I'm sorry - but are you f$#%!@* kidding me with that whole "You're being political" junk at public input? Is she going to do that to every speaker she disagrees with or doesn't like? Since they are all basically politicians sitting on that board, and every speaker from January 1st to December 31st of that year could be political in their public input.......are they only censured around election time? How come when they ran for public office, it was ok for them to coincidentally show up for public input around election time and "be political" in their comments? Why was it ok for John and Stephanie to go up at public input when they were running for Town Board? When Mary Ellen Jones mentions that she was a Senator, or a proud Democrat.....isn't that political? That was allowed.
How come the cross endorsement comments from June/July meetings weren't "censured"?
Aldersley and Perticone showing up for Public Input around election time - Aldersley introduced as a Legislator and Perticone lobbying for using local labor for Walgreens (a private development)......wasn't that political? Is it a coincidence that all current Town Board members never really spoke at public input that much - but around August (if there is a primary) and October (just before November elections) - the candidates are alllllll about giving their public input at that time. Uncanny.
October 2005 and also in 2007.
August 23rd TBM video.
I listened to the comment from Mr. Moore (:29 mark) . MJD announces his name "Bob Moore" and Perticone makes a noise like a laugh as Essley smiles at him. "Good evening, I'm Bob Moore and I reside at 31 Highview drive here in Irondequoit. Uh, based on support by over 1,000 Republican residents, I am now a Republican Candidate in the upcoming Republican Primary on September 13th...." - this is where MJD tells him that he is being political, but allows him to continue. Then Mr. Moore went on to speak about I-Square, Business Signage, and Firehouse Chats. That's it.
Then they had to do the Public Hearing, and after that they continued Public Input. Mr. Barone went up to speak (:36:22 mark) about the cross endorsement and how it takes away the choice for voters. Perticone accuses him of being political, MJD accuses him of being political, and then she speaks to counsel and allows Barone to continue.
At the end, Mr. Bastuk went up and spoke about "censorship" and the "you're being political" accusations....and then....he makes a very good comment about labor movement and how he's a supporter of them, and how they fought for the rights of people to have a voice and be political....and that maybe Perticone should wonder how his brothers feel about that or something....and then Perticone said he would "talk about his brudders...you let me worry about my brudders and labor movement".....and I lost it there because.....it was funny. So very funny. My friends and I were then talking about how "he might reach under the desk and get a baseball bat - take out some kneecaps" and "fuhgeddaboudit, he's gonna whack him" and "yeah, swim wid da fishes Bastuk". Immature? Maybe - but funny as hell.
So, anyways, after Public Input, a comment from the Supervisor was made. Something like, "Now we can move on to the business and purpose of this meeting...the financial report." or something like that.
Unreal. They work for the Town - whatever purpose they serve IS THE PUBLIC BUSINESS. Input is an integral part of any meeting, especially for residents of a Town.
To dismiss it away as "not the real purpose or business" of the meeting is insulting, to say the least. Negative or positive (not personally insulting or threatening) - they should listen to Public Input. 5-10 people. For 3 minutes each. Once a month. Some guy talking about gathering signatures to be a candidate in a primary, or another guy pointing out something they did in their capacity as a Board Member or about the cross endorsement and primary - I take it as "information" - not being political. Not many people know there is a Republican Primary - many people are confused on the process - many people still don't know what a cross endorsement is. Why not talk about it at a town meeting?
To accuse a public speaker of being political......is actually a tactic of campaigns. Guess what? It's political to do that - to accuse someone else of being political at a Town Board meeting, when they weren't really being that political.....political in the sense of "Vote for me" or "Don't vote for so-and-so" or wearing campaign t-shirts or buttons during input - that is political. Not introducing yourself as a candidate in a primary, or talking about the choices and the lack thereof with a cross endorsement.
Were they being political when they showed up for public input around election time in 2009 and introduced themselves as candidates? They must have been, because they did the same exact thing that these public speakers did tonight. Got up to speak at public input during a Town Board meeting about political things, right around election time.
I'm actually embarrassed that she reacted the way she did. The hypocrisy alone....but also for how very wrong it is to give me the impression that public input, (of the puppies/rainbows or negative ninny kind), is not an important part of Town Board meetings.
I so very much disagree with that. So. Very. Much.
Technically, they don't have to have public input at Town Board Meetings, and the meetings are for conducting the business of the Town - which includes the time for residents to speak about their business, and to also share information. If public input is discarded, I expect to see Conservation Board updates, Friends of the Library comments, Miriam Ganze and her Kilkenny cats, and awarding of certificates discontinued because it has no business or purpose at the Town Board meetings, right?
Jeebuz.
The following video is of a Town Hall event on 8/22/2011 from a Congressman to Ohio constituents. The police were instructed to stop the public from video taping the meeting. I hope we don't get to that point in our area. Ever.
11 comments:
Talk about being political...how about the Supervisor's Remarks portion of the meeting. Tell me that wasn't a political speech and I have a bridge to sell you.
Shame on political power brokers on both sides for this shame of a cross endorsement.
Just when you think things can't get any worse in Irondequoit they almost always do.
Why were the cell towers and 1788 Titus Ave talked about? Those two items are tabled and not on the agenda other than to show they were tabled.
If we are "following the Agenda" for comments during Public Input - then only the items on the agenda should be discussed......correct?
I guess only "Certain People" are going to be censured.
What a joke this is.
I think we also know now why the Board meeting needed to be adjourned a week.
The judges wouldn't have gotten their training and Parks & Rec wouldn't have gotten a new employee.
Anonymous @ 7:22 -
Great point! I never thought of that. But....we don't know who was not showing up....right? Only that two board members couldn't make the meeting. I was assuming it was Aldersley and Essley that couldn't show up, but even if it was Perticone, Marasco, or MJD who couldn't show up - the two items still could have been passed.
It still would have been a quorum and they still would have been able to conduct town business with 3 there.
I think the Judges "vacation" still would have passed....the only "Nay" was Essley.
I wasn't paying attention to how they voted on the P&R employee....I don't remember any "nays" though.
Great blog Jax!
Every Town Board meeting is dripping with politics - Give Me a Break! I agree with you Anonymous, through the years the Supervisor's Remarks portion of the meeting is usually political.
Bob Moore isn't even allowed to introduce himself!? Spare me!
So many people in town don't even know what is going on with the election. They don't understand cross endorsements. Why would they? We've never had one in Irondequoit. Bob Moore is reprimanded for saying that he had over 1,000 Republican signatures on the petition so he could primary. I thought it was very petty and hypocritical. I was shocked...
I had to laugh when she asked the last speaker if he could be polite? Seems as if it doesn't take much to get under John Perticone's skin. When he rebutted he didn't make any sense. I must have missed the grandstanding and the speaker's trying to get votes. Spare me John, you were right up at that potium 4 years ago begging for votes and grandstanding.
Requiring speaker's to be respectful is one thing limiting what they are allowed to speak about by saying it's political is another. Anything can be up for interpretation. What's political to you may not be to me and vice a versa.
This is an administration that boasted about being open and their campaign mantra was open government.
Very disappointing. We are sliding down a slippery slope. Cross endorsements, limiting public input, denial of FOI etc.
When input was closed the Supervisor said “now we can get on with the business and purpose of this meeting.” Well I happen to think that public input is part of the business and purpose of the meeting.
Residents sharing what their concerns or questions are is valuable. Personally, I feel that public input is one of the most important parts of Town Board, Planning and Zoning meetings.
So disappointed to hear that our Supervisor doesn't value the public's input. Maybe she should remember who elected her.
Cheri -
Great comment! I agree with you completely. Especially this part:
"Requiring speaker's to be respectful is one thing limiting what they are allowed to speak about by saying it's political is another. Anything can be up for interpretation. What's political to you may not be to me and vice a versa."
I absolutely agree that the speakers should be respectful. But that doesn't mean they always have to be sunny positive in their public input and agree with everything the Board says or does.
Just like I really enjoy the Board all getting along. But that doesn't mean they have to cross endorse each other or agree with each other all the time. Essley and Marasco seem to disagree sometimes and state their opinions in a respectful way - everyone for the most part are respectful to them too. Which is nice.
I wonder if they were being political? lol
Cripes - anything and everything can be political.
Somewhere....a ribbon is being cut by giant scissors...a hole is being dug with a golden shovel........a press conference is being held....a speech is being given at a luncheon....media appearances and articles are written with their comments...
All in the name of "town business" I'm sure! Never about politics. Oh no, no, no. Never.
You said it Jax. All of those things I consider political. Ribbon cuttings, golden shovels etc. We are surrounded by politics in the town, school, sports, you name it.
Difference of opinions with Town Boards is automatically perceived as being negative. They only want to hear us if we agree with them.
Yes, all in the name of "town business" never, ever political. Cough, cough...
Has anyone heard if there WILL be the firehouse chat that was originally posted in the post?
I have a thought, if they fire depts didnt get back to them couldnt they use the town hall for their chats? I would think they could. Lets see if they really want to hear from the public or not.
The whole fire chat concept is and was a scam to try and give cover to the cross endorsed sheisters. They don't care now about or before about hearing from people.
The GOP shnookered Morelle and they will laugh all the way to another two years of power.
One other little thought regarding the town board mtg, did anyone notice that a) we are so broke, in fact too broke to have judges go to mandated classes but we will pay $60k plus for a parks and rec director? B) this position was not in the budget and c) why would the new images already include classes and programs that this person will coordinate BEFORE she was approved??? Hello, nothing? Doesnt this seem more than odd???
Nevermind, i am going to bed, feeling quite ill about the direction we are heading.
I think any mandated classes that are offered locally FOR FREE should be the ones they go to. If they want to go to NYC for 3 days, then it should come out of their own pockets.
Pinegrove has to close early (4pm), and close the building completely if the one full timer in P&R is out doing something else. With two full timers you can have the building open later and keep it open if a group is out doing something else.
It makes sense to have another full timer for P&R - what if the one person is sick? No classes that day? Seniors are turned away at the door because it's closed?
"Sorry Grandma, you can't go to Pinegrove today because the doors are locked."
I do not support a taxpayer paid 3 day junket for the judges and the clerks to take a mandated class that is offered locally for free.
I don't care if it costs the taxpayers only fifty cents for the trip - it's the point that these classes are offered locally for free. One day in the spring, one day in the fall - FOR FREE.
Instead, taxpayers are on the hook for travel, hotel, meals for an unnecessary 3 day junket to NYC.
That's ridiculous.
Post a Comment