64.9 F
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
Home Government Two Step Up for Open Council Spot, Others Say Don't Fill It

Two Step Up for Open Council Spot, Others Say Don’t Fill It

Not too many folks showed up at the American Idol style try-outs for the empty council spot during the Rye city council meeting Wednesday night.

But there were two folks that put their name in the ring:

Julie Killian of Forest Avenue, a 20 year resident put her name in the ring. Killian has a financial background and stated she has served on the Rye Finance Committee and worked with various local groups including the TWIG, library, arts center, historical society and others. She is a big donator to Republican causes (over $14,000 in 2010) and recently held a fund raiser in her home for Joe Carvin, the Rye Town Supervisor that is now running for Congress against Nita Lowey. One concerning item is she appears to be a die-hard Red Sox fan.

Charmian Neary of Midland Avenue, after arguing that the council keep the spot open until election season, said if they did not do this, she would throw her hat into the ring. Neary, a frequent poster on MyRye.com, has background in government including work with Mario Cuomo, Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes, the police union and the State DOT. She said she would only run to fill the gap before a proper election: "I am happy to make it an interim appointment and walk away in January."

Bob Zahm, also a frequent poster on MyRye.com, is not running but also spoke in support of keeping the spot open until the next election cycle.

What do you think? Leave a comment below.

  1. Charmian, good for you! I think you will make a wonderful addition to the Council. While we don’t always agree, I think you will bring a new perspective to the Council.

    Good Luck!

  2. Thank you AC. Disagreement is natural. It’s lock step adherence to party rhetoric that has no place in a small town like Rye.
    Enough with that. Let’s talk about garbage.
    and flooding. and trees. I’m ready.

  3. It really doesn’t matter that Killian was appointed, we all knew this was coming, Keith had her hands in this all the way. All of a sudden Killian shows up for every Council Meeting…..DUH!!!

    Let her have her 5 months of fun & misery, the people will speak soon enough and hopefully there is a worthy apponenent that will win the seat HONESTLY!!!

    And if she passes this test she will surely have to pass another next November. There is no one more experienced in politics in Rye than Steve Otis & Charmian Neary.
    The very simple fact that Killian was chosen after Neary volunteered her services tells us all that the French Administration definitely doesn’t have Rye’s best interest at heart…what a complete joke this City has become!

  4. Interesting if true given that the Mayor said last evening that the Council would make the decision at their next meeting. Also, I was under the [perhaps mistaken] impression that the Council needed to vote [in open session] on a replacement.


    Yesterday I reported here what looked like a local political scoop, published in a front page story in the latest The Rye Record digital edition, indicating that Douglas French had apparently unilaterally appointed Julie Killian to the Rye City Council at sometime other than during the public recorded meeting session last Wednesday night. MyRye.com then contacted Mr. French, who denied that any such appointment had taken place and confirmed that the selection process was ongoing, just as meeting viewers had been told.

    Rye Record Publisher Robin Jovanovich has stated in emails asking about the item that the inclusion of the “Killian Appointed” sentence was in error – but has not to my knowledge said why it was in the story galley to begin with. The “Farewell to Ms. Keith” article has now been revised online and it apparently ran thru the press sometime Wednesday or Thursday (and arrived in mailboxes around town yesterday) with the Keith story front-page and without the erroneous appointment announcement.

    So far so good, but now for the not so good stuff.

    Yesterday several commentators added a range of opinions and perspectives to the “Farewell to Keith” story on the Rye Record web site. Some I didn’t like, some I agreed with, one I took exception to. Here’s that one, from Don Sutherland, a local Republican Party operative I’ve met with, hailing from I think, Larchmont or Mamaroneck –

    “Don Sutherland 2012-05-24 23:34
    It is unfortunate that some cannot break away from their self-imposed partisan prison to exploit every opportunity to demonize those with whom they disagree. Suzanna did a terrific job in Rye, helping tackle some of the City’s big financial challenges. She was also instrumental in working with the community to improve the overall quality of life. Good people on both sides of the political aisle recognize Suzanna’s contributions and appreciate what she has done to enrich the community.”

    As a former backer of the 2009 “Change For Rye” ticket on which Ms. Keith obtained her council seat, I felt obliged to correct Mr. Sutherland’s characterization that those who expose corruption, influence peddling, and other local malfeasance do so for partisan purposes. I posted a comment under my tedc byline expressing this fact and provided a story link to http://www.lausDeo10580.com where on Thursday evening yet another excellently researched and documented example of local lawbreaking was revealed.

    I did not name Ms. Jovanovich’s council member husband as culpable in this latest city code subversion gambit, I did not mention Ms. Keith’s recent “troubles” – only her past participation in the voting block I helped install and now functioning frequently like something not far from a protection racket for select political class members and their paid advisors.

    I awoke this morning to find all comments, including mine, on the “Keith” story string had been permanently removed. Except for one. See the story and comment string here –


    Now I didn’t think I needed to keep a permanent “record” of civil toned, factual and bylined commentary that I take the time to write for local platforms. Residents involved in public debate and who take the time to stay informed and inquisitive should not expect or fear editorial reprisal erasures. That’s not how it works on MyRye, Rye Patch, LausDeo10580 or The Daily Rye (forgot the new name of it). But apparently The Rye Record is changing direction. Admirers of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution – beware.

    But in closing, at least when it comes to hard news, that factual public record stuff, The Record still plays no favorites nor pulls its punches. Just look at the Police Blotter listing for an incident on the night of May 5, 2012. It’s accurate and fair for an item that I suspect the editor found somewhat tough to write and then publish. Read the Blotter here –

  6. Someone pinch me please!
    So Julie Killian has money, a financial background, volunteered on some groups & committees, donates money & throws lavish parties at her home, her daddy started the Soup Kithen in Da Bronx. Up until very recent (when Keith put the fix in) Julie Killian very rarely stepped foot inside City Hall for Council Meetings, she never spoke up in public to back one single pressing issue that was before the Council.

    Please tell me what part above gives us just cause to appoint her this position?

  7. @TedC – I appreciate your point about potential Rye Record selective editing of posts and so took a look at the on-line article. I noted that the article is now dated 24 May 16:40. The date at the “then” sole reader comment is 24 May 23:34. So, I think your fear of selective editing is overdone. What happened was that ALL reader comments were removed as effectively a new article was posted. I see nothing wrong with this approach.

  8. Yeah I saw the same thing Bob. But I didn’t post my (now erased) comment until after the article had already been edited to the condition it sits in now – with the “Killian Appointed” item removed.

    Instead of zapping the commentary section the proprietor could have used a quick dated spacer bar entry in the comments section to demark and preserve the “prior” commentary, and allow fresh dialog to accumulate above it. My comment didn’t refer to a story that got further revised and it wasn’t inappropriate. And I’m thinking that work is gone for good because, unlike Don Sutherland, I trusted the stability of The Record and thus didn’t feel the need to keep a backup copy of my work. Jay never does stuff like this to me or you. He reserves his rare publisher interventions for libel and the like.

    But Don’s a real pro with these political things, he keeps files – we should give him that.

  9. Bob – comments were posted *after* Sutherland’s (he being the paid GOP flack who never reveals his connection to a campaign – flaunting journalistic and campaign ethics). Sutherland’s was left while others were deleted. I did not see the ones before but it is clear that Sutherland was responding to someone, in his usual loopy manner. I did see at least one response to him, which is now gone. You can imagine I was checking this online story to make sure it was corrected. I’m also waiting for an answer as to how it happened in the first place.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here