A Gathering of the First Ward
On Wednesday night, the Hudson City Democratic Committee held a town hall meeting for First Ward residents at the Hudson Milliner. The meeting, which went on for more than an hour, was billed as an opportunity to meet the new First Ward aldermen--Rebecca Wolff and Jane Trombley--and to hear from Sarah Sterling, who represents the First Ward on the Columbia County Board of Supervisors.
Dan Udell was there to record the event, and his video was made available this morning on YouTube. Click here to watch.
At the beginning of the video, there are introductory statements by Wolff (2:12-5:48), Trombley (5:50-13:46), and Sterling (14:06-17:23). If you listen to the end, there are comments about the Hudson supervisors from Fourth Ward supervisor Linda Mussmann (1:06:23), which begin, "I personally am seeking a revolution."
At the end, you can also hear Mayor Kamal Johnson share, among other things, the discouraging news that the literacy rate for third graders in Hudson is 35 percent (1:13:53) and the encouraging news that the DRI Master Agreement has been signed by Department of State (1:15:04), clearing the way for the City's DRI projects to begin.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
By definition this was a partisan event, a fact which prevented its being held in the customary larger venue. For my neighbors and I who take pride in our civic principles, the required RSVP was equally off-putting.
ReplyDeleteA show of hands would've have been nice to see how many in attendance actually live in the 1st Ward, but we've already established that inclusiveness was not the point of this meeting.
I'm not implying there's any coordination, but I can't be the only one who sees the same pattern reflected in the behavior of the Council members who condoned those in the majority party - the same party sponsoring the Ward events - to take part in the choice of a minority leader. (To all appearances, they were less interested in their own majority leader who seemed to choose herself!)
To compound this evident lack of conscience, the same cabal chose not to invite the previous minority leader, though they presumably conferred with their attorney first who provided the desired loophole.
Back to the Ward meetings, who in city government is responsible for allowing these previously government-sponsored events to become private, partisan affairs of the majority party? (And because it would imply a similar motive as the fake minority caucus, did they discuss it with an attorney first?)
It's only mid-January and an unprecedented pattern of exclusion is already emerging in city politics. For obvious reasons, ALL residents should guard against this drift and ask their Aldermen to do the same.
Welcome to Hudson's politics by exclusion.
ReplyDeleteFor students of human nature it comes as no surprise that old wrongs are inevitably replaced by fresher ones. But the rapidity with which the new attitudes are replacing the city's previous politics by exclusion - as perpetuated in the unfair system of weighted voting - is stunning.
There's even subliminal symbolism in this reversal. When the Council's previous minority leader who's from the formerly-privileged 5th Ward was sneakily removed from consideration as the next minority leader, this may have felt like poetic justice to some. But it's the furthest thing from justice. It's just bad poetry!
The Council should refuse to play along, but if cowardice prevails and it's agreed that the minority leader be chosen by a fake caucus, then the Aldermen who previously took no part in the farce will grant legitimacy to the exclusionary tactics of a few bad actors.
(A worrying thought: Does anyone think that naked power grabs are possibly a feature of the "revolution" Supervisor Mussman claims to desire? Surely not, and we should perish the idea at once!)
I agree completely. Was it Mussman’s idea to bully people into this bizarre stunt? If history is any indication than I’m guessing yes. What would the Working Families Party think about their good name being used in this attempt at bipassing democracy?
DeleteOn Tuesday there may be more who are willing to exploit the Working Families Party.
DeleteEvidently the City's ever-unbiased Corporate Counsel, Cheryl Roberts, will interpret each of the involved party's by-laws. Except that when I Google the by-laws of the NY Working Families Party I only find this, from Ballotpedia.org:
"As of March 2016, the rules and bylaws of the Working Families Party of New York were not publicly available."
https://ballotpedia.org/Working_Families_Party_of_New_York
Anyone can claim anything they want about the Working Families Party, and there may be no way to confirm it outside a courtroom.
Hudson will never, ever (ever!) change. It's almost a metaphysical condition, or something.
By law, they are required to be public: The following is a portion of section 2-114 of the NYS Election Law, pertaining to party committees: Election Law § 2-114. Committees; rules of
Delete1. Each committee may prepare rules for governing the party within its political unit. Within ten days after the adoption of any rule or amendment thereto a certified copy thereof shall be filed by the state committee in the office of the state board of elections, and by the county committee in the office of the state board of elections, and in the office of the board of elections of the county.
That's useful, thanks. I feel it's time for outside lawyers to have a look.
DeleteFrom 'The Post Star' in Glens Falls, September 11, 2012:
ReplyDelete"[Cheryl Roberts] is running in a Working Families Party primary against Brenda Mahar of Rensselaer County."
https://poststar.com/news/local/parent-advocates-backs-democrat/article_3c8f82b0-fc3f-11e1-bb56-001a4bcf887a.html
At this same meeting of city Democrats camouflaged as a "1st Ward forum," Supervisor Mussman was very concerned that, at the county level, Hudson should have a single Progressive voice.
ReplyDeleteBut at the local level she recognizes the same imperative: "This is a 1st Ward issue because then there's the minority leader …" (at 1:08:32).
And there we now have a better idea why a new Alderman thought nothing of pulling an unfair stunt like this, and right out of the gate too.
Next, due to the doubtful source of the "interpretation" of the City's crack legal team (Ms. Roberts is a close associate of Ms. Mussman's, allegedly dining together on a weekly basis), the attempted power grab away from last term's minority leader will surely and ultimately involve the entire Council in this mess. And if the issue is to be decided prematurely, possibly as soon as Tuesday, then you can bet on it.
Before it's over, I think that Alderman Wolff may have her first harsh lesson in the importance of keeping good relations with her new colleagues. Ms. Mussman on the other hand is beyond learning.
There should be consequences for public servants who've abused their positions like this.
ReplyDeleteBut when something so unsavory was coordinated by a number of bad actors - any of whom were easily relying on the known opportunism of our new City attorneys - then I fear an unsatisfactory compromise will soon be proffered making those who were caught red-handed suddenly appear as magnanimous. That may even be the preferred narrative for the remaining Aldermen, none of whom (or was it only some?) anticipated any of this.
The "compromise" stratagem is doubly rewarding insofar as it continues to pressure the wronged colleague. At best, though, those who deceived should get the losing end of any compromise; they made their beds and they should lie in them.
If these actors are as shameless as they appear to be, and I'd wager they are, then residents should be on their guards for even more shenanigans. This self-righteous ilk will continually assert itself, deceiving and driving away more modest people from government - those who've genuinely sought the privilege to serve ALL of their constituents.
I'm just astounded at the brass of someone entering a room for the first time and pulling something like this. Can there be any shame in it? How can there be?
I fear this is just the beginning.
DeleteThis 'REVOLUTION' seems to be based on some sort of GOP/Mitch McConnell playbook.
ReplyDelete