John Friedman and Bob Rasner took the idea of transitioning to a City Manager-Council form of government in Hudson to the Hudson Farmers' Market today, handing out brochures and talking with people at the market's Community Table.
Regarding the pair's presence at the market, Rasner told Gossips:
This effort was simply to meet more citizens and explain our proposal. We were busy from the moment shoppers arrived until closing. Although most asked if they could sign a petition today to get the process formally underway, that was not the purpose of today's effort. Petition signing begins next week. Brochures explaining City Manager/Council form of government were available. Visitors were quick to offer their opinions and support. It was a good morning for our volunteers and visitors alike. Again, our petition drive begins next Saturday at the Farmers' Market.
The content of the tripartite brochure distributed today is reproduced below. (Click on the image to enlarge.)
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
🗳️ Many wanted to sign the petition today... but could only sign the newsletter at this time.
ReplyDelete🤓 Since I am not one of the organizers, I took the time to read the redline Charter Reform proposal for the first time today. I have to say that the authors went above and beyond to make only the absolute minimum changes possible.
📝 99% of edits are simply the word "Mayor" crossed out and replaced with "City Manager", and then the already mentioned single paragraph change outlining City Manager qualifications, and the Council shrinking from 11 -> 5 elected leaders.
If this were an effort by career-politicians they would have snuck in all sorts of self-serving details and defaults.
👏 It was noticeable (at the Farmer's Market) that only one person expressed opposition to the idea... and dozens expressed unsolicited, vocal, and enthusiastic support.
🙃 In a way, this is Kamal and Tom's legacy... finally uniting Hudson, but perhaps not in the way that they had hoped.
Long live democracy.
Go 🐳!
Time to shake the tree. The anointed king politico posing as a Dem while cooking breakfast at the Republican barn are ending. No more games. We deserve honest elected officials. Chickens are roosting!
ReplyDeleteCount me in.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reviewing the John Friedman Charter Revisions for the City of Hudson.
ReplyDeleteIn a relevant bit of news, Cambridge MA is, after 80 years, debating whether a City Manager system is best for them.
I had become aware of Cambridge MA because I knew that they had chosen to formalize deliberative democratic practices - resident assemblies.
What I wasn’t aware of was that this had come out of a Charter Review Commission - a Commission that was also actively rethinking it’s City Manager system - and debating shifting to an Elected Mayor system.
NUmber one, how beautiful to see a city convening a formal body to engage in lengthy public discussion about how best we, as a community, are to be governed. I find this admirable.
The committee ended up split on which system is better. Both sides agree they want professional management of the city, but disagree on whether the top leader should be elected by voters or chosen by the City Council.
Those opposed to the current “Council/Manager” system, shared 8 points in favor of changing to a “Elected Mayor” system. They argue that an Elected Mayor system, when compared to a City Manager, enhances democracy, and creates the possibility for bolder action.
In “Enhancing Democracy”: they argue that letting people vote directly for their leader is better than having officials pick a manager. Voters, especially from underrepresented groups, would have more power to influence how their city is run.
“While we understand that some residents and members of the Committee believe that the administration of the City should be “depoliticized”, we think that the “depoliticization” of city governance ultimately means there is less ability for residents of all types to have real impact on important City decisions.*
And, in “Possibility for a bolder agenda,” they argue that an elected Mayor would make bigger changes to help the city than a hired Manager. They believe that if residents could vote for their leader, they would pick someone who would take stronger action on problems like affordable housing, climate change, and public transit.
“Direct accountability to the voters will in some instances allow for a bolder executive branch than exists with a city manager form of government. Unrelated to any particular city manager, a city manager may have some implicit incentive to perpetuate the status quo and not to urge bold action on the part of the City and its many division heads who implement policy.
The debate over how bold to be and what risks to take is critical; but true debate is most meaningful when people truly have the power to determine the debate’s outcome – in this case through the power of the vote.”
http://rwinters.com/CharterReview/
Peter -
Delete🐎 Do you want to take our horses, ride at dawn, and go warn the Cantabrigians to avoid a Mayor system.
💡Oh wait, not necessary, the proposed new system (which will likely not pass there in Cambridge) STILL HAS A CITY MANAGER. (See your own reference and your own quote "Both sides agree they want professional management of the city")
🚇 They are just considering adding a mayor…. and it has more to do with their local squabbles with the City of Boston, and the fact that Cambridge MA is really just the MIT and Harvard endowments of $80 billion with a small city around it. They need a point person to manage the elephants in their neighborhood and much of this relates to the Boston Red Line (the T, managed by a State agency) breaking down recently and other skirmishes.
Catskill is not beefing with Hudson and Cambridge's population is 24 times greater than Hudson's and their budget 45 times larger.
Cambridge's proposed change is more like a company adding an Executive Chairperson to deal with external investors to save the CEO time to run the company.
🏳️🌈 And I say this as someone who has had a foot on the ground in Cambridge for 20+ years. I was one of the 3 dozen people at the Cambridge City Hall on May 17th, 2004 when the first same-sex couple walked out married.
Your argument, my friend, is inconsistent.
1️⃣ On the one hand you say today you want, or suggest we consider, a mayor that is directly elected. "Direct Democracy".
2️⃣ But then you argue for a Citizen Assembly, i.e. a subset of residents chosen at random to deliberate on behalf of the greater population. "Participatory Democracy"
Which is it? Which of those two is better for Hudson?
When I look at the evidence I see that a Mayor system has failed us utterly. For decades.
Maybe if you ran for mayor 6 years ago it would have been different. If I were in Hudson, and if I could have voted, I would have voted for you in that election. But you didn't run for mayor and to the best of my knowledge you have not run for the Council. If even someone as kind and thoughtful and invested as you are does not want to get into Hudson politics then something is horribly wrong and toxic.
🚀 Let's pass the City Manager Charter Reform… let's stop wasting money and time… let's get back to our lives.
Go 🐳!!
🙃 p.s. By calling this democratic resident-led organizing committee, that brought the City of Hudson the Fair and Equal campaign, amongst other multi-decade contributions, after one person (John Friedman), in your opening line no less, you are following in Tom and Kamal's footsteps by playing identity politics. You are doing their bidding and trying to frame this collective effort unfairly. Like Tom did when he said, on the record in the "press" that the organizers are non-resident.
You can do better man.
You know the organizers, some of them are family of yours. And you also know, and the City will see, that there are people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, working on this, from a diversity of backgrounds both mutable and immutable.
I am hosting a dozen person event today with a group of people that is so "diverse" that it will make a United Colors of Benetton ad look like Finland.
But it should not matter… all that matters is one resident, one vote. Your character, choices, and conduct. Not your melanin, age, or birthplace.
If you want to debate the merits and best use of Citizen Assemblies why don't you and write Op-Eds on it and publish it on www.HudsonCommonSense.com? These comment sections are too narrow for our wide ranging conversations. 😜
Cambridge is a fine city to look up to, I’ve cited them in my comments here as well. But they are a very fortunate and privileged city with a very high median income, education and resources. So look to them for ideas, sure, but replication of everything they are able to do may not be possible here.
DeleteAlso, if they were to add a mayor to their already established and very professionally run city manager system, for the reasons mentioned by FNI, it would now just be similar to what our grassroots charter reform group is proposing.
At first, I did not see a reason to still have an elected mayor if we switch to a city manager. We only need one chief executive. The “plan” I always envisioned would be that the council member chosen to be the chair and presiding officer could just be called the “mayor,” (what they currently do in Cambridge, if I recall). But, as you both mention in your posts above, there is value to an elected mayor that would function as a “head of state,” to compliment the city manager as the “chief executive.” Kinda like the president of France vs the prime minister, etc. This person could take the role of a statesperson, advocate and cheerleader for Hudson, while the city manager can effectively run the day to day and provide services to the citizens, under the direction of the council. I’ve come around on this and it shows the charter reform group put a lot of thought in their proposal.
As for these Citizen Assemblies… I don’t think one in Hudson would function the way Peter would hope for. Sure, maybe in Cambridge where the average citizen has a master’s degree and is fairly knowledgeable about civics and public goods. But you should also consider the Community Board system in NYC. These neighborhood based groups of citizens are known for being quite regressive, nimby and anti-pedestrian/bike. And if you look at the general vibe of the people on our own Facebook “community boards” I think one can generally predict how a citizen assembly would behave in Hudson: “change is bad, more parking, no pedestrian improvements, don’t build anything new near me, no no no.”
My congratulations to John and Bob. Good luck. --peter meyer
ReplyDeleteThank you Peter.
Delete