Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

Subject: What do you think???? Author: Gene [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:25:25 02/26/06 Sun Ned, is this the way to run a city govenment by caucus? Is this the openess they were talking about when you leave some of the council members out of the proceedings. Like I said before, it will just be a bunch of new good old boys and gals, nothing has really changed has it??? With their moritoriums in place and the hatred of the past administration it looks like nothing will get done to benefit the residents and business owners of Hudson till a new administratiion gets in place which has some common sense and is willing to work for the people. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Party caucuses Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:58:48 02/27/06 Mon Gene - the tradition of party (and interest group) caucuses is a long and honorable one. It's an opportunity for the party or the interest group to hash out their differences, engage in constructive debate and decide on a unified party strategy. It's not a meeting for "the public" - since it is about the concerns of the interest group or party that called it. There's nothing underhanded or that smacks of "the back room" about it. All elected City Democrats are welcome. The meeting is publicly announced, and the press generally covers it. What the Progressive Democrats promised - and what they are delivering on - is an open, transparent process of government, encouraging citizen input and reporting directly to the citizens. That is being done, and done well. That does not, of course, mean publishing transcro ipts of every phone call or conversation, making every meeting or social occasion where politics are discussed open to the public. The public is being kept infomed, invited to participate actively, listened to and responded to directly. That is a huge change from the ten years of Scalera rule; one that was badly needed in Hudson and bodes well for the future. The Waterfront development moratorium is a necessary step - to prevent incursions into the waterfront area that might compromise long-range planning - until an LWRP (which Charlie B and the Scalera Administration have been "working on" for more than three years without measurable results) that lays out a plan defined by the City and its citizens for the long-term development of an area that can be one of our City's greatest assets, can be generated. It's sort of like deciding to wait to buy a house until you've researched the neighborhood and area and had an inspection and valuation. We call it "thinking ahead" - not something recent Hudson Administrations have had much interest in - unless it's thinking ahead to their own retirement!

[> [> Subject: Like I said.... Author: Gene [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:59:35 02/27/06 Mon Now your getting it, the caucus will run the city not the council. Yep, better days are ahead, even the R-S is on board with it, just read todays editorial.

[> [> [> Subject: The majority Party Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:02:38 02/28/06 Tue Gene - the caucus will not "run the City" but the Common Council - led by its Majority - will. You didn't object when Rick held the reins of a rubber-stamp Council that was bullied into signing legislation introduced by ex-mayor Scalera without even reading it - some of which has proved to be illegal! All political Parties have the right to meet among themselves - like any private club - to talk about their aspirations, problems and issues of importance to them. This meeting was publicly-announced and has been much discussed by those who attended. They have been responsive to questions about what was discussed and what was decided. The public knows - those who take the trouble to ask or at least read the papers. To try and find fault with that process and cast it as the kind of back-room dealing that was so common under the Scalera Administration shows either ignorance of the political process or wilfull intention to mislead others and confuse selfish, secret, cronyist dealings with the legitimate exercise of the political process. Gee - either way that seems like you.

[> [> Subject: Re: Party caucuses Author: Gwen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 20:09:37 02/27/06 Mon Ned, while this doesn't necessarily pertain to Hudson, I remember a reporter friend of mine attempted to attend a caucus held at the Philmont village hall and was told she could not do so when she got to the door -- rather she had to wait for the release to come out that night. It didn't come out in time to do anything with it, and the caucus had chosen their candidates to run for office that night so it would have been newsworthy. Why did they bar the press? It made me mighty unsettled. I know that many places do allow the press to cover the caucus, and I was surprised this one didn't. To this day, I have no idea why she was barred from attending. I don't remember if it was Claverack or Philmont or what party it was either...I wish I did for discussion purposes.

[> [> [> Subject: The Caucus Tradition Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:37:26 02/28/06 Tue Gwen - The Caucus doesn't "run the City" - the Common Council does. The members of all parties - Republicans, Democrats and others where they exist - hold closed caucuses where members-only can air their disagreements and make suggestions in private and work toward a unified party position. it's very similar to the executive sessions that Government bodies hold, when they are discussing sensitive issues. Government bodies are limited in the kinds of closed session they can hold because they are elected officials. Political parties are more like private clubs - and just as the Elks Club can hold a "members-only" meeting to discuss the Flag Parade before they hold a public meeting and invite wider participation - so a caucus can be held by a private group to discuss their concerns and approach to issues. I agree that the use of closed caucuses to select candidates for office - which is the rule here in the U.S. - is restrictive. But the reasoning goes that the Party Committee is elected by the general membership, and that opening the selection process to the whole membership - over a thousand people in Hudson alone - would be too cumbersome. So the elected party officials - presumably acting on the instructions of their constituents - do the selecting. "Representative democracy" is always going to be less "democratic" than direct democracy - where everybody votes on everything - but the alternative seems unworkable. I can't, off hand, think of a better way, can you? It's not a prety, neat system, but it has worled moderately well so far. Your option is to get actively involved in the political process in your community, in the party of your choice or even from the outside, establishing relationships with any or all official "Parties." The more able you are to communicate with those members of a particular caucus (or if you become one!) the more chance you have of influencing the process.

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: The Caucus Tradition Author: Gwen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 20:34:23 03/01/06 Wed Ah, but Ned, you are overlooking one thing with your suggestion to become more involved and/or work toward becoming a member of a caucus -- some professions do not allow you to do so. I.E. reporters. I may be giving too much away with that, but while reporters closet support their parties and vote in elections, they cannot, for fear of losing their jobs in some places, be on a school board or town board...and more than likely a Democratic committee or any other committee. Ask Lynn S. I'm sure she can tell you how it goes...

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Gwen - Lynn is "involved" Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:10:27 03/02/06 Thu The idea that reporters can't have a political life of their own - complete with studied opinions and support for particular policies and individuals is an outmoded one. One option is to do as Lynn has - move a way from reporting and directly into politics. Modern journalistic practice (this may not have reached all of the upper Hudson Valley yet!) recognizes that reporters have their own poltical opinions and agendae and accepts their right to exercise their free-speech rights. But they "must" keep their private opinions separate from their reporting (see Fox News for what happens when this rule is not followed). Just in Columbia County, HCSD Board member Jack Maab is on the staff of The Independent. Needless to say, he avoids "conflict of issue" problems by not reporting on the HCSD or related stories. On the other hand, the Register-Star's shameless boosting of the SLC proposal - while SLC was paying large on-going advertising bills to the paper - was clearly questionable on ethical grounds, especially when it involved unquestioning acceptance and repetition of many claims made by SLC which have been show to have been false. Even if one was a "journalist" in one's "private" life, one has every right (and responsibility, shared by all citizens) to get involved. One may have to keep a low profile, and one certainly should discuss one's involvement with one's employer to have an independent check on one's own judgement on the ethical questions involved. But the idea that journalists have no right to personal political opinions or involvement in the political process is a long-discarded one within the profession.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Progress skips some... Author: Gwen [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 20:19:25 03/03/06 Fri Ned, What I meant by bringing up Lynn is that she knows which Hudson Valley paper will NOT allow reporters to hold political office. Again, I do not know if this includes working on a party's fundraising etc, or if it just applied running for or being a committeeperson or candidate. The Independent, obviously, allows Jack to report for them. For a while he was referred to as a freelancer, but I think he is now listed as reporter in their paper. I haven't checked it out myself, but a friend told me that they had contacted a media ethics organization on the issue and whether or not it is ethical is judged on a case-by-case basis. In Jack's case, I am of the mind it is fine. But there are those instances when, being on the board, he is privvy to what is GOING to happen and might "leak" it to his paper. In that regard, is it fair that he is on the board and an employee of the paper? Depends on your opinion, I guess. While some people might think that the Register-Star taking the side of SLC through editorials and what not was unethical...I thought the actual news stories themselves were balanced decently. Many forget that the newswriters and the editorial writers are not the same people and that the newswriters have no say, for the most part, on what goes into the editorials. That is the work of the ed board. As for advertising...it's paid for...it goes in...that's that. Newspapers, after all, are in the business of money-making, like most businesses. And for Lynn, leaving the paper was her choice when faced with two options: leave or pursue an office. She chose to leave. Some don't have the choice...their livlihood depends on the money they make at the papers, however piddly it might be, and they can't take the chance of running and losing an election. Personally, being in the field, I don't feel that reporters should be barred from holding an office or volunteering with a political party. So long as there is absolutely NO crossover between their reporting beats and their political affiliations. But again, that knowing about a story before anyone else is a dilemma I'm not sure how I would get around. But, what the peons think doesn't matter to the powers to be. And until the powers to be change the policies...some Hudson Valley reporters don't have much of a choice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Careful review is called for Author: Ned Depew [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:44:27 03/04/06 Sat Gwen - As I said, it is accepted practice in the journalism industry to separate personal ideology and political connections from one's reporting. Certainly there are cases where an individual has to recuse him or herself from stories to which there is an insurmontable personal connection. But that simply stops the reporter from covering certain issues, not from being a reporter nor from having strong political views. The principle is the same as that which creates an imaginary "firewall" between the advertising and editorial departments (one that sometimes seems especially "imaginary" - invisible and totally permeable - as it did in the case of the Register-Star and SLC). A reporter can hold strong political views and still report clearly, fairly and honestly on the "Who, What, When, Where, and How." The new insight in this area for journalists and schools of journalism, is that it's not a question of being "objective" (which has come to be realized as an imaginary ideal) but rather of being "fair" - recognizing the reporter's own prejudices and making every effort - including peer review and editorial oversight - to avoid inserting them into the writing. I hope you'll review the articles published by the Register-Star on the SLC matter. I think you will find, as many others have, that the coverage was full of innacuracies, of failures to pursue questions and clarify points unfavorable to the SLC position, of unquestioning repetitions of SLC press materials without the slightest effort to test claims made against opposing points of view, of direct distortions of the facts when compared with videotaped records of some of the events described. In my opinion, they could stand as something of a journalistic case study of "bad practice." I respect your impression that the coverage was fair, but I ask you to review that judgement with the benefit of our current hindsight on the issue and in the light of differing accounts (those of the Independent and of the videotapes, for instance) that are available. As a reporter, you should agitate through your professional organizations and your Union (if you don't have one, you should, for exactly this reason!) for fair treatment. There are ethical ways for journalists to embrace both political activism and responsible reporting. Publishers of major newspapers have already accepted this truth. Publishers of less progressive newspapers need to be educated to follow that lead.