CEDX

Time to get involved in local Town Politics

I've often been tempted to get involved and active in local politics.  One of the things that has always made me wonder is why there are no assigned areas that town council folks are responsible for.  When the opportunity to push for council districts in Huntington arose, I signed on, especially because it was easy to do with Facebook.  The organizers are social network savvy.  I've also thought  that Huntington itself was a pretty progressive town, and I am generally happy with the way that the town is run, but I think that some things aren't great, and they might get better through increasing accountability with districting.

The petitions were organized, signatures collected, and I fully expected the issue to be put to a vote.  I didn't really expect that the Town Board would object, but I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.  I believe it is time to change the status quo and introduce districting.  I've quoted Mark X. Cronin's letter about what is happening with the petitions now that they've been submitted. Please read the below, and if you're in Huntington, and you care about fair representation, support the push for districts.  Join our group on Facebook.

Same Old Politics Try to Deny the People the Right to Vote

Late this afternoon, Michael Kearns of Northport filed objections to the petition with the sole intent to deny the citizens of Huntington to right to vote on this issue. We do not know Mr. Kearns except to know that he is acting as a front for the Town Board. How do we know that the Town Board is behind this insider political ploy? 

• To file an objection, a person would need to see a copy of the petitions. While anyone could request a copy from the Town Clerk, Mr. Kearns has not requested a copy of the petitions, so he must have had another source for a copy of the petitions. The only people with copies of the petitions are the Town Board members and the Town Attorney (the Town Attorney’s office has four copies of the petitions). The Town Board must have provided the information to file the General Objections.

• The general objections must be followed by specific objections; preparing specific objections would require having a copy of the petitions. Mr. Kearns did not request a copy of the petitions. Again, the only people with copies of the petition are the Town Board members and the Town Attorney so they must provide the information to Mr. Kearns. 

We believe these facts demonstrate that the Town Board is now trying to stop a vote on the issue. We had asked the Town Board to put the issue of Council Districts on the ballot. Had they done so, the issue could have been on the ballot this November. They refused to do so. Now the Town Board is working to block the rights of the voters to have this issue placed on the ballot through the petition process.

We want to know:

• Why is the Town Board hiding behind Mr. Kearns? 

• Who is working with Mr. Kearns to block the right of the people to decide?

• Who provided the petitions to Mr. Kearns so he could file an objection? 

• Was an attorney working for the Town or doing business with the Town involved in preparing these objections?

We support Town Council Districts because they lead to better representation, more accountability and more openness in government. In their action to block the petitions, the Town Board is proving our point. They are denying the voters the opportunity to decide on representation. They are denying accountability by working through Mr. Kearns instead of filing the petition in their own name. And they are opposing openness in Town government. Shame on them!

Ernie reports on a local Healthcare Town Hall

LIMBA's Chairman, Ernie Fazio, recently attended one of the local Healthcare meetings, and wrote this report.  I enjoy Ernie's take on things, and I particularly like his description of the roving mob's techniques and their past precedents.  Turnabout is fair play on these things, seriously.  Take it away Ernie...

Recently congressman Steve Israel convened a town hall meeting on healthcare reform. I had seen these meetings on television and was not surprised to see a large group of opponents wielding signs.

Prior to entering the hall I engaged several of them in conversation, and found a man who was really interested in civil discourse, the others were clearly there to create trouble. Once inside the theater the security officers did not allow the signs except for the back row. The slogans and yelling from the audience was orchestrated. The opponents were not all grouped together, but they often signaled to each other to stand up and yell as various things were said.

Mr. Israel, to his credit, had thought this meeting out. The rules for asking questions were
Only constituent’s questions would be answered and those questions had to be submitted in writing on a form with the questioners name and address. This was done to prevent the "floating mob" that go from one meeting to the next to totally disrupt the proceedings.

I was seated in the third row so that most of the people in the hall were behind me. Therefore I could not see them unless I turned toward the back of the auditorium. This turned out to be an advantage to me. Here is what I sensed.

Whenever the congressman or one of the other speakers (there were three others beside Steve Israel) spoke verbal hoots and hollering began to obscure the answer to a question, they would jump out of their seats and motion to members of their contingent that they needed more noise. This boisterous yelling out, and standing up can be very disconcerting to a speaker unless he has seen this “scary movie” before. The congressman appeared totally at ease and unimpressed with this phony display. In fact he was smiling most of the time and resisted any impromptu responses to what was being yelled out to him.

On the other hand when the congressman or one of the other speakers made an important point, the supporters would applaud. The applause was very rich and, robust, and indicated that most of the people in the hall were with the congressman.

Here is what else I observed; only one of the protesters had posed a question, indicating that most of them were not in Mr. Israel's district.

This negative and disruptive contingent was only about 25% of the audience, but they were able to look more formidable than they actually were.
It was apparent that this was a floating mob, and none of this was spontaneous. Instead this was a well-orchestrated attempt to subvert any dialogue between the people and the congressman. It didn't work!

When I was 22 years old I was hospitalized for 14 days. During that time I read a couple of books on the rise of the Nazis. The "Brown Shirts" would go to the political gathering places and disrupt the meetings by the use of the same tactics we have been witnessing at these so called town hall meetings. Most of the intelligentsia of Germany considered these Brown Shirts buffoons, but they systematically built political power based on fear caused by the lies they spawned.

It is always dangerous to make these historical comparisons, and these people are not the Brown Shirts, but the tactics are amazingly similar.

This editorial is not about healthcare reform, or whether you are for it or against it. It is about process. There are many legitimate questions that must be asked and answered before we make this dramatic change, but these disruptive people are not going to get us there.

Democracy makes this kind of mischief possible, so it is incumbent on all of us to be wary and watchful. There is a terrible price to be paid if we are not.

Ernie Fazio