It is probably healthy for municipalities to consider from time to time whether their form of government is working, and the discussion prompted by Hudson Charter Change could prove helpful. Efficiency, though, is far from the only goal of governance. Accountability, representation and service to the community matter, too.
I am reminded that at the first public gathering about the charter change proposal, Michael Chameides evoked the name of Elon Musk and DOGE in protesting the premise that Hudson would run more effectively and professionally with the city manager/council form of government. What Hudson residents and Hudson taxpayers need to remember is that, over the past five years Hudson's budget has increased by close to a million dollars a year, going from $14,910,741 in 2020 to $19,771,551 in 2025. In 2025, there was a gap of close to a million dollars between anticipated revenues and anticipated expenses--a gap that was closed by taking money from the fund balance, the city's "rainy day" fund. Balancing the budget using the fund balance has been going on for a few years now, and it is not sustainable.
It is also important to remember that of the sixty-three cities in New York, Hudson is sixth highest in per person spending, and among the New York cities with populations of fewer than 10,000, Hudson tops the list, outspending the second highest by more than $1,000 per person. But is the quality of life in Hudson superior to that of the other cities? Proponents of a city manager/council form of government are not advocating for someone to take a chain saw to city services and programs but rather to have someone help us understand why our spending seems so disproportionate compared with that of other cities in New York.
In its second editorial, which appeared on March 19, the Times Union Editorial Board doubles down on its argument that "defanging" the office of mayor and reducing the Common Council from eleven members to five "would significantly reduce direct democracy in the city and might discourage civic participation." They also quote one of Gilson's experts in opining that "it would be difficult to find someone willing to run for an office [mayor] with no influence."
There are valid reasons to fear for the state of democracy in this country, but the proposed charter change in Hudson isn't one of them. Having two people represent each ward doesn't mean better representation. Those who observe the Common Council know the work of the Council is now being carried by only about half of its members. As a resident of Hudson, I would much rather be represented by one councilmember who takes the job seriously, stays in touch with constituents, is informed about the issues, and works conscientiously to serve the community than by two who may or may not show up for meetings or take an active role in dealing with the business at hand. In my opinion, having fewer seats on the Common Council could result in better, more capable representation. We don't have "pure democracy." In a pure democracy, there would be no elected representatives. Since we have elected representatives, the goal should be to have better representatives not more.
The fear "it would be difficult to find someone willing to run for an office with no influence" is something of a straw man. It's difficult to find people to run for mayor now. This year, our current mayor is being challenged by two, possibly three, contenders, but in the past two elections, he ran unopposed. In 2023, he received only 951 votes, although 1,409 ballots were cast. A third of the voters who went to the polls didn't vote for him. (Only about a third of the registered voters in Hudson voted in that election, so in 2023, the mayor was reelected by fewer than a quarter of the voters.)
It's not easy to get people to run for Common Council either. This week is the final week for prospective councilmembers to get signatures on nominating petitions. For a while, it seemed there were not two people willing to run in each ward. Something similar happened in 2023. Decreasing the number of councilmembers by half might not be such a bad thing. One councilmember for each ward means one representative for every 1,158 people. In Albany, where there are fifteen wards, there is also one councilmember for each ward, but with a population of 101,228, each councilmember represents 6,748 people--that's a thousand more than the entire population of Hudson.
The public hearing on the proposed charter changes happens tonight at 6:00 p.m. The hearing takes place in person at City Hall, and it can be accessed on Microsoft Teams. Click here for the link to join the meeting remotely.
The Treasurer made a presentation breaking down the increase in budget. Lots of increased spending comes from grants so that you don’t have to increase taxes to match the spending! This is a great thing! Other big increases are salaries for HPD and DPW, if people want to run on gutting these departments they should say so outright instead of pretending increase in spending is coming from frivolous decisions by whatever public official they don’t like. Don’t believe me? Read for yourself!
ReplyDeletehttps://cms3.revize.com/revize/hudsonnynew/Boards%20and%20Committees/Finance/2024%20Documents/2020-2025%20Budget%20Comparison.pdf
Yeah, I know. I reported on the treasurer's presentation: https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2025/01/where-did-that-money-go.html. That may explain the 30 percent increase in the budget in the past five years, but it doesn't address why Hudson's spending is so much higher than that of other cities in New York.
DeleteI don’t have the data, but would guess that the reasons we spend so much on the areas specified in the presentation give insight to burdens Hudson has that other towns of less than 10,000 people don’t have as much. For example many towns of 5,000 ppl rely on their county for policing, if people want to defund the police and rely on county police, run on that. High DPW costs are the same, we either have a unique infrastructure burden due to density or necessary improvements that haven’t been updated decades. If people want to cut that to make spending more in line with other towns our size then just say that. If people are mad about the budget, say what aspect you want cut instead of hand waving about ineffective council members or mayor, I don’t even disagree that some are very ineffective but find this conversation strange in that people say the budget is out of control then promptly change the subject to a city manager, unless he gets a wand he will be faced with the same budgetary issues and people should be clear and courageous on what, exactly, they want cut to what amount.
DeleteThe one thing I will not subscribe to is the idea of Hudson exceptionalism. Hudson isn't afflicted by a unique infrastructure burden that other cities in NY State magically wouldn't have. I am sure places like Newburgh, Watertown, Amsterdam etc. all have their own skeletons.
DeleteThat said, the city manager is being propped and built up to be the one silver bullet that will solve everything. I agree that in all likelihood you would get a better qualified administrator who is better versed in many administrative and budgetary tasks than any elected mayor would be.
At the same time, I doubt that a city manager can do much about Hudson's structural problems, chief of which are its terrible low-compensation job market and precarious cost-of-living situation that afflicts not everyone in the city but a portion of the population sizable enough that it cannot be ignored any longer.
The proposed charter often gets reduced to the city manager when that, to me anyway, is the less interesting aspect of it. What to me matters more is the change to the council.
This is Hudson's legislator and yet, the one thing is hasn't done is discuss creating any type of legislation that would stop the bleeding. Nor pass legislation of any sort. In my time, they did good-cause eviction and that isn't even something they came up with.
Case in point was the charter reform meeting in front of the council: Who wasn't there? It was the usual four useless suspects. It's ironic that, as hard as it tries, the proposed charter can't fix this either because in tonight's meeting, as per usual, the second and third ward were entirely unrepresented.
Those four members that were absent tonight are incidentally the same four that never respond to an email. At the very least, the new charter would get rid of two of these dumbasses. That's already improvement enough in my book.
What to me should be at the core of charter reform though is how it can be designed such that it is easier for citizens to meaningfully engage with it. A small council is significantly easier and less frictious to deal with than what we have right now, and I speak from first-hand experience.
I also have no problem cutting the number of council members. And we seem to be exceptional, we get residents from neighboring towns who inundate themselves with every note of drama and bit of esoterica.
DeleteMr. Workin, I'd suggest you reread some of the earlier posts in other recent Gossips threads, the charter change website and some of what's been published in IMBY as well.
DeleteTvP is correct in that there's nothing exceptional about Hudson's infrastructure -- either in its nature nor its decrepitude. Some parts are worse than others, of course. The truck route streets come to mind due to the constant beating they take. I don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate for less infrastructure maintenance and improvements.
The issue with the budget is less about the spending than it is the contractual constraints which limit the city's discretionary spending to a mere pittance. Less than $1m annually. The role of a city manager in this case would be, I believe, to help the council effectively spend those discretionary funds. No one can effectively undo the City's existing contracts with its unions which is where most of the budget increases have come from. But eventually these contracts are up for renewal and that means renegotiation. This is likely another area where a city manager's particular educational and experiential background will benefit the council and the city.
Finally, I'd caution against comparing Hudson to towns. Hudson isn't a town, it's a city. As such it has legal obligations to its citizens that towns aren't burdened with. These obligations flow from the state constitution and statutes. Moreover, citizens tend to expect more from cities than towns in terms of services and infrastructure. Add to this the fact that Hudson is the county seat with all that implies as to service provision and the infrastructure to serve it. So what might seem a merely legal distinction, the statutory framework within which a municipality is formed, actually determines in many instances what and how services are provided to its citizens, if any.
The search for any panacea will only lead to disappointment. All legislation is flawed and draws lines that find advocates on both sides. It's inate to both the legislative process and human nature.
The argument in favor of the proposed charter change in Hudson rests on the premise that efficiency is the primary goal of governance and that a city manager would provide a more professional and effective approach to city administration. However, this perspective overlooks critical concerns about democracy, accountability, and civic participation that are fundamental to good governance.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, the claim that Hudson’s current mayor/council system is inefficient fails to recognize that democracy itself is not designed for expediency but for representation and accountability. The editorial board of the Times Union correctly points out that reducing the number of elected representatives diminishes direct democracy. Fewer representatives mean fewer perspectives and voices advocating for the diverse needs of Hudson residents. Consolidating power into fewer hands, particularly an unelected city manager, risks reducing transparency and increasing the distance between government officials and the public they serve.
Furthermore, the argument that Hudson’s spending is disproportionate compared to other cities does not inherently justify a structural overhaul of its government. High per capita spending should be examined in the context of the unique needs and priorities of the city. Is Hudson investing more in public services, infrastructure, or social programs that benefit its residents? The push for a city manager seems to assume that cutting costs is inherently beneficial, without a clear assessment of what trade-offs would be made in terms of community services and democratic governance.
The claim that the Common Council is burdened by inactive members and that reducing its size would improve efficiency is also problematic. If some members are not adequately fulfilling their roles, the solution should be to encourage more engaged participation, not to eliminate seats. Fewer councilmembers mean fewer checks and balances, and fewer opportunities for different community perspectives to be heard. The comparison to Albany, a much larger city, is misleading. Representation should be evaluated based on the needs and expectations of the local community rather than a simplistic population ratio.
Additionally, the assertion that it is already difficult to find mayoral candidates does not justify diminishing the position’s power. Instead, this suggests a need to better support and incentivize civic engagement. Weakening the mayor's role could further discourage capable leaders from stepping forward, as it reduces their ability to enact meaningful change. A city manager may be a trained professional, but they would be accountable primarily to the council, not the voters. This shift risks prioritizing bureaucratic decision-making over public interest.
In conclusion, while it is valuable to assess whether Hudson’s government structure best serves its residents, this charter change proposal raises significant concerns. It prioritizes efficiency over representation, reduces public influence in decision-making, and fails to address the root causes of any existing inefficiencies. Rather than stripping democratic processes in favor of managerial control, Hudson should focus on fostering greater civic engagement, strengthening accountability, and ensuring that elected officials are effectively serving their constituents.
The Mayor received 75 percent of the vote. He beat an incumbent to win the 1st ward then went on to beat another incumbent for the mayor seat.
It's hardly worth responding to such a sophomoric argument. But I have to know: why does fewer council members equate to fewer checks and balances?! Please explain.
DeleteCarole, I have to say that I question if any of the posters above live in Hudson. They are extremely eloquent in expressing themselves which I am not.
ReplyDeleteBut I have lived in Hudson for 22 years and the have never seen a government so unresponsive to the actual needs of the citizens. Aldermen, with a few exceptions ,do not respond or acknowledge emails. The Mayor communicates from a FaceBook page. Zoom meeting audio is useless.
The Common Council president is aggressivly rude.
I was not aware of how much Hudson spends in comparision to other NY cities but I'm not suprised.
Hudson needs a change. The proposed Charter change has my full support, flaws and all.
And a huge thank you to you, Carole, for the public service you provide with this blog.
Pewtetra is an email name. You may know me by Pam Kungle. What is your name, fellow Hudsonians?
I agree 100% - the current set up is bloated with 2 many meetins and committees with no clear path to a common goal of efficency.
DeleteWhen people tell me that a city manager form of governing is no solution or a risky one (I even heard Tom Depietro say it years ago), I ask them if they are satisfied with the Kamal Johnson form of "governing." Hallenbeck, Hamilton, Rector, Johnson -- it simply isn't working! We are scraping the barrel and paying for it year after year after year.
ReplyDeleteThere’s valid concern in these comments about Hudson’s budget issues—but let’s be clear: the status quo is not working. Almost all can agree on that. Finding the small discretionary savings is not the “gotcha” against charter reform—and none of the authors promised any immediate savings. Most agree it will get worse before it can possibly get better. I think the idea is that most agree we’re on the wrong path, and debate how to right the ship. No matter what course it taken, it will take time. Yesterday was the best time to start. The second best time is now. The city doesn’t just have a spending problem; it has a revenue problem—deeply reliant on an unfair and outdated property tax assessment that overtaxes newer property owners, with over $2M in unpaid taxes and no clear plan to recoup. Parking ticket revenue? Lodging and sales taxes? All either unstable or declining. And we’re watching PILOT deals get handed out like candy to developers who give little back to the city in the long term, while the mayor and council president pressures us to support more tax-exempt housing for their developer buddies—without a vision for how to fund the inevitable ballooning infrastructure and school costs (yes more students will mean more school tax assessment well, even though the school board is managed separately from the city government that awards PILOTs).
ReplyDeleteSure much of the recent budget increases are due to grants. But our inefficient executive management has delayed several of these projects, which means we end of getting less work done due to inflation, and we also have to spend our own money to cover the bond interest while waiting for the work to be done before reimbursement.
Meanwhile, the planning board has been allowed to become so dysfunctional it’s bottlenecking projects that could bring actual jobs and taxable businesses into town. And on top of that, we’re being nickel-and-dimed with new fees (hidden taxes)—water, sewer, trash, and now sidewalks—because officials refuse to face the bigger picture.
A charter reform isn’t a magic fix, but it’s an opportunity. The mayor and council president (and half the council) have shown little interest in addressing these systemic challenges head-on. And I don’t need to repeat the accusations and at the very least appearance of malfeasance when it comes to developer/landlords and inappropriate relationships with subordinates. Reform could mean more accountability, modern governance, and better representation—not just a reshuffling of power. No one claims this version to be perfect, but it’s the only thing that has made people pay attention and react.