or even .5% of the total votes cast. The candidates don't even have to request the recount - it happens because with a margin so small, it's possible that election errors are masking the true result.

So we have a recount going on here, which is a process - first the machine ballots are re-counted (check for machine error), then the absentee ballots (check for user error), then the provisional ballots (check for user error), then the rejected ballots (check for user error). Go through the process, get a clear picture of the votes that were intended by voters, calculate the true result. Why should this process be so offensive to some people?

I'm not annoyed with her. I am concerned with someone so desperate to cling to power. Show me an example in the modern day world where someone so vehemently opposed to losing power has ever had a positive agenda for their citizens.

So yes, I will use all of my abilities to oppose someone who has demonstrated an almost unnerving inability to let go of title and power.

Andrew, not sure what you mean by this: "What you are implying is that despite TWO different county certifications of the vote that deemed Shah the winner that you are in possession of insider knowledge that show Cwerner to have tied." I simply read this Patch article which said that after doing a recount of the machine ballots, provisional ballots and absentee ballots, the count remained at a 2 vote difference. In the article: "If a state Superior Court hearing upholds Cwerner's contention that two absentee votes were "erroneously" rejected as valid by the Board of Elections, then the election would be tied..."

"Cwerner's contention" does not a fact, make.

Anyway, great discussion. I'm glad to have participated with everyone and respect each opinion present here, despite many that I disagree with wholeheartedly. However, I feel that I've essentially said as much as I can on these message boards and do not wish to become someone who drones on, repeating talking points.

If anyone wishes to continue the discussion I welcome it. Feel free to email me: milldel79@yahoo.com.

That's why the judge gets to decide in accordance with statutes designed for this very purpose. And if there is a runoff, Andrew, Shah would be ill advised to associate her campaign with someone like you who doesn't believe in the electoral or judicial laws of this country and personally attacks a candidate for legally pursuing their rights- that truly would make a difference to a lot of people.

I agree wholeheartedly with the people who feel that we should let the process run its course. From what I have read, it seems that legitimate votes for Cwerner were tossed out. The reporting so far has seemed to indicate that faulty handwriting analysis may be at the root of the problem. If that is the case, it is certainly not Cwerner's fault.

Whether I voted for her or not (which I am not divulging), I know she has been a very hard-working board member. She has invested a significant amount of her time in what must be a fairly stressful endeavor, and I think she is well within her rights to make sure the vote is counted accurately. I think it is very easy for people who may never themselves have done anything of significance for the community to complain and call "sour grapes."

It is unfortunate that there will be extra cost involved. (Of course, if our local clerk of courts would allow school elections to be held in the schools, then that cost could be minimized.) If a run-off must be held because it is determined that Cwerner votes were incorrectly thrown out, it is no more her fault than it is Shah's if they are tied after the ballots in question are reviewed.

Why would someone go to the trouble of hiring an attorney for a volunteer BOE position? I hope it is her money paying for it. What an absolute waste of taxpayer money! I'm with Andrew, Sara, Jim and whoever else thinks this is absolutely ridiculous. She asked for a recount, got it, didn't like the answer and will go to thees lengths for a volunteer BOE position. I will support all efforts to get Shah elected, if it comes to that.

Andrew you're right to sign off -- no logic in the world will sway the discussion. She will not stop the lawyers or the process until she is deemed the winner. I will email you and join you with dollars and resources too. Let's hope it doesn't get to that. I spoke with dozens of people including a few of the none candidates and the majority of them will go above and beyond to support Shah. I will be signing off too and will be on touch.

This is what you've spent your Memorial Day vacation doing? Enough of this back and forth already. How about thinking about the people who lost their lives for us to live in this FREE country.

Give it a rest with the back and forth, what will be, will be

What nobody has mentioned is that it costs taxpayers a lot of money to train a new board member. The training is extensive and intense. Cwerner has been on the board for years and knows the ins and outs. There will be no learning curve. If voters want her on the board--and there are MANY of us who do--it will save us money in the long run to keep her.

What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I voted for both candidates. If we vote again then I will vote for Shah. If the vote counters were consistent and fair with their methodology then we should go with their final tally. And I disagree with the argument that we should keep Cwerner because she knows the system. There's another new board member so they can be trained at the same time. I have attended a number of BOE meetings, and while I liked Cwerner -- she asked many more questions and I don't ever remember her providing many answers. So I don't see her as a BOE leader. To be honest, I always felt that she was still learning too -- which is fine, but that doesn't support the argument that she was up to speed.

I think she should run in the next election; however, if it were MY vote that wasn't counted, I would be screaming and yelling until it was counted. It is not a waste of taxpayer dollars to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised as it appears has occurred here. Spend a few minutes thinking about how you would feel if your vote were tossed because your 20-year old signature differs from your signature today or some poll worker didn't follow the correct procedure. I know how I would feel.

Hmmmmm.... Wonder why would anybody wait until the last day to ask for a recount, pay the lawyers hefty fees to het a recount (unless the lawyer is doing it for free), not be satisfied with two recounts and still asks for another recount/re election at the cost of tax payers money (unless she is funding the re-elections) as she is so desperate to serve the community.

Tax payers who are concerned about your money getting wasted in such matters please send out an email to Valerie G. requesting her/the judge to try and stop our money getting used for the recount or the re-election. Also, people should realize Mrs. Shah is already trained as she got sworn in with the other members so the money is already spent. If Cwer er is so concerned about helping the community she can still do it by taking up another voluntary position at any of the schools or the BOE (that is still available).

This election has become a joke. Is Cwerner really working for the community or more interested in her own future? Agreed that several people want Cwerner but the verdict is out and more people voted for Shah.

Ms. Cwerner needs to search from within herself and find why she is causing this (unbelievable) circus. Cwerner, on a daily basis, is generating much discussion, within our community, about her true intentions for serving on the BOE. What is it that is so important to/for her to be in THIS (BOE) position?

If Cwerner is a person of integrity, and has the best interest of the children, the taxpayers and another human being that is trying to serve the community as an elected volunteer BOE member named Priti Shah; Ms. Cwerner would CONCEDE NOW.

Wow- the more some of you folks launch these personal attacks against Cwerner to try to pressure her withdrawal makes me wonder why you are so reluctant to allow a judge to rule on the case of the two voters who had their absentee ballots rejected. Is this an effort to suppress the legitimate vote? Are you afraid your candidate would lose in a head to head run-off? This professed outrage is so disproportionate to what's actually happening- this isn't exactly Gore v. Bush. Something is fishy here...

Hey if Cwerner can fight for what she believes is right, i would want her in Trenton on behalf of our schools....

Am I the only one who smells something "fishy" here with this situation. This a volunteer postion, why the fight to keep it? Cwerner is "lawyered up". Her attorney is Kevin Orr, isn't that the same name of the chairman of the Planning Board? Does anyone else think this is avery cozy situation? Are a few members of the school and/or planning board afraid that their tight circle are in jeopardy? Perhaps we can get a investigation going as to who else is in on this? Which group of school board members vote in lockstep? Which no bid contracts get approved year in, year out, that mostly invisible to tax payers? Any other "funny" business??? Come on, lets start googling who's who and see what else we can find out. This is whole situation smells....

Lets keep counting....and counting.....and counting.....and counting.....and counting................ and counting ...............and counting.

Mail in votes are not "2nd class votes", they count equally as those votes taken at the polls. They are generally used by people who cannot or will not miss time at work to vote, those who cannot leave their home, those away for business or pleasure, and military men and women who are elsewhere in the world....preserving the right to vote.

2nd class votes? ridiculous.

by the way, there has never been ANY screening when I have voted at the polling booth. They just ask my name......no I.D. or verification. Pretty easy to vote multiple times, if you wanted to.