Last week, Roger Hannigan Gilson published an article in the Times Union about the charter change initiative in Hudson: "Experts question Hudson proposal to create city manager." The article caused quite a stir. Minutes after I discovered the article, I received an email from "The Hauntsman" snidely challenging me to link to it. (I was already preparing to do so.) Opponents of the charter change initiative--Peter Frank, Caitie Hilverman, and others--posted links to it on Facebook, touting the notion that experts agreed with them. What the experts found most problematic with the charter change proposal was the veto power given to the city manager.
Earlier this week, four days after the article was originally published, this correction appeared in the online version of the article:
Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the city manager would have the power to veto legislation passed by the Common Council. The manager can only veto budget reductions.
The updated article can be found here.
It appears the experts consulted may not have read the proposed changes to the charter carefully, or Gilson may have provided them with an inaccurate synopsis of what was being proposed. Either way, we don't really know what the expert opinion of the proposed charter changes would have been had they been working with accurate and complete information.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
The veto issue is one of the two highlighted in the article, but is the only one that proponents of *this* charter change have addressed. I would imagine because the other is spot on.
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of Gossips reader having more than just cherry-picked information (quoting from the article):
'Strome took issue with the mayor not having a vote on the Common Council. In the traditional council-manager form of government, the mayor has a vote on the council and acts as its president, he said. He added it was “most unusual” for the mayor to not have this power and instead have the job of “basically just being someone to run around town and cut ribbons and go to dinners,” suggesting it would be difficult to find someone to run for the position as redefined by Hudson Charter Change'
'Ithaca switched to a council-manager form of government at the beginning of 2024 — though its mayor presides over Common Council meetings and appoints boards and commissioners, powers the Hudson mayor would not have. Ithaca Common Council member Margaret Fabrizio said she had learned it was important that the city manager “delivers impartial, objective information to the council and the mayor,” and that the city manager “covers more than one angle on an issue.”'
Because our proposed amendment maintains an office of mayor as a ceremonial and advisory position, we still keep a council president. This latter position fulfills the role of a mayor in a model without a president.
ReplyDeleteCan you point to any other NYS municipalities that utilize a similar framework, where there are no city-wide elected positions with a vote in the municipality's legislative body? Curious about the inspiration for deviating from typical council-manager forms of government, and what the Charter Review team thinks is beneficial about that deviation.
DeleteGuess not.
DeleteThe City of New York comes to mind.
DeleteChris - why can't the mayor type figure just run for Council if they want a vote on the common council... there is an explosion of paid and unpaid roles in this City and most of government... is that the American Dream?
ReplyDeleteParalysis through bureaucracy, participation trophies, and political patronage... Hudson is the size of a large African high-school... leave the politics for DC / Albany.
re: Carole post on the Time Union Article:
1️⃣ The original article is the definition of misinformation, at least when biased local "community organizers" may now continue to share it until the end of time... after knowing that it contains a major error.
(@Roger, people always mentioned you as the only journalist/writer in the area doing a good and fair job... this is so unfortunate. How did this happen, did you not run the core facts by the Charter Change organizers before you asked the "experts" for their opinions and hit publish? Journalism 101.)
This is like asking experts about the US Constitution and leaving out the "separation of powers" part...
2️⃣ Caitie and Peter - would you be high integrity and post a correction comment on your original FB posts? (I will email this to you directly with the request)
3️⃣ Dear Hauntsman - this is not the 1900s... put on your big boy/girl pants and create your own blog... threatening anonymous emails to Gossips, or the employers and clients of Charter Change organizers... as you have now done repeatedly... is pretty beta, but also unproductive and cowardly.
Well you know what George Carlin (correctly) said about the American Dream.
DeleteThinking that "politics" should only exist at the federal and state levels is...interesting.
It’s a shame that such a crucial detail of the story was an error. Unfortunately in our fast paced news cycle, especially with social media shares and paywalls, people won’t see the correction since most only read the headlines.
ReplyDeleteOn the second point of debate, many Manager-Council systems (like Cambridge, MA, a super progressive AND well ran city) bestow the title of “mayor” to the council member that is elected by said council to be the presiding officer, also called “speaker” or in Hudson “president.” That person not only runs the meetings and votes, but serve as the ceremonial “head of state.” If I wrote the charter reform plan I would have done it that way. I also would have added 2 “at-large” council members to the 5 ward representatives. But I didn’t write it, so that’s all just fluff from my brain. I suspect that the writers of this revision understood that many in Hudson understand tradition more than they do democratic theory so they kept the mayor as a separate ceremonial role to make the change easier to swallow.
These are all important things to debate and would love to see an informative and passionate discussion in the Common Council. Unfortunately Tom “Stonewall” DePietro is going to prevent that from happening. It’s politically a bad decision on his part because he could have used this opportunity to explain why he thinks this particular petition is not ideal and how the Council could do it better if the public gives them the chance and time. But now this will go on to the voters, along with the message that our government leaders do not care what we think and that voters have no other recourse than beating them at the ballot box. Unless he’s planning on preventing it from making it to the ballot via legal chicanery. Either way: game on!
At one point we did away with the mayor position. But in our conversations with folks and in our deliberations we decided that the office has long history in the city and found a way to keep it. And the problem with at-large seats generally is that they are understood to be less representative than district reps.
DeleteMakes sense, John. Hudson loves its history.
DeleteYou say that at-large seats are less representative? But the current, and only at-large seat on the council is a shining beacon of approachability and really has his finger on the pulse of the citizenry. A true “man of the people.” Books will be written about him, that I can tell you.