UPDATE: A source who prefers to remain anonymous confirms what GA has heard from others with direct knowledge of the incident.
I can't be the source for this as I'm giving up a confidence, but I have it on excellent authority that Jen told [NHSA Commissioner X] she'd be rethinking his appointment to the sewer authority when she ran into him campaigning pre-election. And this was said in front of [NHSA Commissioner K].
Hmmm... All quiet from the jumbo-sized "resistance" hack who witnessed this petty, vindictive threat against a Commissioner X (a public servant in good standing with a perfect attendance record.)
As a matter of fact, not a peep on Mike DeFusco's obscene P2P violations or his very curious ELEC filings.
__________________
Here is what we know.
An NHSA Commissioner ("X") in good standing will be up for reappointment next month, January 2018. His attendance record is perfect- zero absences for meetings and subcommittee meetings. He would like to be re-appointed.
With a bifurcated Reform: the fringe "Resistance" is (according to Earwitness rumor) flexing its muscle, and looking for payback in this upcoming NHSA appointment. Which means the logical "Resistance" move is to latch onto an alternative candidate.
Reportedly a "Resistance" Council member said, with respect to this appointment, that it was time for a change.
Ironically, two of the "change" candidates who have turned in applications for Commissioner X's seat are not exactly change agents- both have served on the NHSA.
One of these "change agents," Candidate Y, reportedly had 7 absences- a miserable attendance record. Not to mention, witness reports of tirades against Hoboken elected officials in public, at public meetings- which included wildly offensive pejoratives.
The other "change agent," Candidate Z was on the NHSA a long, long time- 3 decades!
Reportedly, Candidate Z was a good, hardworking NHSA Commissioner- far superior to erratic Candidate Y. The only problem was, Z's long record of public service was rife with ethical blemishes.
 |
| Hudson Dispatch Editorial, August 27, 1990 |
Candidate Z nearly got reappointed, but the Council had the opportunity to replace him with a "change agent" (Candidate K). At that time, Candidate K was widely respected in the Reform community and with no ethical stains on his record.
Out went X, in went K.
Are you following? And the NHSA lived happily ever after.... NOT!
Earwitnesses rumor has it that Council President Jen Giattino and 4th Ward Councilman Ruben Ramos are teaming and scheming to boot Commissioner X, a public servant in good standing, to swap him with Candidate Y- the guy with the lousy attendance record, known for erratic behavior and angry public outbursts.
WOW. Why do that?
Wait!
Wait!
The plot thickens. Candidate Z was a contributor to Councilman DeFusco's campaign, and a major player behind-the-scenes.
In Hoboken's world of quid pro quo politics, DeFusco owes Candidate Z.
In Hoboken's world of quid pro quo politics, DeFusco owes Candidate Z.
But, but... Candidate Y was a loyal DeFusco soldier, too!
Oh, boy.
Here is the one thing that GA didn't tell you; it's key to understanding these alleged machinations to oust a Commissioner in good standing.
Commissioner X is a close personal friend of Mayor Zimmer, a longtime Reform activist, and a supporter of the incoming Bhalla administration.
In this vindictive political climate of resistance and retribution, merit doesn't matter. Affiliations do.
Now, do you get it?
Now, do you get it?
GA loves political intrigue, hates bullshit. This unfolding drama is chock full of both.
What next?
i guess the faux resistors are, in the end, all about refilling the swamp. they pay lip service to good government but at the end of the day are no different than the OG, just looking for political payback and what's in it for them.
ReplyDeletewhile not a hugely important position, it's a symbolic one that will cause problems for the faux resistors if they make the phony choice. ravi's team and supporters have moved on since the election, leaving all the farcical police second-guessing and re-litigation to the fringe element in town. they've extended their hand and given the faux resistors a chance to work as one for the common good of the city. but if the faux resistors go the phony route, i'd have no problem with team bhalla playing a little hardball on their faux resistor ass from now on.
If "Candidate Y" is who I think it is, this could get REALLY interesting. Rumor has it he may be on the verge of some legal action...
ReplyDeleteThis peaked my curiosity.
DeleteMy guesses:
ReplyDeleteCandidate X is Brian A.
Candidate Y is Tony S.
Candidate Z is Frank R.
If the information in the article is accurate, then I don't see why Brian should lose his seat unless it's all about political bellyaching.
"...unless it's all about political bellyaching."
Deletebingo!
Yep. IMO, the ballerina is a narcissistic bitch.
DeleteThe ballerina is an idiot if she thinks either of those 2 alternate candidates is anything but bad news. But we have known she was an idiot for a while so this is no surprise.
DeleteIt is my understanding that the NHSA works on a committee system and tenure is large part of who gets selected to be on what committee. The committees draws up the actual plans and budgets and then they are put before the whole for a yes or no vote. It would be counterproductive to the residents of Hoboken to lose even that small advantage because of internal City Council political games.
ReplyDeleteI think it's pretty obvious who the candidates are since Kurt Gardiner announced the "breaking news" last week that Tony Soares was applying for the position now occupied by Brian Assadourian.
ReplyDeleteBrian is a great guy who gets along with pretty much everyone, no matter what political "team" they are on. He has been a great Commissioner and has earned reappointment.
Replacing him with either Soares or Raia would be 1/2 political retribution, 1/2 political cronyism.
Let's hope folks come to their senses and recognize we need to put the election behind us and move forward together. That's certainly what the people of Hoboken want no matter who they voted for in November.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgree 100% with numberscruncher on all fronts on this one. Brian is a both a gentleman and someone who approaches his work with the NHSA with sobriety and professionalism. Even Kurt in his post did not have a bad thing to say about Brian, which says it all to me.
ReplyDeleteI think this appointment is a big test for Jen, Peter, and Tiffanie on whether professionalism and merit wins out or not. We all know Tony. He has a mean streak, and has been very divisive over the years. I would not want to work with him in this capacity, my guess is that it's the same from Jen, Peter, and Tiffanie in their heart of hearts. We're learning about them on this one, and their values.
From my perspective, Tony, Kurt, and Brian are bit actors in a large play. The main act is Jen, Peter, and Tiffanie. We will learn a great deal about who they are and what they stand for early on with this vote. Watch them, and watch what they say. If they want to hold the mantle of reform, its bedrock is merit and professionalism. By that standard, it's an easy choice. Hopefully they will do what's best for Hoboken. We'll see.
Last, I think the public framing on this one should be all about this larger question of who are Jen, Peter, and Tiffanie. What do they stand for? We learned something about them during election season. Where are they now a few months out? The focus should be on them and their leadership and values. Again this is an easy choice from a merit perspective. What will they choose?
Any council members wishing to do proper diligence on any of the candidates' ethics and professional conduct would be well-served to interview any of their former colleagues on any other boards (i.e. Zoning), with a particular emphasis on how they conducted themselves after leaving any boards on which they previously served and transitioning into any roles in which they may or may not have had a rooting interest in any applications before the corresponding board. If the candidates all come up with a clean bill of health, then so be it, but if there are any adverse testimonials regarding ethics, transparency, truthfulness and/or abusive behavior (either in person, online, or both) toward any former colleagues not cooperating with their agenda, that's certainly something that should be taken into account.
ReplyDeleteI think in all fairness, it is not only Jen, Peter and Tiffanie who we will learn more about, but also Ravi and the other Council people. We are entering a new political era after 8 years of Dawn dominating the landscape, with Beth Mason and the Russos as the dominant faces of the political opposition.
ReplyDeleteIt is up to all of our elected officials, both individually and collectively, to demonstrate that they can and will work together in the public interest.
The first test this Wednesday will be the 2nd reading on a referendum to bring back run-off elections (in December). Even if the council ultimately wanted to do this after weighing the issue carefully (which they have not done), they could wait as long as next August to get it onto the ballot in 2018. There is simply no reason to act now with essentially no public discussion, especially when the voting public voted resoundingly to get rid of run-off elections only a few years ago.
Does anybody really believe that DeFusco would have any problem with the existing system if he had won with 30% of the vote? Would Jen Giattino if she had won? I think its pretty obvious the answer in a resounding "no!"
Jen Giattino and Peter Cunningham strongly supported eliminating the run-off in 2012 (Tiffanie was a private citizen but I'll bet she voted "yes" to eliminate it). Other than being angry that Ravi won I can't imagine why they would have changed their minds.
A no vote on this on Wednesday would go along way toward demonstrating that they are ready to put the election behind them and put their formidable skills back to work helping to improve our City.
Oh, c'mon numbers. We all know exactly what All Hoboken was referring to about those (3) Reform Council members-- specifically whether or not fallout from the election (vindictiveness, bitterness, anger) will impact how they govern. So far, not looking good. Doesn't mean their better angels won't get control. But, we have to have an honest conversation, not a kumbaya singalong.
DeleteGA - I was not saying I think we are anywhere near having a kumbaya singalong. Losing an elections is hard and its not unreasonable to need a little time to put it behind you. That said, if the run-off ordinance passes and we wind up with Ruben as Council President instead of Peter, it will be a pretty clear statement that Fisher faction has chosen to politically align with the DeFusco faction to oppose Ravi, despite the fact that they have far more common ground policy-wise with Ravi.
DeleteWhile I agree it doesn't look god, but in my experience people for better or worse, always eventually revert to their true nature, and through how people respond to adversity (like losing an election), and success (like winning an election) we can learn a lot about their true nature . I think we will soon learn much about the true nature of all of our elected officials, for better or for worse. I am rooting hard for "better" and don't think its fair to assume that people on blogs reflect the thinking (or emotional state) of the elected officials they support (though I certainly recognize that it could turn out that they do).
This is reform ? Jen is "rethinking" Brian's term? Very, very nice.
ReplyDeleteSounds like if Brian had "rethought" his support of Ravi over Jen Jen wouldn't have had to "rethink" Brian's term. So really isn't it Brian's fault? /sarcasm
DeleteThis is exactly the stuff the old guard used to pull.
Slightly disagree. The old guard was always about the old guard. They wanted their own in every position. This is more Beth-like reflexive disagreement. If you want to save the hospital, she wants it to die. She needs know no more than that you want to save it. Her entire philosophy is to deny you whatever you seek and to use her authority to hurt the city since the lowest of low information voters will assume the mayor did it.
DeleteThey have zero cause to oppose Brian and even less reason to promote the other options. They are simply reflexively denying the mayor-elect with no other purpose in mind. If it goes down that way, it bodes very badly for the city with much greater decisions on the near horizon.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI realize the answer may be different for each of the candidates, but what is the attraction to a seat on the NHSA board?
ReplyDeletehealth insurance coverage?
DeletePays 5 grand, don't know if new commissioners get insurance.
DeleteIf Jen is going to pick a big time DeFusco supporter to be on the NHSA then she might as well pick a Russo because that would be just as bad. Seriously Jen, you really want to completely go over to dark side because you lost and most of the town rejected you? Face it, you were a horrible candidate and you never should have run for mayor. Stunts like this just prove how right we all were in rejecting you as mayor.
ReplyDeleteHere's the deal, clueless wonders.
ReplyDeleteA government in exile does NOT confer with the government not in exile on decisions, appointments, day to day operations. How is this confusing you?
A case in point..
Here is Unelectable's post about speaking at the NJ Transit board hearing. He recognizes The Tiffantrix as a fellow speaker at the event.
The Tiffanatrix, on the other hand, recognizes the Fund for a Better Waterfront. She did plan to attend the NJ Transit board meeting. But certainly not with the so-called mayor
You have to move past this expectation of reciprocity, collaboration, and so on. It just makes you sound stupid.
Brian Assortment (sp?) is a dead man walking. We will let you know who we have chosen in his stead in good time.
#morevoicesarealwaysbetter
#exceptunelectable'svoice
#andthevoicesofunelectable'sstupidsupporters
#thosevoicesareneverbetter
#justshutupalready
I agree that the vote on a runoff, in December, during the holidays, without public debate, barely a month after the election is being driven by emotion, not sound, informed public policy discussion. And yes, it’s telling. Governing based on hurt and raw feelings rather than sober analysis is governing for yourself, not Hoboken.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Republicans keep driving up the cost of elections thereby making elected office only for those with resources and it seems that our City Council, driven by the raw emotion of an election, is foolishly playing into it.
Citizens United legalized the Super PAC influence we saw in Hoboken this cycle. Obviously a runnoff would exacerbate this dynamic. But look at yesterday’s FCC ruling on net neutrality. I am pretty sure that politicians with money and SuperPACs supporting them will pay a premium for quicker, better voter access to their digital content. Digital played a big role this last cycle and tends to level the playing field more than distort it. I’m pretty sure that won’t be the case in the future as ISPs find ways to have politicians pay more for better consumer/voter access to their content.
Anyway, I think we are learning a great deal about the Council and our former reformers. They are making quick and poor decisions based on emotion not analysis. It’s one thing to feel pressure to make an ultimately poor, emotional decision under time pressure to run for Mayor, it’s another to make a quick, emotional decision when there is no such time pressure. They keep digging themselves and the rest of us into deeper, more costly holes.
It really feels like Jen, Tiff and company are still in grade school. The complete lack of maturity they are exhibiting is rather scary. I am almost getting to the point where I think it might be necessary to do a recall. It is either that or we are going to have 2 years of nonstop stupidity on exhibit for all to see in the CC.
DeleteAs for net neutrality, that is really getting blown out of proportion. You already had de facto net neutrality before they ever passed it in the FCC a couple years ago b/c it is just not efficient from a network management perspective to track every bit of data traveling over the internet so the network can discriminate based on source/destination. The whole net neutrality debate was more about edge companies like Netflix permanently trying to block the cable companies from starting up competing services than anything else.