I have made no secret of my support for the current citizens' initiative for charter change. I have been advocating in one way or another for more professional governance of our city for quite a few years. As I noted in my post introducing the initiative back in November, "An Idea Whose Time May Have Come," in 2007, I undertook a small research project designed to test if there were advantages to having a city manager. I recall telling Michael O'Hara, who in 2007 was running for mayor, that I thought one of his goals, were he to become mayor, should be to advocate for a transition to a city manager/council form of government. I had similar discussions with Rick Rector when he was mayor.
Despite being quite honest and upfront about my position on the issue of charter change and my support for the current initiative, I received the following email this morning from someone identifying him/herself only as "The Hauntsman" and "A Neighbor."
Good morning Ms. Osterink.
I have been diligently reading the many articles you have written and links you've shared regarding the attempt at changing Hudson's charter. I understand that you have encouraged your readers to sign the petition, and vote for the change should it make the ballot. That is, of course, fully within your rights. However, there are other viewpoints being expressed--in writing--by our friends and neighbors that you have not (yet) shared. I don't know if this is simply because you are unaware of them, so here are links to two op-ed pieces; one published in the Register-Star last week, the other posted to IMBY (written by Peter Frank) just yesterday.
Now that you are aware of them, I wonder if they will be posted on your blog. I am increasingly confused as to whether you yourself consider Gossips to be "journalism" in the more formal sense; many of your readers seem to, or at least they do when it suits them. I have not noticed you dissuading anyone from the notion, which of course is not your responsibility, but your writing style (the third person "Gossips," suggesting that it is more or other than just you) muddies those waters. One thing that proper news sources do is provide information that they themselves may not necessarily agree with about stories they're covering, as the mandate is to inform the public. Perhaps you feel this urge, perhaps you do not. We shall see.
In the meantime, I will be letting our neighbors know that you have received these links directly. If these articles do not appear on Gossips, we will know that it was not an oversight, but a pointed decision.
Best,
A Neighbor
For everyone's information, I read the editorial in the Register-Star when it was published and saw no reason to link to it. Peter Frank sent me his opinion piece yesterday evening, and I had not yet decided what I intended to do with it when I received the anonymous email early this morning. For those who want to criticize me for not highlighting the links in the reproduced email in color as other links on Gossips are highlighted, I tried to put them in color but for some reason the platform would not allow it. I have, however, confirmed that they do work. For those unclear about the relationship of Gossips to "'journalism' in the more formal sense," I recommend you listen to my interview with Mat Zucker on Cidiot. It's Cidiot Episode 107.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
I for one, agree with Peter Frank.
ReplyDeleteI'm for thoughtful charter reform and a city manager form of government.
That said, I can't support the initiative that has been put forward because it's a mess: the revisions are a poorly formulated, self-contradictory, frankenstein creation.
It's unfortunate that the authors rushed forward and started collecting signatures before accepting feedback to the text or looking to peer cities like Ithaca for best practices.
Let's do this right. Hudson deserves better.
I encourage you all to read Peter Frank's analysis.
Nathan Woodhull
I also agree with, and appreciate, Peter's work and perspective on this version of the charter reform proposal. The defaults Peter identified seem to indicate that this document is DOA.
ReplyDeleteGiven that, I think it's fair that readers might question the relationship between this blog's personal opinion, and the information it chooses to share. Reading Peter's findings and having any sort of misgivings about whether or not to publish them is very, very revealing.
Peter raises many valid points, several of which were already brought to Friedman’s attention when this issue first went public. Friedman has been clear in his belief that salaries like Tullo’s could be redirected to fund a city manager position. They can't and won't, he responded that well they are just citizens forcing the change and council will have to deal with implementing the ill-defined mess. further, rather than welcoming feedback and refining the proposed charter change to build broader support, his response often veers into an accusatory routine—let’s call it "Mambo No. 5"—where he casts criticisms as coming from his enemies under cover of anonymity.
ReplyDeleteBut hey, maybe I’m just Monica, Rita, Tina, Sandra, and so on… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK_LN3XEcnw
The fact that there’s an expectation by some for Gossips to be the newspaper of record for Hudson speaks volumes to the current dire state of local journalism. Carole curates a blog that, while probably being the current best source for local gossip and the goings on of our government, as well as a valuable archive of recent history; it’s still someone’s personal blog that is shaped by their own personal views and has an obvious editorial slant. Omissions on what gets covered could be attributed to an editorial slant or that fact that it’s a one-woman show and everything can’t be covered.
ReplyDeleteI don’t see the big deal about the Register-Star’s editorial not being shared. For those few who actually took the trouble to go beyond the paywall to read it would maybe feel the same as me when I read it. Which is to say it didn’t really say much of anything or take a strong editorial stance. This so-called editorial makes no clear statement beyond the basic premise that proposed substantial change to our system of governance should be made with a strong case. Similar to the idea from Carl Sagan that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I think most of us would agree with this premise, that a robust debate is warranted. Whether or not you like their timing, they are facilitating that debate. Hardly a “gotcha” statement of opposition that some online were making out to be.
That being said, I found Peter Frank’s op-ed fair, insightful and informative. It was refreshing to read his well researched thoughts and comparisons to the structure of other city’s reforms. I encourage everyone to read it. While I 100% believe we need reform and a manager-council system is the direction we need, the current reform proposal is not perfect. No system is. Peter brought light to many of the concerns I had. From hearing their process I think the drafters of the proposal intent was to make structural improvements but altering the existing charter with the least possible change in language. I think there’s an honest and good faith argument by those who don’t care about the personalities of either “side” of this that two things can be true: Reform is needed, and soon. Also, this proposal still needs work.
The Charter Reform folks have done us a great service. As Carole points out, many have been talking about modernizing the charter or the possibility of a city manager. But until now it’s all been just talk. This group of citizens took action and utilized a constitutional process to force the city and its citizens to think and react. The reason I signed the petition is because I want to see it on the council’s agenda. I want them to research and take a stance. Everybody’s talking about it now and that’s a good thing. There’s been a noticeable vibe shift in Hudson and we’re moving past acceptance that Hudson is just the way it is and the systemic dysfunction that comes with it. So bring on the referendums, council debates, and even a citizen’s assembly. Exciting times ahead.
Well said.
DeleteThe one irrefutable argument that Peter makes is that the petitioners cannot at this point incorporate any feedback they receive. That's the nature of petition by initiative where the proposal gets cast into stone the moment the first signature is collected.
There is still an option but it would depend on the Common Council. They can act on the proposal, modify it and put it on the ballot.
Peter makes other arguments that I find harder to agree with. To him, the lack of the introduction of an appointed Chief Financial Officer is enough not to support it.
As he pointed out, the proposed charter is unorthodox in that it prescribes all of mayor, city manager and council president at the same time. Cities with a city manager generally only have either a council president or (more commonly) a mayor.
You always need someone to sit at the helm of the council, just for the purpose of running the meetings sensibly. The council would elect that chair from amongst themselves.
A mayor still has value in several capacities: He is pretty much the only elected official that is elected city-wide and not per ward (the other one being the treasurer). That makes him/her an official with a somewhat broader view who is supposed to advise the council as it is developing a legislative agenda.
Carole: There's always been this strange misconception that for something to be called journalism it needs to be free of any bias.
ReplyDeleteIf that were in fact true, neither the NY Times nor the NY Post would qualify as journalistic media. Nor would most if not all other publications.