The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
So-called Reformers and So-called Free Speech
As an occasional so-called reformer my so-called self, I would like to point out that among the 17 speakers on #39 were a number of my fellow so-called reformers.
I mention this because I am constantly being told by anti-reformers, so-called, that so-called reformers are told what to think and do by Mike Lenz, and also that so-called reformers represent a monolith of opinion without variation. This appears not to be true.
But where I have found a lack of variation is in the dull-witted so-called opposition to so-called reform who rely heavily on breathless claims of un-Americanism and a 1st amendment under attack to express themselves on #39.
For instance I haven't heard a single member of the so-called opposition to so-called reform comment on the stunning irony of Lane Bajardi's twin tirades this week. (I say 'irony' when I think a person can't help it and 'hypocrisy' when I think they can.)
The first was meant to defend Barjardi's own right to free speech at CC meetings; and the second was meant to curtail Nancy Pincus' right to free speech on the internet. Apparently the lone Voltaire entry in Bajardi's "Dictionary of Nifty Quotes from Books You Haven't Bothered to Read or Understand" does not apply to Ms. Pincus. Struck me as just a trifle un-American. Or is it selectively "American"? To be fair, clumsy attempts to sound like 'a man of letters' are regrettably quite American.
Nor have I heard from any of these stalwarts on Bajardi's (and Hoboken 411's...) persistent public attacks on citizens serving without compensation on municipal boards and committees who have been past contributors to Zimmer's campaigns.
Help me out here, o custodians of the definition of un-American and all that is good and true - which should a good American do to pass muster - stop contributing to campaigns they believe in or stop giving their time for free to public service?
If only the so-called voices of anti-reform had an occasional independent or original thought. If only. Alas.
Views: 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on -
The sad fact on both sides of the table, or what Cammarano called the 'magic piece of wood', is the camera. Bajardi comes to the magic wood with his timer and multiple sets of prepared remarks. He reads an editorial about people he doesn't like; it isn't meant to engage anyone in dialog but an attempt to be entertaining. It's not the council's job or function to get him to stop, but someone who likes him should should. These set pieces just aren't that good. It's like watching your kid butcher his instrument week in week out and trying to find something nice to say each time about the way he held the bow or kept plowing ahead despite the results. But he loves the camera, or he would write a letter to the editor instead. And so do others.
And so too do the gas-bags on the other side of the wood, especially the ones I voted for. Lord, can't anyone express himself in a few words or simply agree by agreeing without sucking all the air out of the room. I really wonder how long meetings would be without the camera; and I say that as someone who never wants the cameras removed.
Perhaps if we can get a masochist to analyze the pattern of meetings the way workflow or BPM analysis is done. Without some statistics, saying the meetings are long due to poor preparation carries no more weight than saying they are long due to excessive editorializing. It is fair to say they are tedious as hell because of excessive editorializing.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony Soares on -
Resign like Peter Cammrano - The Criminal you Endorsed- already has done? ...Doubtful John Stevens Doubtful.
That's right, why limit free speech, I like watching inaugural MC's and failed campaign "managers" approach the Council Microphone on the EVE of Cammrano's arrest and defend his authority to personally choose the Zoning Board members--all the while FBI agents were getting to bed early so they could be in Hoboken bright and early to put your boy in leg irons the following morning!?!
The good guys aren't leaving Zimmermania anytime soon.
John Stevens keim said:Info, you are correct that the camera has changed the dynamic, but again, many of the directors could be questioned beforehand.
The meetings became longer last year after this majority took over. The cameras were there previously. As I mentioned before, the council has to do their job and they are getting PAID to do it. Blaming the public or curtailing our rights because the council does not like the hours they work is simply wrong. If they don't like the hours they must work they can resign.
-
Permalink Reply by InfotainMe on
-
If they don't like the hours they must work they can resign. We get it - you don't care for the council majority. Your suggestion that the directors could be questioned beforehand is worth a look.
However, directors are often asked to speak in response to public commentary or as a result of the flow of the meeting. And it isn't simply the council majority who asks them to speak. Nor am I sure that the public would share your disinterest in hearing from the directors in real-time, though few would argue with the need for everyone to be more succinct.
One example of a meeting lengthener was the council vote on extending Paul Condon (the now-infamous fake pay-for-play 'scandal'). The past majority never discussed the matter; Condon was appointed by the mayor. Instead it was voted it on this time. Should it not have been?
-
Permalink Reply by Sven on
-
John Stevens keim said:Infotain Me, the council meetings are overly long because the council attends them unprepared, not because the public talks too much. The public has had the same time to speak for at least longer than I have lived here and we have never had as many marathon meetings as we have had since last year's new majority took over. It is reprehensible that they want to blame the public and take away public commentary time because they do not have their act together.
John, there are three simple reasons why council meetings were never that long before:
1) Business used to be "conducted" mostly behind closed doors instead of in front of the public. (Did you like that better than what the current administration is doing?)
2) The population in Hoboken has changed dramatically over that last few years, with a lot more people being interested in transparent and fiscally responsible government then before.
3) We now have City Directors who know enough about their jobs to make interviewing them a worthwhile activity. (Do you remember the "interviews" with avid speaker Fred Bedo or those with alleged criminal Corea?)
Having said that, I also believe that the council members have a right to a personal life. Expecting them to conduct council meetings until 1 or 2 AM and then being back at their regular day jobs by by 8 or 9 AM is not realistic. I will admit that some of the council members themselves like to give long statements (which should be streamlined a bit). On the other hand, I'd rather hear the long statements from the council members (who are ultimately conducting the business and making the decisions) than the usual suspects from the public who feel the urge to speak on just about any topic on the meeting agenda.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
Call me crazy - but I think the ENTIRE reason that the council meetings have gotten soooo long is because of the council (and Sachs) - sure we have a lot of "the usual suspects" that get up multiple times during the meeting- but even Lane B.'s tirades are never more than 5 minutes - council members speak as much as 30 minutes EACH on ONE item. Besides, those same "usual suspects" were at these council meetings LONG before there were any cameras - and the meetings didn't last this long.
No, I don't want the business to go back into the back room - but there is a LOT of grand standing, lecturing, lesson giving, self promotion, etc. coming out of the council's mouths.
-
Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on
-
I agree. Cunningham should cut the time to 5 minutes for all the council members, especially if it's the usual Mason/Castellano empty words. Unless it's an important issue that needs detailed explaining for the benefit of the entire public.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony Soares on
-
Ines, mean, incapable? Did you now suport Peter Cammarano's one man rule of the zoning Board? Yes or no?
And did you forget Ines that I supported you for freeholder and wrote some checks too. -THAT WAS AFTER Paul Died. YOU CASHED THE CHECKS so I guess my dead pals are okay when you want them to be okay. Guess we make mistakes I admit that, so should you.
I was also quite capable to lead a council ticket you were on in 2005 as well
In fact Ines I knew Paul Byrne as a friend that same year, Unlike you and Peter Cammarano, I did not support him for office or MC his swearing in. But Ines, again the man is dead.
One other little reminder your Mason reasearch person may not have google at your behest was this, your chief fundraising person in 2005 who recently supported Beth Mason was also a close friend of Mr Byrne's...
Your bitterness and anger has tarnished the reformer that's somewhere deep down inside you.
Ines Garcia-Keim said:Mr. Soares is incapable of advancing his point of view in an issue-based discussion without stooping to inaccurate attacks on people that are not involved in the discussion.
What in the world does Cammarano have to do with this? He's been gone from the political scene for 9 months while still awaiting indictment. Mr. Soares loves to bring up my support of Cammarano in ONE election, but is mum on his long-time relationship with Paul Byrne, who was indicted and plead guilty for serving as "bag man" for the indicted Hudson County Executive just 5 years ago. Mr. Byrne was a political mentor to Mr. Soares and his very close friend. The link below from the NY Times briefly describes the guilty plea: .http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/nyregion/metro-briefing-new-jerse...
Mr. Byrne had a variety of health issues and passed away before going to jail.
http://www.nj.com/corruption/stories/index.ssf?/corruption/stories/...
There are many other political alliances in Mr. Soares' past that he does not like anyone to bring up, such as his active support and design work for Chris Campos in his campaign against Mike Lenz in 2001.
I am sorry I have to go tit for tat on this -- it is normally not my nature -- but I am really fed up with Mr. Soares' accusations and hypocrisy. One of the speakers at the council meeting being discussed on this thread mentioned how mean spirited political discourse in Hoboken has become in recent years. People like Mr. Soares really need to focus on the important issues we face as a community and less on bringing down people who are expressing differing opinions.
-
Permalink Reply by Lincolnlogger on -
I agree with this, but not sure how it would be implemented. It's not like the Council President can have the offending Councilperson escorted out of the room. He can bang the gavel a few times, but has nothing else to resort to. Can we get a penalty box? :)
The other concern is that most of the agenda items are "important" to someone, but certainly not everyone. While I'm glad we have the transparency, it can be admittedly tedious at times.
But yes, it may be helpful for streamlining the meetings to adopt a normative standard that applies to the Council members that focuses the Council comments on: 1) an explanation of items/proposals, etc, 2) a discussion of pros/cons, 3) each Council member's reason for voting a certain way, and 4) the actual vote.
Overtaxed said:I agree. Cunningham should cut the time to 5 minutes for all the council members, especially if it's the usual Mason/Castellano empty words. Unless it's an important issue that needs detailed explaining for the benefit of the entire public.
-
Permalink Reply by Overtaxed on
-
Cunningham proves to be the best city council president so far. He will be the best and the next Mayor Hoboken ever had! I am sure that he could come up with an idea. He is quite able to control the crowd. In his place, I would simply start cutting off the offenders. If the usual suspects: Beth, Russo or Theresa start their usual rambling and unintelligible remarks, stop them after 1 minute. If Lenz is attempting to explain some complicated process with the speed of a snail, then cut him off after 5 minutes. A lot of things could be explained fast, concise while being clear on the subject. If one is unable to do so, then let them practice public speaking at home, and come back later!
:)
Lincolnlogger said:I agree with this, but not sure how it would be implemented. It's not like the Council President can have the offending Councilperson escorted out of the room. He can bang the gavel a few times, but has nothing else to resort to. Can we get a penalty box? :)
The other concern is that most of the agenda items are "important" to someone, but certainly not everyone. While I'm glad we have the transparency, it can be admittedly tedious at times. But yes, it may be helpful for streamlining the meetings to adopt a normative standard that applies to the Council members that focuses the Council comments on: 1) an explanation of items/proposals, etc, 2) a discussion of pros/cons, 3) each Council member's reason for voting a certain way, and 4) the actual vote.
Overtaxed said:I agree. Cunningham should cut the time to 5 minutes for all the council members, especially if it's the usual Mason/Castellano empty words. Unless it's an important issue that needs detailed explaining for the benefit of the entire public.
-
Permalink Reply by SmartyJones on -
Plus one. It's better to have the institution start with itself and then let's see how that goes. Prove to the public you serve as "public servants" there needs to be further modification.
Also, there is probably much to be gained by doing more work in subcommittee. Too much is dumped into CC meetings. There are folks on the City Council that do no work when there's no camera available.
Frankly, it's gotten completely out of hand: the posturing, the performance art, the lack of accountability.
Time to pony up, pardon the pun.
New Jersey is the Garden State but in this case, let's adopt the "Show Me" credo.
Overtaxed said:I agree. Cunningham should cut the time to 5 minutes for all the council members, especially if it's the usual Mason/Castellano empty words. Unless it's an important issue that needs detailed explaining for the benefit of the entire public.
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
