Yesterday, Judge Richard Mott denied the motion to dismiss the lawsuit challenging the decision to invalidate the petition to change Columbia County's form of government.
Today, representatives of the Hudson Charter Change initiative filed the required second petition to get the proposed change in Hudson government--from mayor/council to city manager/council--on the ballot in November.
 |
| Left to right: City clerk Lyric Falkner, Bob Rasner, Nick Haddad, Kristal Heinz, and Richard Wallace |
The Hudson Charter Change initiative made this announcement:
A petition bearing the signatures of over 200 Hudson residents was filed with Hudson's City Clerk today, thus ensuring the Charter Change referendum will be on the November ballot.
New York State statute requires no fewer than 102 signatures on this petition. The campaign's adopted slogan, "Let the Voters Decide," will become a reality this fall when Hudson goes to the polls.
The referendum will ask voters to approve the following changes to City government:
- Impose term limits of three, two-year terms for any elected city official
- Reduce the Common Council to five total members: one member representing each ward (down from two), and a Council chairperson elected by his or her fellow members
- Create the role of City Manager--retained under contract by the Common Council
Even after these changes, the City Charter requires a thorough review to ensure that it is best serving the interests of all Hudson's residents--a task that multiple candidates for Hudson Mayor have pledged to accomplish. The changes proposed in the referendum are designed to begin that process.
If the voters choose to approve the referendum this fall, it will take one election cycle--that is, two years--for the changes to take effect in 2028.
ReplyDeleteI have two things I want to say.
First, I applaud this group for making charter reform a possibhility in Hudson.
Every Mayoral candidate (even Kamal!) and the next Common Council President are all on record saying they would initiate charter reform process of one kind or another.
We have an opportunity at a citywide Charter Reform process, becuase of their hard work. Why persist if the goal was simply to make it a priority for the City?
They have, on multiple occasions, acknowledged that their charter change has flaws, and is not perfect. Why persisit if the revisions are not final, and require review or, worse yet, correction?
Which brings me to my second point. The language in this statement is, to my knowledge, factually incorrect and very, very misleading:
"Even after these changes, the City Charter requires a thorough review to ensure that it is best serving the interests of all Hudson's residents--a task that multiple candidates for Hudson Mayor have pledged to accomplish. The changes proposed in the referendum are designed to begin that process."
This is a serious - and reckless - mischaracterization of the law.
(New York Municipal Home Rule Law § 36(5)(d) and § 37(13))
When a city puts a new or revised charter on the ballot — whether it was written by a charter commission or proposed by a public petition — it’s officially submitted as a local law.
That means the charter is the law itself — not just a suggestion. And If a majority of voters say yes, the city is legally required to put it into effect exactly as written.
The mayor or council cannot revise, delay, or reinterpret any part of it after the vote. If changes are needed later, a new process must start all over again, with another law and another vote.
Hi Peter -
Delete1. Agreed that this whole conversation about the Charter is good, and that in a very rare Hudson moment, most everyone seems to agree that the Charter needs some type of update. Residents and elected leaders may just disagree on how to go about the process of deciding what to change (Citizen Assembly, A Charter Commission, via the Council only etc.), and then what specifically to change.
But that is still progress.
And bear in mind that current CC President could have engaged the group and done this via the council at any time. (I believe)
2. A sincere clarification, maybe for the Charter Change group, on your second point and the 2nd to last paragraph in their announcement:
I read that paragraph (which you quote above), as meaning... even after these changes are implemented (assuming a majority of resident voters vote for it in November to go into effect) then there is still an opportunity and need for the newly elected mayor (and newly elected 11 person council), during or after the implementation window, to review the Charter more comprehensively with input from residents, and if needed, post implementation, make more sweeping changes via the elected Council, and with extensive resident input, and not via a petition/referendum.
Original statement here on their blog:
https://hudsoncharterchange.com
So I am not disagreeing with your point Peter, just clarifying.
And it is my understanding that your last point is exactly right, that if voters vote for this, then the charter in the petition becomes law exactly as is written.
So whoever is elected mayor would either:
A) be forced to implement the Charter Change proposal if it passes and effectively be the last "strong mayor"
A1) while implementing it over 2 years, work on a subsequent iterative process to refine it, undo it, improve it,
B) if the charter referendum does not pass via the ballot, the mayor would have the opportunity to start a new process or do nothing at all.
~
Kristal and others in the group have talked about the currently proposed changes being, in a way, the minimum viable changes.
This way the City would be "compelled" by voters to enact/hire a City Manager and trim the Council size, but would have time to deliberate, and have democratically elected leaders decide, all the other important issues/questions. (.e.g Role of commissioners, budget process, law-making etc.)
Does that make sense? Or did I misread it? Maybe Bob or someone from the group can weigh in in the morning.
I think now's the time for the charter group to change their wording. When Bob Rasner described the effort as the start of a conversation in the past, I think he meant it. It successfully set into motion a wider debate in the city about Hudson's government to the degree that the majority of the mayoral candidates have openly added charter-reform to their platform.
DeleteBut now that it's going to be on the ballot, it should be seen as what it is: A concrete proposal that, if it passes, will become reality in January 2028. The conversation can continue of course but it becomes a bit more academic at this point. Right now, we no longer need wording that is only there to placate people that may not need it. It's a good proposal and it's workable and it doesn't seem to scare the majority of rational people.
Only if it doesn't pass it serves as a good reminder that the city's charter will still be in dire need of fixing.
It’s disturbing that Peter, seeking our highest municipal office, is so naive about, and inexperienced in, the legislative process as to believe that any legislation is ever perfect. While I’d love to believe that the dozen or so local laws I authored as a councilman were perfect, that’s a laughable proposition: human effort is always flawed.
ReplyDeleteEqually disturbing is the thought that he seems to hold that the process of legislating is ever complete or finished. It’s not. Lawmaking is an iterative process that requires diverse parties with divergent interests to find common ground they can co-occupy at least for a while.
Whether in congress, a council or Peter’s favorite flavor, the citizen conclave, it’s a bunch of humans making mistakes together. Peter might recall that any group of humans working together are just a bunch of humans, working together.
This level of naïveté seems disqualifying for Peter’s candidacy as it exposes the depth of his lack of experience and frankly knowledge about the processes he seeks to lead.
Are the other candidates less naive about the legislative process? And I ask that as genuine question, not a rhetorical one.
DeleteWith all due respect, John, you are full of shit.
DeleteAnd, worse yet, completely unhelpful.
Thankfully, you make a stronger case against your proposal than I ever could.
The New York Department of State calls the city charter "the most important single law of any city.”
When I told my contacts at the National Civic League about the fact that we may enter into a charter reform process, they were thrilled. Not a polite, professional, good for you thrilled.
But a kind of sacred, American kind of thrilled that we might experience something as uniquely American as deciding together how we want to be governed.
This is what charter reform can be, and what I think we should aim for.
Your proposal is flawed, incomplete, and you are disrespecting us all with your misleading communications, and bullshit.
You remind me of Harry Frankfurt’s warning that “bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are” because the bullshitter pays no attention to the truth at all.
Peter
In related news, the mayor is declaring some sort of victory over the charter change initiative via a bizarre series of Instagram stories of some AI written fever dream declaring the petition was submitted past the deadline to file.
ReplyDeleteSuch an odd thing for him to brag about… that he thinks he’s saved from getting “laid off,” via elimination of his position, while he’s still likely to get fired the old fashioned way: by the voters.