Signatures on the petition in support of the citizens' initiative for charter change are now being collected. As regular readers already know, the principal goal of the initiative is to transition Hudson from at a Mayor-Council form of government to a Council-City Manager form of government. The entire proposal can be found here.
The petition will be available for signature at the Hudson Farmers' Market this Saturday, December 7. The farmers' market is open from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at its winter location at the Hudson Elks Lodge, 201 Harry Howard Avenue.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
On the home page of this effort, under the headline, “What We’re Working Toward,” they list 4 actions. One of these is:
ReplyDelete“Building Consensus Through Referendum”
I have looked at all the materials, and do not see any indication that this group proposed any method for actually building consensus.
In an earlier post, I pointed out that this is dishonest.
Because it remains on the home page, days after my post, I thought I would raise the point again.
I encourage anyone to do their own research on the relationship between “referendums” and “consensus,” and “consensus” and “majoritarian,” and “deliberative.”
Referendums are majoritarian.
Consensus is built through deliberation.
Majoritarian processes are not deliberative.
Deliberative processes build true consensus.
So. To be very clear.
To claim that a majoritarian process delivers deliberative benefits is dishonest and misleading.
And, I ask these to be more precise with, either their language, or share a plan for actually building consensus.
“Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay yaaaaa…”
Delete“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
Ok... now I get it Peter... you are secretly an undercover plant by current Mayor Kamal and CC President DePietro to keep the boondoggle and $1m annual deficit going...
DeleteSee Section 11 of the "Simple Sabotage Field Manual". You are literally doing every. single. thing.
https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf
Peter, you've started going off the rails.
DeleteYou are calling into question basic democratic processes and propose that they be replaced with these citizen assemblies that you yourself have repeatedly failed to make happen.
Since we are no longer allowed to use democratic elections and referenda while your proposed replacement isn't becoming a reality, you are effectively an anarchist.
You preach consensus yet you have placed yourself in a corner that is so extremist that you have disqualified yourself as a harbinger of said consensus.
I mean, he’s correct, it’s not really building consensus, which is totally fine. It doesn’t need to be. It must be easy to fedjacket every disagreement you have with people FNI, this isn’t some Trotskyist work group lol people disagree in local politics things, always. To qualify normal and expected disagreement as cointelpro tactics is utterly neurotic.
DeleteFNI, he might also at this point satisfy the definition of a "concern troll". He stopped acting in good faith a while ago, I believe.
Deletehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll
DeleteWhoa, whoa, whoa.
Slow down, fellas.
I’m clearly not doing a good job communicating this.
Let me try again.
I am not against referendums.
I am against claiming a referendum delivers something it does not.
This strikes me as a rather straightforward fix.
The unwillingness to do so is surprising.
Any charter revision has to go to a referendum.
I want charter revisions.
I want a referendum.
But I want a referendum on charter revisions that came out of a more representative and deliberative process.
So. I applaud this group for their efforts.
It’s a good start. But it’s only a start.
And I have an idea on how we can do it.
A few more links for the curious.
Here’s The New Scientist: “How to rebuild democracy to truly harness the power of the people”
“Confidence in politics is falling around the world. Can scientific insights help us create a fairer, smarter foundation for government?”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26435112-500-how-to-rebuild-democracy-to-truly-harness-the-power-of-the-people/
Here’s a story about a citizens assembly in Oregon,
“Can Ordinary Citizens Solve Our Toughest Problems?”
https://www.philanthropy.com/commons/citizen-assemblies-philanthropy
Here’s the American Civic League on “How Participation and Deliberation Combat Polarization:”
https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/how-participation-and-deliberation-combat-polarization/
Fair enough, Peter. Your actual intent did get lost a bit between all the words. I'll therefore rescind some of mine.
DeleteI just had a somewhat unexpected email exchange with Tom that went far better than I would have anticipated given that he of course knows my opinions about him.
In it I explained that as far as I see it, there's a mountain of unsolved problems in front of Hudson's leadership. If too many remain unresolved and untriaged, this city will become even less affordable to normal people, its population will further decline and along with it, its tax base.
There's a strong element of urgency to these. This charter initiative isn't directly proposing solutions to any of those problems but it is proposing changes to its system of governance that increases Hudson's chances to address them.
The pro charter change people are excited about this proposal for different reasons. A lot like the idea of a paid city manager in lieu of a mayor. I do too but what excites me most is the smaller Common Council.
That body would now be small enough that citizens can meaningfully interact with it in a productive fashion. In its current form, that's impossible - I've tried and so have others.
Hudson cannot afford another few years of deliberating changes to the charter - especially not now that we have a very credible and good proposal on the table. That's a proposal by the way that took this focused group of citizens three years to draft.
A citizen assembly is a more consensus-driven process but it is not known for producing results in an expedient manner.
And this is where I hope you can help, Peter: Lobby for a citizen assembly that convenes to draft a fresh LWRP. That's one of those unsolved problems in the aforementioned pile. The last effort failed because it proved to be too contentious. You have the perfect cure for it.
💜 While I appreciate your love and care for precision in speech and writing, my friend... and while I may respectfully disagree with you that a referendum is not a consensus building mechanism... after all many US States and sovereign nations use petitions and referendums extensively...
ReplyDelete🤣 You remind me of James Comey going after a detail while missing the bigger picture... see my previous comment on why the agora / public space in Hudson is not working under mayor Kamal and Tom
❓ Also... and with love...
1️⃣ Where is your website about your proposed Citizen Assembly if I want to read more?
2️⃣ Has current mayor Kamal taken up the effort and answered your various inquiries over the last year? Are any other residents involved at this time?
3️⃣ Why do you think residents may appreciate the nuance that you are driving here when no one seems to understand the relationship between cost of living and property taxes?
From where I am standing... people I have never met are emailing me and DM'ing me to find out where to sign the City Charter petition... and I am not even working on it.
And as an African immigrant, not born in Hudson, am I even considered a resident by Kamal's rubric?
Bob / John - we just got an inquiry about residents who are away on a business trip... can they sign electronically (happy to show City of Hudson tax invoice) or must it be a wet ink signature in person?
ReplyDeleteIn person signatures only.
DeleteMust be in person, with a Hudson registered voter as witness.
DeleteNoted, will send them your way!
Delete💜 My friends, let me tell you something about charterboys—because this is a dynamic I’ve seen time and time again. They can be... a little sensitive.
ReplyDelete🤣 You calmly, respectfully point out that their argument doesn’t quite hold water. And what happens? Oh, they get defensive. They practically admit they’re wrong—though never directly, of course—and then they pivot. They go on the attack. It’s like reasoning with a storm: so much noise, not much clarity.
❓ But, with love...
1️⃣ Where’s the self-reflection here? When did we decide that defensiveness was a substitute for accountability?
2️⃣ Do they really believe this strategy builds trust or strengthens their position? Or are they just hoping no one notices the pivot?
3️⃣ And perhaps the bigger question: How do they expect the public—who are just looking for truth and clarity—to engage meaningfully with this sort of response?
From where I’m standing, it’s not about winning an argument. It’s about engaging with good faith and building trust. We can do better.
Hi John DK!
Delete1️⃣ - please tell me that "Charterboys" is a reference to Bennett's "History Boys"... that would really elevate this here comment section.
2️⃣ Let's make emoji's the norm to overcome Google/Blogger's outdated UI design.
[On Mac, you can add emoji to documents and text fields by using the keyboard shortcut Control + Command + Space to open the Character Viewer.]
Imitation is the greatest flattery...
3️⃣ I hope the public seeks "truth and clarity"... but until last week we have seen mostly apathy... the Charter Contingent, this is Hudson... let's be gender inclusive, is engaging very "meaningfully" in person and online.
https://hudsoncharterchange.com/
re: "engaging with good faith and building trust"
Are you perhaps able and willing, unlike Tom and Kamal, to defend the status quo and make the case for a Mayor-Council system?
⚘ The real change here is not the Charter Reform... but a dozen White Roses blooming... all the independents, as Rasner, confirms.... entering the chat... more coming soon...
Dare I say... with love 💜 ,
FNI
John, note that Friendly Neighborhood Immigrant is not one of “the charter boys”.
ReplyDeleteThat perhaps a lot of interest and much to say on this topic, but does not speak for the team that put the proposal. That group has not entered this debate online.