The following Op-Ed was submitted to GA by longtime Hoboken resident and Reform activist Scott Siegel.
Runoff Elections
 |
| Scott Siegel at his 2010 Meet and Greet for Kids First |
As the person who obtained the most signatures (about 400) in 2012 for the November election referendum, I have a real problem with concept of a December runoff. Before the referendum was formed a group of reformers sat around and discussed the issue. The idea of a December runoff not only was unanimously rejected, but it violated the principles of what we were trying to accomplish.
The main points were:
Tax payer savings: The average NJ election costs $70,000. By eliminating May elections taxpayers would save money.
The main core of our idea was to increase voter turnout which we all saw as a noble goal. If you look at November turnout vs. May the facts bear this out.
The idea that large numbers of voters would turn out for a runoff are preposterous. In December the average person is more concerned with a vacation or shopping and preparing for the holidays. This would mean that the criminal (in my mind) VBM harvest would likely decide the outcome.
In recap the idea of a December runoff is anti-democratic and designed to cost taxpayers additional money and subvert democracy. This why I am asking the City Council not to overturn Mayor Bhalla's veto.
The concept of an instant runoff has some merit, but it should be debated before the Council, because I do see negative implications with that as well.
PART 1- I read the drivel that Al Sullivan wrote this past weekend in the Hoboken Reporter. Something did not ring true to me. So, I asked around as to what is going on with the apparent schism in Hoboken between members of the "Old Reform" and the "New Reform". What I heard and learned from several people is that "Old Reform" (i.e. Lenz, Soares, Marsh and their cohorts) are really, really pissed at Mayor Zimmer for a whole variety of alleged misdeeds and snubs. They are hurt that they are not sufficiently recognized by the Mayor for their efforts to get her elected and feel that, once elected, she turned her back on them. How, exactly, no one could explain. When pressed, no one could tell me anything really SUBSTANTIVE that the Mayor had done to this group, just the general feeling that they had been "disrespected" and had not gotten their "due" during the Mayor's tenure. It seems that this group believed (and believes) that they are somewhat entitled to recompense for their years in the trenches. Recompense in what form was never clearly articulated. When I asked what their policy differences with Mayor Zimmer were, I got blank stares. When I asked what decisions would they have made differently, again, I got yadda yadda yadda. Oh yeah, and something about bikes.
ReplyDeleteWhat did come through loud and clear was that the Old Reformers were really interested in power. Having spent years in the trenches fighting, they don’t know how to give up the fight and accept that Hoboken has moved on from the age of the Russo Grifting Clan and political warfare and is on the road (after 8 long and arduous years) to an era of good government. I kept hearing how Jen will have more "power" as an "independent” and be able to threaten Ravi with spoiling his agenda through making back room deals with the Russo/Defusco/Ramos clan. I heard more than once that Jen/Tiff/Lenz/Soares/Marsh/Cunningham intend to make "Ravi's life hell". When I pressed as to their end game, again there was no SUBSTANTIVE or POLICY basis for making Ravi's life hell, just a blatant attempt to exercise control through threats and IMO really pathetic extortion techniques to make sure that Ravi is a one term mayor so that the cabal can then determine who should be the next mayor. And, presumably, then get their just “due”.
As to the whole "reform should have met and decided who should succeed Mayor Zimmer" argument, I got a very curious reply - that of course Old Reform should have made that decision; the mayor was merely a place holder and that Old Reform had made her and that they were entitled to make her successor. When I asked about how that process would work, and who would be making that determination, I was told that the details were not important, just that "Old Reform" would determine who they wanted as the next Mayor. And they did not want Ravi.
I was struck most of all by the actual disdain that I heard about Jen from what I have now come to consider to be cretins. They talk about her as if she is a mindless puppet. That she is a "vessel" (weird word to describe her) that will deliver the promised political rewards to Old Reform. I could never get what Old Reform wants - seats on the NHSA, a cushy county job, freeholder, assembly? There did not appear to be anything specific, just an "I want" guttural scream about the injustice of it all.
PART 2- My conclusion is that this whole crew could give two hoots about what is good for Hoboken; they seem to be solely out for self-aggrandizement and power. It appears to be perfectly acceptable to them to risk a swing to the dark side in a December election runoff if that settles a score with Mayors Zimmer and Bhalla. They are truly a scary group of people. I shudder to think that they may actually do to Hoboken if ever given the levers of power. What they have now is a messy coalition with the very people that put us into receivership, tried to block the hospital sale, allowed 800k to be stolen in quarters form the City, the horrendous Suez deal (See Russo and Ramos in particular on that one). They are not driven by policy, ethics, good government or anything else that I have come to associate with "reform"; their deities are self-promotion, avarice and power. God save us from them.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry - but nobody should be getting involved politically out of a desire for power if they want to be considered a reformer. I believe what you are saying is how those folks feel - but that sense of entitlement absolutely disgusts me and is nothing but trouble. I'd argue that sort of motivation is exactly what gets a person to "turn to the dark side". Greed, lust, envy and such never a good thing in the bible, in life or in politics.
DeleteBack in the day there was much discussion about "what happened to Beth?" The idea was that Beth used to be "good" and somehow list her way and became "bad."
ReplyDeleteIn reality Beth was always Beth.
The only thing that changed were the tactics she used to pursue her personal ambition for power.
The same is true for Lenz, Soares and Marsh. The truth is that most of the early supporters of reform truly cared about good government and still do. Sadly much of the "leadership" never did (or at least cared far less than their supporters did). To a large extent they were exploiting what they saw as an effective marketing brand to gain personal power.
Mike Lenz once told me that he didn't really care about parks, but he supported them because he couldn't get to 50% +1 without the people who actually cared. That pretty much says it all about that crew's approach to public policy.
Lenz, Soares & Marsh also parlayed their civic activism into getting government jobs. With Giattino and DeFiasco, they saw a path out of political irrelevancy in an arena where six months out of the public eye is an eternity. It didn't work out.
ReplyDeleteMr. Siegel and Mr. Kurta should post here often about the chronic, terminal problems caused by the old guard and their style of elections, which runoffs were a big part of. Heck, even though they've moved, they can even come back to town and vote, just like the old guard. No one will notice, and they can double park while in the booth, just as is done on Clinton, when the old guard who keep apartments in Church Towers drop by the polls before they stop at Fiore's and Dom's before making the trek home to Toms River.