Another crooked politician taking office... How is it that David Barnett is prohibited from serving as an officer of a public company for 10 years yet is allowed to serve in public office? A public office role where he will have influence in awarding govenment contracts.

Resign David for the good of Springfield.

You forget to mention that he is now Chairman of the Finance Sub-Committee. Springfield is in great hands.

Who allowed this to happen? Why was this deliberately concealed from voters?

The same way Shehady's DUI was concealed from voters.

Small-time politics=small-minded individuals? Let us give the voted-in a chance to do whatever they've been elected to do...'kay?!

Sorry TVOR but there is a huge difference between a DUI charge and a SEC complaint & settlement. It's not rocket science and quite honestly I am surprised and disappointed that more people aren't outraged by this.

If it weren't such a big deal, as Mr. Barnett claims, why didn't he disclose the investigation during the campaign? I'll tell you why, because if people actually knew he was under investigation by the SEC for the magnitude of the charges against him he would never have been elected. What else is he hiding?

We all knew about Shehady's DUI ticket thanks to the evil man who continually posted it on every blog available. But, clearly no one seemed to care about a motor vehicular violation.

I think integrity speaks quite loudly here. If Mr. Barnett had any integrity he would have disclosed the SEC investigation at some point in time between May and November.

Shehady is not at issue here. The issue very simply put, is that someone or some group decided 2 key things: First, that it's perfectly OK for Mr Barnett to run for TC despite a serious matter involving the SEC. Second, that this information is best withheld from the voters. both decisions reflect horribly poor judgement, and call into question whether we now have a TC majority with a ready, fire, aim mindset.

MY NAME IS ZIAD AND I USE WAY TOO MANY ALIAS'S TO LIST! THIS IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET MY POINT ACCROSS LOL.

Kevin( if that is really your name) I find it concerning how you refer to Shehady's DUI as a "ticket" and a "motor vehicular violation". I honestly knew nothing about this and i would say this was effectivrly hidden from voters as well. He SHOULD resign as this speaks to his character and perhaps could reflect a larger problem here. Don't try to minimize this serious criminal offense which could result in fines and jail time not to mention harming innocent people. I do not think many voters ( like myself ) knew about this during the election. Otherwise, he might not be sitting where he is today. Same goes for Barnett. Voice of reason is right- Both should step down. Integrity should matter in Springfield.

Rick h (if that is really YOUR name) I find it concerning that you refer to Shehady's DUI as a "serious criminal offense." Perhaps you should speak with an attorney or read the NJ motor vehicular manual. DUI in NJ is a traffic violation and normally results in the loss of driving privileges for 6 months and various insurance surcharges. It is not even required to be disclosed on job applications. Sure there are extreme situations where jail time is served, but I think we can all agree that Shehady was not in jail. If he were don't you think Bob Groder would have announced it along with the DUI ticket?

Rather than go on and on about this let me put it to you this way. Even with a DUI charge Mr. Shehady is not prohibited from being an officer of a public corporation and can easily be hired by a financial or securities firm. Mr. Barnett cannot.

I disagree with Kevin. If you are going to play the character card a DUI is a big problem for a person in a leadership position. Isn't he also a mentor for the AL boys state? What kind of message does this send to children? It's ok to drive drunk because its only a traffic violation? Ignorant comment.

B, I hardly think my comment is ignorant. If you actually it you would see I was stating that a DUI offense is not a serious criminal offense as Rick h claimed. It is a motor vehicular offense plain and simple. I never said or implied it was ok to drive drunk because it is only a traffic violation. Those were your words.

As to whether or not you or anyone else thinks a DUI is a serious offense that should be disclosed, well that's your opinion to which you are certainly entitled. However, in the eyes of the law, a first time DUI doesn't even compare to the charges in Mr. Barnett's SEC complaint.

Case in point. Bernie Madoff was sent to prison for life because he defrauded investors and created fraudulent accounting records. If he had been arrested for driving drunk he would have had his license suspended for 6 months, paid an insurance surcharge and possibly been required to attend a DUI clinic.

As for the character card, personally I would rather have a politician with a DUI charge instead of one with a SEC investigation and subsequent settlement. But that's just my ignorant opinion.