The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
New Council President - Peter Cunningham
At 12:12 am on Tuesday morning the Council finally got around to starting the discussions for the Council President.
Peter Cunningham was nominated by Carol Marsh. He was approved with only one dissenting vote from Councilwoman Mason.
Councilman Mello nominated Carol Marsh as vice president of the council. Carol Marsh was approved by a unanimous vote.
Congratulation to both of them.
Peter Cunningham was nominated by Carol Marsh. He was approved with only one dissenting vote from Councilwoman Mason.
Councilman Mello nominated Carol Marsh as vice president of the council. Carol Marsh was approved by a unanimous vote.
Congratulation to both of them.
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on -
Cunningham has been a revelation with the gavel in his hands. Neither too curt nor too indulgent. He is clearly an improvement over Zimmer in this capacity. No doubt, having the election over (and Zimmer out of the range of stupid campaign tricks) helps. Hopefully now that the dust is settling -a little- he can give some thought to how to get these meetings to move a little quicker than the change of tides.
I don't think anyone can keep Mason on-point. A sense of entitlement seems present in her every utterance, whether she is peremptorily cutting off the public portion of the review of 4th ward candidates to give her interpretation of the statute (that an election on 21 or 26 Dec may be necessary); or telling the hospital CEO that she doesn't need to let him finish his answers because she already heard his presentation elsewhere; or spontaneously attempting to put the hospital chairman under oath in mid-sentence. Thanks to that sense of entitlement, she doesn't know to be embarrassed by her performance. But for the first time, it was clear that for all their gamesmanship, Castellano and Russo have more respect for the institution of the council.
Cunningham will have to figure out how to balance Mason's rights as a councilperson with the public's right to professional, constructive participation by members of the dais and consequent meetings that take less than 7 hours to conclude their business.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
Cunningham really does need to figure out how to do something about the length of the meetings. To be fair to Mason, it wasn't all her causing the marathon. There were two citizens who spoke repeatedly about their opposition to the doggy day care. At a certain point, there were 4 people up at the mike at the same time all talking/arguing/presenting. This was ridiculous! Obvisously, the doggy day care means a lot to Cunningham, I doubt he would have indulged that amount of time on some of the other issues that are in the spotlight these days, and neither should he. Hopefully he will get this under control because it is basically preventing the public from addressing the councel during public portion. Almost no one can stay that late or stand being at a councel meeting for that many hours. Every meeting there seems to be a list of 4 - 8 or 10 citizens who bailed before their opportunity presented itself.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Kurta on -
They could move the public portion to the beginning of the meeting. They tried it - briefly - not long ago but Castellano said it was too confusing for the city clerk, whatever that means.
-
Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on
-
Jack you have to realize that almost 2 hours were taken up by HUMC and 1-1/2 hours (my guess) on the 4th ward. If you clock the council member time it's my guess that the 3 on the left consume a little over 50% of the time. Lots of unnecessary grandstanding there.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
oh, I agree with you Scott - the left side of the platform is awful, and in my mind Mason's competitive side is coming out and she's trying to be the biggest time waster and biggest obstructionist of all of them. It's almost like she is completely decomposing from the tremendous amount of humiliation she brought upon herself during this past campaign season. With that said, it does seem that Cunningham lost a bit of control over the meeting during the first doggy day care discussion. However, he is new as council pres - takes everyone a couple of meeting to get a handle on it.
scott m siegel said:Jack you have to realize that almost 2 hours were taken up by HUMC and 1-1/2 hours (my guess) on the 4th ward. If you clock the council member time it's my guess that the 3 on the left consume a little over 50% of the time. Lots of unnecessary grandstanding there.
-
Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on
-
Jack, "Mason's competitive side" had the miraculous effect of nearly making me feel sorry for the guys with their hands in my pockets. In a situation like that anger is a gift to your counterpart. If we have to fillet them alive at some point, so be it. But she has no talent for it. Lenz might.
I agree with you about the handling of the doggy daycare. People seemed to be drifting up to the front like they weren't sure how many registers were open. Cunningham has to be doubly careful about leaving the impression that projects he favors can sidestep protocol.
I had a feeling that one reason that agenda item went on so long was that it was the first time Giacci woke up all night. He's not a fool, just seems lazy or indifferent half the time. But he went over the same ground 3 or 4 times, and Cunningham could've have given him a sharp "Ok, we get it, These guys sound ok to you but your worried about the precedent." It probably isn't easy on your 2nd night to tell someone who only seemed to want 5 minutes of air time for the whole night to cut it down to 1 or 2 minutes.
-
Permalink Reply by georgia on
-
I thought about this too: the new council members should implement the change and move the public portion at the beginning of the meeting. They could easily make up some rules: 5 minute time constraint per speaker and not to exceed 1 hour. We all understand why Castellano and the likes won’t like the idea of Hoboken citizens expressing their concerns. It’s time to derail the train of deception and constant lies.
Eric Kurta said:They could move the public portion to the beginning of the meeting. They tried it - briefly - not long ago but Castellano said it was too confusing for the city clerk, whatever that means.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
Hate to disagree with everyone, but sometimes it seems like people comment on the preceeding meeting during the public comments. I agree that it makes sense to move the public portion when a specific issue, not on the agenda, brings people to council meetings, (astroturf, 47% tax increase, etc.), but not as a rule.
-
Permalink Reply by Donna Antonucci on -
I have to say, I am glad to see full agendas even if it means the meetings go until 2:00 AM. There is a lot of work to do. Unless they agree to meet weekly, I am perfectly ok with long meetings. It's time to get it done!
-
Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on
-
That may be more 'organic' too. People react to what they hear in the meeting. If that option is closed because all comment must come at the start, it limits the ability of those present to influence the council's behavior. People made it clear, for example, that they weren't buying the Giacci/Russo/Castellano subterfuge about not knowing the 4th ward seat would be filled that night. The push-back was pretty strong from members of the public.
Jack Dawkins said:Hate to disagree with everyone, but sometimes it seems like people comment on the preceeding meeting during the public comments. I agree that it makes sense to move the public portion when a specific issue, not on the agenda, brings people to council meetings, (astroturf, 47% tax increase, etc.), but not as a rule.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Kurta on
-
The answer is to have two public portions, then. One at the beginning, one at the end. Members of the public sign up for one or the other. If someone just wants to announce that their organization is holding a fundraiser, let them make their statement and go home. If someone wants to wait until the end to comment on whatever's on their mind at that point, so be it. I'd imagine that this, however, would be very, very confusing for the city clerk. Whatever that means.
-
Permalink Reply by FAP on
-
What if a person wanted to speak in both public sessions? How long much longer would meetings go with the cast of characters we have, 30, 45, 60 minutes?
I see your point that having a public session at the beginning would encourage more people to speak but no one said the right to be heard was going to be easy.
I've thought about this before and read the comments carefully and I can't think of a way to give people a chance to speak at the beginning, making it easier to contribute, and keep meetings to a manageable length. Somewhere one has to take priority over the other and that may be the case that should be made.
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
