 |
| On the same team now. Note: Farmer DeFusco got out-farmed by Farmer Romano this election cycle. |
Last night, in a stunning display of obstruction reminiscent of the Bad Old Days, the resolution for instant runoffs had to be pulled on First Reading.
The resolution was pulled by its author, Councilwoman Jabbour. Why? Because the Giattino-Ramos Axis of Weevil*, made it clear that it wasn't going to pass.
*NOTE: weevils are terrible pests that can chew through stacks of improperly stored VBMs. Therefore, the VBM harvesters must UNITE into an AXIS to prevent the chewing of improperly stored VBMs. Now, if a flood washes through a building basement- Hurricane Sandy, for example- that will drown these destructive vermin. However, water-logged VBMs get stuck to the insides of a mailbox, and cannot be returned, as Fisher, Giattino, and Cunningham will learn from their newfound friends.
You see, beneficiaries of VBM harvests do not want instant run-offs. Instant runoffs completely undermine the scheme that elects VBM harvest beneficiaries in low turnout elections.
And newfound Ramos-DeFusco allies Jen Giattino, Tiffanie Fisher, and Peter Cuningham are working on behalf of the VBM harvesters now. Yep, an Axis of Weevil. If you don't believe me, go to the videotape.
SET UP TO FAIL
That's not what happened.
Jabbour's resolution had been timely submitted on Friday. According to sources, Jabbour did not receive her colleague's revisions in writing until Wednesday-- the day of the meeting.
Ramos called Jabbour on Wednesday to say he would like revisions, but never submitted any. Okay...
Ruben, I'd like you to wear my favorite color to the next meeting only I'm not telling you what it is.
Clearly, Jabbour was given no guidance by Council members who chose instead to embarrass her in public, citing alleged "inaccuracies" and try to undermine her credibility. (It didn't work.)
JABBOUR BRINGS AMENDED RESOLUTION TO COUNCIL MEETING
In spite of her colleagues' very late revisions, Jabbour was able to amend her resolution per their input. Jabbour brought copies of her amended resolution to the meeting and distributed hem to all Council members.
So everybody was satisfied, right? Wrong...
Jabbour's amended resolution was not looked at by Council President Ramos nor Council Vice President Giattino; it was like it didn't exist.
Russo and Doyle requested an up or down vote.
No vote. Just a petulant performance by Giattino who cited "inaccuracies" (addressed on the amended copy she failed to read), a dispute over one word ("preferred"), and a lie that she had never supported 2012's initiative to remove run-offs, that she had told residents signing her petitions that she really opposed eliminating runoffs (numerous sources confirmed this is false).
These games are so 2010.
Well, in spite of the dismissive treatment by her peers, GA hears that Jabbour retains an optimistic view that her resolution to advance Hoboken election reform will eventually pass.
Note, Council VP Giattino stated she is meeting with Jabbour on Friday to discuss the resolution--a.k.a. "kissing the ring."
Well, whatever needs to get kissed in order to advance election reform in Hoboken. Kiss, kiss, kiss.
Oh the games people play!
It is not going to be an easy ride. In defeat, the Axis of Weevil is out for retribution. Outside of the bubble, the rest of us see exactly what's going on.
GA NOTE:
GA told you that there is legislation to allow municipalities to choose instant runoffs in both houses of the NJ Legislature. NJ Senate has an "instant runoffs" bill in the deep freeze since 2001 (SCR-112) and the Assembly has its own version, languishing in committee since 2015 (A4910). There is no time like the present to give our state legislature a kick in the ass, so to speak.
It is CURIOUS to me personally how the language in Jabbour's debut legislation was picked apart by the same colleagues who did not object to language in crap legislation that forces 13 year olds to bike in the road with cars.
 |
| This, they approved. |
Is there video of Instant run-off interaction readily available?
ReplyDeleteStart at 1:32:27. It's resolution CL-4. The discussion goes on for maybe 20 minutes.
Deletehttp://www.ustream.tv/recorded/111986164
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to download UStream videos. I have tried recently, without success. I won't give up.
This is very disappointing. I viewed Emily's resolution as a good test of Jen-Tiffanie-Peter reformer credentials. Jen is also lying about not supporting run-noffs in 2012. I guess she will also lie too about her team's whisper campaign that Ravi is unelectable because of his faith.
ReplyDeleteIf their reason for supporting runoffs is that you then have a Mayor and council people who have over 50% support, instant runoffs address that issue, but have the benefit of not requiring the time and expense and opportunities for corruption (see Peter Camarrano) involved in a runnoff. I am not sure why they would not support it.
Keep in mind that the main proponent of runnoffs with whom they have aligned, Michael DeFusco, is the subject of a campaign ethics complaint filed by Tiffanie. It seems like Tiffanie's lust for power -- not for policy purposes, just power --- has led her and Jen and Peter to abandon their principles. They are now ready and willing to support runnoffs which cost money and lead to corruption and make elections less accessible to those without the ability to raise money, because they are aligned with Mike DeFusco and wrongly think they can win elections that way because their "base" will follow them.
It's a losing moral strategy. It's a losing electoral strategy. I can't wait for 2019.
Very disappointing but not surprising. They have gone full blown dark side. Heck, they can't even pretend to support instant runoffs any more so time for them to bury that talking point.
ReplyDeleteThis incident was a litmus test for the newly revived Council Of No, which thrived for a long time, almost bankrupting the city, and wreaking havoc at every turn. It will no doubt be the first of many such acts of obstruction, but Jabour will remain steadfast and strong, which will stand out in high contrast to their emotional immaturity and histrionics. We are all watching, and the campaign season for 2019 will be upon us before too long.
ReplyDeletei'm confused. on a previous post, @indie commented about instant runoffs "We could make it happen if we are willing to." what happened?
ReplyDeleteRemember, the operative phrase in that statement of hers is "if we are willing to."
DeleteClearly the dark side is not willing to make it happen.
Don't try to follow the addled babbles of Indie.coma, who doesn't believe that state law matters in this case, which is consistent with the warped, corrupt thinking of the new Council Of No.
DeleteAn instant run-off doesn't further the goals of the Council of D'oh. The real reason behind it is the significant voter participation drop off seen between the election and the run-off. It allows the D'oh to win elections with fewer votes allowing the elections to be bought again.
DeleteGlad that #Jiff (my least favorite power couple), are working together to support one of the new females on the city council. Possible long con - make Emily so miserable that any other ladies who consider running shudder at the thought of working with #Jiff?
ReplyDeletesounds like the plot to a "mean girls" sequel of life 30 years later.
DeleteSimple answer. We do not count Enemy (sp?) among the "more voices" that are "always better." You people really seem to struggle with this simple concept. You asked the same question about Jim Dull (sp?) Same problem. He too is not one of the "more voices" that are "always better." What's so complicated?
DeleteJim "Dull"- ha ha! Good one! Yes, Jim is pretty dull. That's what I like about him. He doesn't like politics, he is about public service to Hoboken. Dark Side apologists keep saying "Jim didn't want to be Council President." Of course he didn't! As if "wanting" is the criteria by which leaders are chosen. Jim "wants" to serve Hoboken,, supports the goals of the Bhalla administration, and Reform governance. Jim will never pay his phone bills from his campaign funds, like Ruben. Jim will never violate P2P. Isn't he dull? Jim won his election, and was ready to answer the call to lead the Council. Shameful that his peers went to the Dark Side. They look like unprincipled buffoons.
DeleteWow, they've really gone over to the other side. When will the not-stupid-with-anger, not-drowning-in-bitterness component of their fan-base wake up? Never? Starting to look that way.
ReplyDeleteWell at least a couple of them are so far past the point of no return, they know they can never come back. Heck, I expect a few of them to be moving out of town before the next election.
DeleteThe (delighted) Dark Side is shifting gears, and laughing. At Jen, Peter, and Tiffanie. They had thought DeFusco was their bridge to regaining control of Hoboken... they never dreamed it would be Ruben. Yes, a trusted source gave me that one.
DeleteWe will be "covering" this story on our websites just as soon as we work out the spin.
ReplyDeleteUnder consideration:
1) Vote buying and selling is good for the economy. It's classic trickle down from elites to people who, let's be honest, really don't matter and should be grateful to get this much out of the political process. In fact your opposition to it sounds a bit racially insensitive to be frank.
2) While December runoffs do entail added costs, this is largely offset by the fact that 30-40% fewer people will vote and a lot of people who are paid to vote will do so by mail. Net/net a fairly small crowd to handle as the quadrennial torch is passed from Defusco to Ramos to Russo to one of Russo's kids. Touching stuff and it will instill a strong sense of "tradition." Tradition in the sense of something that never changes no matter what you try.
3) Bonkers for Bhalla, we're not kissing Bhalla's ring, Bhalla wants a police state and we're saying "no" to that, etc, etc, etc. In other words our well-established and well-loved standard practice of not explaining or defending any decision on its merits but just saying something about people who don't like the decision being obsessed with Unelectable.
Q: How is this candidate for this board better than that one?
A: Bonkers for Bhalla! Bhalla police state!
Q: Does it really make sense to direct 13-year-olds into traffic in a city with end to end double parking and vast numbers of people in their prime over-aggressive driving years?
A: Bhalla, Bhalla, Bhalla! Does everything have to be about Bhalla? Jeez.
Q: Wouldn't November runoffs move turnout back to May levels as was seen in neighboring Jersey City and thus reinstate the decisive impact of bought votes?
A: Can you try asking that question again without mentioning Bhalla 15 times? There's just no reasoning with you Bhalla cult members!
A real crowd-pleaser and so easy to do! Doesn't even matter what the question is! Here's why!
At Team giaFISHco Labs we have developed a little computer widget that spits out the "Bonkers for Bhalla" rejoinder to anything you might ask us about. And every splash of spittle comes with that pleasant whiff of "prioritizing checks and balances" to distract the distractable from wondering what ever happened to discussing government decisions on their merits and the best interests of the city. That's so last year.
Team giaFISHco: Handing the Keys of the City Back to the Old Guard Because, well... Bhalla, Bhalla, Bhalla, Bonkers for Bhalla, enough already with the Bhalla, Bhalla, Bhalla, never seen such creepy obsessiveness!