The Issue of the Minority Leader Put to Rest
Tonight, at its regular meeting for the month of January, the Common Council passed two resolutions relating to the controversial question of who would be minority leader. The first resolution established a process for naming majority and minority leaders. The entire resolution can be read here, but the gist of it is that the majority leader is chosen by members of the majority party, the minority leader is chosen by members of the minority party, but if there are no minority party members on the Council or if there is an equal number of members in two or more parties, the Council president selects the minority leader, and finally, no alderman who is not enrolled as a member of a party can serve as majority or minority leader. Dominic Merante (Fifth Ward), who was minority leader last year, is an NOP (no official party).
Before the vote was taken on this resolution, Jane Trombley (First Ward) asked, "When does the voting for the majority party take place?" She went on to say she wasn't sure the members of the majority party had had an election. Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward) told her they had.
When the Council voted on the resolution establishing the process for designating majority and minority leaders, only Eileen Halloran (Fifth Ward) and Merante voted no.
When the next resolution was introduced, confirming Tiffany Garriga as majority leader and Rebecca Wolff as minority leader, Merante protested, "How this went down was totally inappropriate." He asserted that it was not "fair, equitable, or transparent" and said it "violated trust." Nevertheless, the resolution passed, with Halloran, Merante, and Trombley voting no.
At the end of the meeting, audience member Ronald Kopnicki declared he was not satisfied with the way the issue of minority leader had been resolved. He opined that it was not something that should have been done hastily and said he wanted to see the legal rationale for the policy.
Garriga congratulated Wolff for being the first member of the Working Families Party to hold the position of minority leader and the first in the state to hold such a position. Wolff expressed the opinion that it was important for alternatives to the two major parties to be recognized, even at the local level.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
The issue was "put to rest"? I'd say it was throttled!
ReplyDeleteIf lack of unity is of concern in any vote, then dissension in a vote sponsored by a majority that's aggressively defining the minority must be the most worrying.
Where that vote and the subsequent vote that actually appointed a minority leader were both rejected by the same individuals, then you have majoritarian railroading: "to rush or push (something) through quickly in order to prevent careful consideration and possible criticism or obstruction" (freedictionary.com).
After all, there was no urgency to fill the position. The two affected agencies don't even meet until next month.
But it's more than mere symbolism - powerful though it is - to run roughshod over the 5th Ward's interests. What appears as payback - conscious or unconscious - for decades of weighted voting preserved by the city's Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes (see: Flintstones) is wholly misplaced now that weighted voting has ended.
What happened last night has effectively reversed the former injustice, so that the city's previous majority which is rapidly becoming its minority is to have almost no voice at all. Thanks to the avatars of "progress" who are finally armed with activist attorneys, last night's majority ensured that the No votes of the de facto minority were meaningless.
When the new Minority Leader praised herself as an "alternative" to the nation's two major political parties (as if to rub salt in this farce), wasn't she aware that everybody witnessed her part in the ploy? She'll wear that dishonor for the rest of her term too.
The premier parallel I see between the national scene and Hudson's new political culture is an attitude of "you're in my way so you're dead to me." It was officially launched at a local level last night.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a minority leader develops the minority position, negotiates with the majority party, and leads the debate for the minority. Maybe somebody can explain the significant difference between the platforms of the Hudson City Democrats and the Working Families Party, if any. I'll try not to laugh.
Where any monolithic outlook prevails, special interests have a field day shaping new regulations or getting rid of old ones. What follows such takeovers, typically, is fresh corruption.
Just to be clear, which council members are now members of the Working Families Party? Unless they all spontaneously took an interest in changing parties, I’m guessing that someone organized this coup. Who approached them and talked to them about changing parties, and why? Perhaps in the name of transparency these members could speak publicly about their sudden interest in the Working Families Party.
ReplyDeleteOh, you can bet it was organized!, and with the active participation of one or more attorneys too.
DeleteBut I wouldn't count on people speaking up who feel they owe nothing to the losers (or maybe to them it's just, losers).
I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and to talk to those of us who voted for them about why this wasn’t a naked power grab. We voted for you, why are you leaving our party? Is the platform of the Working Families Party so different than the Democrats? If not, is that actually an “alternative “? Who came up with this plan? Enlighten us.
DeleteLook like L M has it all wrapped up.
ReplyDeleteIt might be helpful for someone - anyone - to provide the oft called for context and specifics with regard to how this all came about.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the responses from those in power - some in power for awhile and those newly in power - refuse to engage in a community conversation. An interesting strategy of just waiting it out. . . until some other shiny object. . .
Susan
The question how it came about has been asked and answered, and in the same way you frame it in your second sentence.
ReplyDeleteAlderman Halloran: "Can we at least get an understanding of how that [caucus] meeting took place? … Was everybody in the same room at the same meeting place?"
President DePietro: "I have no idea."
Alderman Halloran: "Well somebody does [referring her colleagues right in front of her]. Somebody does."
Blank stares and crickets ...
[Translation: Get stuffed.]
Yes, it's disappointing that the crickets continue, that no one long in power, or just-in-power cares to provide an explanation. It certainly undermines their credibility going forward.
ReplyDeleteSusan
In Hudson, honor is dead.
DeleteIf a council member is not part of a political party, how can they represent the minority party? The rule makes sense to me. If you want to lead as a member of a minority party, declare your membership to that party. Seems perfectly logical.
ReplyDeleteThe following comment was submitted by email from John Friedman:
ReplyDeleteThis fight is about 2 things: power and money. The power to vote on certain municipal boards the minority leader sits on ex officio and the stipend that comes with it (maybe $1500 but in the micro-pond of the Council . . . ). That’s the micro policy analysis.
The purpose of the 2-party leaders is to permit caucusing of like-minded individuals on the Council. And it's because the recent actions vitiate this purpose rather than support it that I think the voters have an instinctively negative reaction to the current tempest in a teapot.
Per the report, the alderwoman who identifies as a WFP member (whether she is or isn't is beside the point) is caucusing with the Dems. Electing this person as minority leader by the Council leaves 2 Council members who are substantively in a philosophical minority viz. their colleagues without an institutional voice either in the Council or on the City agency boards the minority leader helps populate. In turn, this has the result of at least partially disenfranchising a portion of Hudson’s electorate. This is why the actions of the Dems and the WFP are anti-democratic in this context and in this instance.
The proverbial nail on the head. Much appreciated.
DeleteThank you John.
ReplyDeleteSusan
I volunteered tirelessly for Gerry Ferraro all those years ago as a then-barely-teenager, and I believed for decades that women would in fact govern differently, frankly, better, more ethically than "the boys".
ReplyDeleteI have been regularly disappointed at many levels of government. That hope that women in power would set the better examples, has been completely snuffed out.
(There is a singular exceptional exception currently seated on the Common Council, but my public support of her and my respect for her values and ethics might do her more political harm than good.)
Susan
Please name the person you are referring to.
ReplyDelete