At the beginning of last night's informal Common Council meeting, Council president Tom DePietro, who lost in the primary and subsequently declined to remain on the ballot as a Working Families Party candidate, announced that he had consulted with Crystal Peck, counsel to the Council, and they would begin the process of establishing a "Council Charter Commission." He went on to say that members of the Council had received an email explaining how to move forward with that process.
DePietro acknowledged that the process won't actually get going until January, when he will no longer be in office. Alluding to the recent Hudson Charter Change initiative, he said that charter change should begin with discussion and conversation "not a predetermined outcome." He continued, "Charter charge shouldn't be like, oh, we want a city manager instead of a mayor." He also made reference to mayoral candidate Peter Spear's call for a citizens' assembly to study charter change and suggested that councilmembers "Google that to see what you think about that idea."
Peck explained, "The initial process is the Council adopting a local law to establish a charter commission, and in that there are still a lot of decisions to be made. . . . One of the big ones is: How are you going to establish this commission? Is it going to be appointed? How will the appointments be made? What will the representation be? There's a lot of thought that needs to go into it."
Councilmember Rich Volo (Fourth Ward) asked Peck if there was anything that stopped two groups from making proposals for charter change simultaneously. In answering the question, Peck described the three types of charter commissions that can be created: (1) citizens' petition--which was done by the Hudson Charter Change group; (2) Common Council local law; or (3) a commission appointed by a mayor. She added that two charter revision proposals cannot be on the ballot at the same time, so if there are two commissions, only one of them will be allowed to move forward.
It is of interest that DePietro said the decision to begin the process of forming a charter commission at this time, in the final months of DePietro's eight years in office, came about because Councilmember Gary Pernhagan (First Ward), who was not present at the meeting, approached him with a number of ideas about a charter commission, including suggestions for the "types of citizens we should appoint" to the commission.
The whole discussion about a charter commission, which went on for about eight minutes, can be heard here, beginning at 1:28.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
You can just hear the sound of lawsuits gallop over the hill as Tom and Peck (who owes a duty to the City's Common Council, and not to Tom) have cooperated, it seems, behind closed doors to defend Tom and effect his political agenda, on several occasions.
ReplyDeleteCrystal, remember when you advised Tom to effect "viewpoint discrimination" by removing in secret concerned resident letters to the Common Council and City hosted public forum. And then when our editors emailed you Supreme Court decisions you reversed your original guidance to Tom. Wild.
Not exactly YLS Law Review stuff. But why should we have to police such basic things.
Crystal, do you not see that your behind the scenes legal advice to Tom (not the City) is exactly what Columbia County Supervisor Matt Murell is accused of doing with his County paid lawyers.
Tom DePietro = Matt Murell.
Using tax payer funded lawyers to effect political strategies for control and influence.
But let's recap:
- Tom refused to meet with the Charter Change group for over a year and defamed them in the press
- Peter Spear has been campaigning tirelessly on this issue, and _how_ he wants it done, for almost a year. The man must have walked 100s of miles by now in the alleys talking to residents and making informative videos.
- Morris received 2X the votes Tom did, a clear show of who voters want to lead this process and this Council. She has a clear plan and has the integrity to wait for 2026.
- Joe Ferris has done work on this issue and his Charter Commission plan
- Lloyd likely has a plan.... but no website, so can't check now.
And after almost a decade when Tom could have tackled this important issue head on at any time... now... in the last quarter... without popular support, without enough time... he initiates this.
This is politics. This is how the town is divided. This is what happens when retired people don't have hobbies.
Here is an idea:
Tom, why don't you and Kamal initiate the city-wide tax re-assessment as your final act as Common Council President. That is also 8 years delayed, important for fair tax treatment, and frankly in this town a good legacy. It is a black and white action, not a fraught and political once a century update that requires a mandate, diplomatic skills, and a good reputation. And Kamal is already unpopular so there is no reason to further delay the re-assessment.
Think about it... in some ways it is also sticking it to the incoming mayor who will then sit with the pubic uproar. This could be a very Tom move, but just actually good for everyone.
But it is doing something that is right for the whole, fair, and perhaps unpopular. And it is your job.
No need to google.
ReplyDeleteTom also claims, falsely, that my People's Charter Reform proposal would take longer than a conventional one. This is false. It's the same timeframe, and generates to my mind, a more legitimate process than one full of political appointees.
https://www.spearformayor.com/peter-says/blog-post-title-one-wc22r
I have been clear and consistent on this issue from day one - attempting to protect what I think is a pretty beautiful document from being politicized.
It is worth noting that when the history of this period is written, it will be the DePietro / Friedman years when the petty neighborly fued had an outsized impact on the fortunes of the best small town city in America. I look forward to the end of this era.
You can’t have two commission-generated proposals on a ballot. But a citizens’ referendum can always be on the same ballot as a commission referendum.
ReplyDeleteThanks, John.
DeleteI am not competing.
I am proposing to the Common Council the same solution I presented to you in your office over a year ago and then to the Mayor.
We all know it needs to be done.
We have a choice in how we do it.
It is a foundational question, “How do we want to be governed?” that has been politicized, in the way everything gets politicized in Hudson.
I think this means it matters how we do it.
Broadly speaking there are two paths.
Each builds trust in its own way, giving the charter it produces a particular kind of legitimacy.
I am suggesting we evaluate our process on the one that bestows the most legitimacy on the output.
A conventional charter review commission gets it’s authority from the elected officials and their political appointees, with some public input. A charter review commission will give the charter a kind of *institutional* *legitimacy*.
My proposal for a People’s Charter Reform through a citizen assembly is different. It gets its authority from the informed, inclusive deliberation among everyday residents, giving it the greatest degree of *democratic legitimacy*.
This is the simple yet radical idea that when given time, support, and access to diverse perspectives, everyday people can produce fair, thoughtful, and widely trusted solutions to complex local challenges.
And, ultimately, people trust decisions made by other people, more than they trust decisions made by politicians.
Terrible news for you, Peter -- those who involve themselves in making policy are called politicians. It's not a separate breed of animal as you seem to imply. Regular folks, when they get involved with the political system, become politicians. Take a look in the mirror: you used to be a regular folk, now you're a politician, too. Whoa! Funny how that happens. And guess what happens to those who participate in a citizens' assembly (or as we call it in NYS, a common council)? They, too, morph into this new animal, Homo Politicus(?). The striking feature of Homo Politicus is its desire to serve more than itself -- perhaps its perceived or actual community. We generally find this a positive trait. H. Politicus does, it's true, often suffer from egoism that sometimes unfortunately devolves into solipsism. There are other problematic aspects to H. Politicus' nature, of course. Those who get involved with the political system sometimes evolve or blossom as authoritarians or fascists. Some simply wither on the vine. But they all started as regular folks.
Delete
DeleteThanks again, John.
You have had more opportunities than almost everyone else in the country to understand how a citizen assembly works.
In fact, you have advocated for their use - to me.
Yet, you still have it wrong.
A politician is defined by their ambition.
“Ambition” coming from early democracy when an aspiring politican would “walk around” to get votes. It is this “going around” to shape policy that marks a politician - and makes them suspect.
A citizen, on the other hand, is defined by their membership in community - “inhabitant of a city.” It is the lack of ambition in a citizen that makes them more trustworthy.
You are correct to say that I am a politician.
This is why I have never once expressed a preference for an outcome, but have been steadfast in advocating for a process we can all enter into.
Joe Ferris promised a member of your group a seat on his Charter Review Commission, and Margaret Morris signed your petition. Ambitious, both of them.
I did not.
As a reminder:
There are two ways citizen assembly is a different way to do democracy:
Who is in the room.
What happens in the room.
1
WHO IS IN THE ROOM IS DIFFERENT
A group of about 30 Hudson residents are randomly selected through a civic lottery, ensuring the group reflects all forms of diversity.
To make participation possible for everyone, members will receive stipends, childcare, and transportation support.
When I say people trust decisions made by people more than they trust decisions made by politicians, this is what I am pointing at.
2
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ROOM IS DIFFERENT
The assembly meets for 4 to 6 full-day sessions over 2 to 3 months. Expert facilitators guide members through learning about our charter, hearing from relevant experts with diverse perspectives, and working in small groups to develop recommendations.
The result is either a new city charter or targeted amendments that truly reflect Hudson's needs and values. These proposals then go to City Council, who can place them on the ballot for all residents to consider.
When given time, information, and support, everyday people create thoughtful solutions to difficult challenges.
No rushing, no shouting, just collaborative problem-solving by your neighbors for your community.
We have a unique opportunity to strengthen local relationships, unlock civic imagination, and increase public trust - while making Hudson work for us all.
To hear more about the work of Healthy Democracy and what a citizen’s assembly is like, listen here:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZjEA8dX4tT1Zw1YGK7N3d?si=DliHNnABT4Otl5oJFoi-cw
Thank you, Peter, for your work and passion for new experimental forms of democratic input. And generally raising awareness on all of these little fires everywhere in your Alley Chats.
DeletePerhaps another way to think about “politician” is that those who succeed and do good are called statesmen, like Mandela or Roosevelt, while those who fall short are "career politicians", focused on self-preservation and power grabs. Tom and his post-election Charter stunt to influence his successor's (and the incoming mayor's) tenure comes to mind, or certain residents who have never won a competitive election but held office for a decade.
Citizen assemblies have a mixed record around the world. You do a great job sharing their successes... and there are many. But Australia’s climate panels produced demands so unrealistic they were buried and Citizen Assemblies are now a toxic concept down under. Macron’s French climate convention offered 100+ super ambitious global warming proposals, most watered down or dropped. Ireland’s successes on abortion and same-sex marriage (famous successes of Chartered Assemblies and rightfully so) sit alongside other assemblies that fizzled into vague reports. They can clarify public opinion, or vanish into political irrelevance.
A big question is who moderates the Citizen Assembly. Who are these "experts". And post Covid... do we trust experts? Especially Ivory tower ones? Hudson has no shortage of experts and consultants and so far...
Judicial/court juries have no outside interference by design. We elect a jury foreperson and they are sequestered. A citizen assembly is “led” by “expert facilitators” and Citizen Assembleis will have very different outcomes if for example Quintin Cross, Mark Allen, Nicole Vidor (your Neighbor Series interview guests) or for that matter John Friedman or you, lead/guide them. (Personally we would trust a Mark Allen production of anything ;-) )
Think also for a second about the Gossips comment section as just one kind of subset of random and self-selected residents who stay somewaht engaged and take the time to leave short or long comments. Can you think of 12 regular commenters on Gossips, or in the Hudson FB groups for that matter, who you (the reader of this comment) would want in the Citizen Assembly? And commenting here is relatively easy, fast, and does not require long days with strangers, followed by answering dozens of questions from curious and concerned neighbors in between the deliberation weekends. Would "new voices" that are representative and not currently engaged in Hudson's politics, answer the call, and stay engaged? Or would they do what most people do with jury duty and try to get out of it... which is why juries (which you legally have to do every few years, unlike CA's) are over-represented with retirees and half or unemployed people.
These Citizen Assemblies are rare and experimental, and most who claim expertise are ivory tower academics.
DeleteThe United States holds roughly 5–10 citizen assemblies each year. Compare that to the 25–35 NASA rocket launches that take place annually.
So America sends more machines into orbit propelled by a very expensive metal tube with controlled explosions than it convenes groups of citizens to deliberate in his way you propose.
One thing we think about a lot is why citizen assemblies have not caught on in America (they are slightly more popular in Europe). Is it something about American political culture? And is such a radical, experimental tool what Hudson needs now, in this fractured moment, when the city cannot even get a statistically significant number of residents to fill out its Comprehensive Plan survey? (After the Spark and other local groups pushed it for months).
Perhaps it is the perfect antidote for all those reasons?
But practically, who in Hudson exactly will pay for this experiment?
i.e. should the current City of Hudson BEA (Kamal, Tom, Heather) allocate $100k for this in the 2025 budget cycle for next year's spending? Have you asked them? Or if you become mayor will you work with Margaret and Heather to fund it?
And this might be tricky, but can you share examples or specific profiles of the type of person (or institute) you believe should moderate or mediate these sessions?
We (at Hudson Common Sense) will do a deep dive on this idea and report back in a briefing. But for now, to "steelman" the argument.. here is a very good video that features Malcolm Gladwell and future HCS reader Trevor Noah
https://joinofbyfor.org
And thanks for blogging! It takes courage to put a stake in the proverbial ground and if more local politicians and lobbyists wrote down their ideas and opinions (and not delete them) we'd likely make more progress faster. If only because we can learn from the past and evaluate follow-through.
Turns out Hudson/Gossips has some space nerds... we got fact checked.
DeleteAnd we were slightly wrong... but in a way that strengthens the point, and we are happy to correct the record:
There were ~154 orbital launches in the US last year (The Space Report). Not 35. Go SpaceX!
There were four "formal" Citizens Assemblies in the US in 2024 (Peter, please share if you have better data and there were more):
The two with more information online:
- Montrose CO (on Childcare)
- Bend OR (Youth Homelessness)
- Montrose CO has a 20k population and 46 people participated in their Citizen Assembly
- Bend OR has ~105k population and had 30 people in their Citizen Assembly.
There were smaller ones (or ongoing from previous years) in Petaluma CA on fairgrounds and Montrose County CO on daycare / childcare
Those most recent Citizen Assemblies were on relatively narrow topics (youth / homelessness / fairgrounds). Whereas "What is a good City Charter" is more broad, and there are ~ 20k municipal governments in America all with a charter.
Globally speaking, in 2024, there were around 10 formal Citizen Assembles that were written up around the world.
Just because it is rare and relatively new does not necessarily mean it ought not to be tried Hudson and it is not an idea worth spreading.
It is simply worth noting how rare Citizen Assemblies are... consider:
1) There are 4 mayoral candidates in Hudson this year, and there were 4 Citizen Assemblies in America last year. If you count Billy (who never filed but ran and arguably kickstarted the contested race) we had more mayoral candidates.
2) There were at least a 1000 municipal elections last year (probably more but not great data) and probably a similar number of new commissions or committees or boards formed (across 20k towns and cities) for some special purpose in towns/cities/school boards across the country.
3) For every formal Citizen Assembly in America last year there were 35 orbital space launches in 2024
4) There were more recall elections last year (~100, ~70 successful) than Citizen Assemblies, 4, in 2024
5) In 2024, an American’s odds of participating in one of the above four citizens’ assemblies, about 1 in 850,000, were roughly the same as the 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being struck by lightning.
You just can’t make up stuff this unbelievable. I repeat my earlier comment. “We can be so much better than this.”
ReplyDeleteAfter many questions on this topic we wrote a brief editorial:
ReplyDelete"Mr DePietro should respect the will of the voters. He should now focus on closing out urgent matters or finishing existing work, not on creating new political traps and poison pills or passing measures that undermine the incoming administration or even worse, muddy the current mayoral election. The newly elected leaders should be given the conditions to succeed and deliver the change voters chose in June (Common Council President) and in November (Mayor’s race)."
https://www.hudsoncommonsense.com/citycharterpoisonpill
Shouldn’t Lame Duck Tom be focused first on getting his Comprehensive Plan (Project 2035) ratified? What happed to that? Were there public comments? Feedback from the council? Or is it too much to read and everyone has forgotten about it, even before it become official?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I won’t make any judgements since maybe he had an emergency conflict, but if there were ever a better day for Gary to be present at City Hall it would have been this day. One, so he could explain the block grant application to his fellow councilors and, two, so he could vouch for being Tom’s muse for this 11th hour charter proposal. Because he’s been talking about it weeks ago on his radio show with a certain nonprofit director and substacker who’s made charter reform a pet project of hers. Either way, this move is very Mitch McConnell like.