Welcome Visitor. Sign-on
 
Mayoral Control in Rochester: The Political Angle
By: Aaron E. Wicks
Posted: Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:45 am
Rochester, NY (January 12, 2010) -- There is a wonderful -- if somewhat obscure -- moment in a 1960 debate between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy where Kennedy pounces on Nixon's claim that he supports international cultural exchange for youth:

"Mr. Nixon says that we should not regard them (youth as cultural ambassadors) as pawns in the cold war, we should identify ourselves with them... if that were true, why didn't we identify ourselves with the people of Africa, why didn't we bring students over here? Why did we suddenly offer Congo 300 students last June when they had their tremendous revolt? That was more than we had offered to all of Africa the year before from the federal government."

Of course, Kennedy's rhetorical tactic was just that: a tactic, a tool to score points in a debate. But as tactics go, it is one of the more useful, because it applies a very logical approach to teasing out the "true" beliefs of an opposing point. It amounts to little more than comparing words with the deeds -- the observer can then determine for themselves which they find the more compelling indicator of a person's true motives. As Kennedy demonstrated, to be effective, sometimes one must look backwards over a period of time to identify a pattern of behavior to compare to the words being presented.

One can debate whether mayoral control of the Rochester schools is a good or bad idea. Future articles here in the Smugtown Beacon will do just that -- and we welcome those debates. But before plunging too far into such discussions, it is important to first identify the sincerity, even honesty, of the characters involved. Thus far, the primary proponent of mayoral control in Rochester is, logically, the mayor. And it is with him that our story begins.

2004:  Duffy Emerges as Rochester's Cincinnatus (Minus the Plow)
Actually, the story begins prior to the Duffy mayoralty. Back in late 2004, as Mayor William Johnson was preparing for what he announced would be his final year in office, rumors swirled that the popular police chief, Robert Duffy, might consider running for the post. These rumors became particularly intense when Johnson was offered the chance to provide Councilmember Wade S. Norwood his endorsement, but demurred. Seeing that as a signal that Norwood was not to be Johnson's pick for his successor, political wags' tails began, well, wagging.

In his usual fashion, Duffy aw-shucksed the hoopla, saying that he was flattered by the rumors but that he needed to take some time to consider the race. In reality, during the very period Duffy was publicly claiming to only be in the pre-contemplation phase, he was actually in the process of assembling a fundraising and campaign team, securing verbal commitments from many key players. The words made for wonderful copy, but they were untrue.

2005: Duffy Opposes Mayoral Control
As the campaign wore on, and candidates Norwood and Councilmember Tim Mains (the candidate this author backed) sought issues that would engage public debate, the issue of mayoral control emerged. Norwood, alone among the three, took a gamble by backing the idea whole-heartedly. The well-funded Duffy campaign, which always had a campaign mailing ready to rebut Norwood on any issue, played a Republican card from the 1994 health care debate. Playing on voters' fear of bureaucracy and government bloat, the Duffy campaign distributed a mailing that depicted a proposed Norwood administration organization chart showing the city's educational system as a small box at the far end of a tangle of other city offices. The idea was clear: merging the schools with the city's other functions would put education on par with trash collection.

This opposition to mayoral control by Duffy is not the only fact relevant to this story in late 2005. It is important for readers to recall that the following were known to Duffy and his advisors at the time he took his position opposed to mayoral control:

* Rochester's poverty rate was high as was its child poverty rate (one of the highest in the nation at the time). Both remain virtually unchanged since that time.
* Crime in Rochester was unusually high -- in fact, Rochester had been called "the murder capital of New York State" in recent years.
* The connection between educational performance and young people's life chances was clear to Duffy at the time. On the campaign trail, on several occasions, Duffy recalled stories of visiting young people in the jails and observing that the common denominator for virtually all of them was poor school performance.
* Mayoral control of public schools had a track record in several major cities in 2005, including New York City (where it had been in effect for three years) and Chicago (in place since 1995).

The significance of these points? Most -- if not all -- of the policy-based arguments for centralized control of schools in Rochester could have been made precisely the same way, with the same facts, in 2005 as in 2010. Mayor Duffy, therefore, cannot claim that the complex interconnection of poverty, crime, economic development and education in Rochester have caused him to espouse mayoral control of the schools.  Nor can he claim that the 2009 shootings of three police officers by youth who had dropped out of school convinced him that education needed to be a citywide priority. Those facts were in place in 2005 when he opposed it and those stories of youth gone astray were a significant part of his campaign in 2005 -- not a recent revelation to the mayor.

January-February 2009: 131 West Broad Street Freeze Out
In January 2009 a now-legendary meeting occurred at the Rochester City School District's administrative offices on Broad Street. The joint meeting of the school board, city council and the mayor was meant to be an open dialogue for these three governing institutions to begin building a closer working relationship. Accordingly, the agenda included the item that would certainly be the most contentious: the issue of mayoral control.

Although it has been described in the Beacon previously, the meeting bears renewed focus because of wildly inaccurate representations of it -- some by the participants themselves. Mayor Duffy has described it as an "ambush." A curious position to take as he, the other participants and members of the audience all knew that the mayoral control subject was on the agenda. Channel 13's Rachel Barnhart was even there blogging live -- no doubt because she expected it to be interesting.

Although the mayor claims to welcome debate on the issue of mayoral control today (as stated in his December 2009 letter), he embarked on a verbal filibuster at the 2009 meeting, refusing to answer the direct question about whether he supported mayoral control and consuming copious amounts of time doing so. Additionally, contrary to his purported desire for debate today, back in January he criticized district parents and staff for bringing placards to the meeting opposing mayoral control. There was not a single instance of verbal interruption by the audience -- the signs were neatly and silently placed against the wall -- yet the mayor accused district staff of abandoning their jobs for the day to make the signs and disrupt the meeting (neither of which he could prove).

The mayor was not the only exemplar of unusual behavior. Councilman Adam McFadden stormed out of the meeting in disgust. Other council members sprang to the mayor's defense taking the stunning position that he need not answer the questions on mayoral control because the issue is one that can only be decided in Albany. Sadly, there was not opportunity to ask these councilmembers how the state legislative delegation would make their decision without having input from the mayor who would ultimately be made responsible for the public schools. In retrospect, it was a moot point: Duffy already had their votes lined up -- despite his claims that he was still studying the issue.

Why is this bad behavior relevant to the story? Because it demonstrates that the mayor had an opportunity to take a position in a constructive setting -- one designed for debate -- just one year ago, and declined.  This suggests that his conversion to support of mayoral control is a recent one, a story that simply doesn't hold water given the facts cited above regarding a policy-based rationale for supporting mayoral control. To the contrary, it suggests an underlying strategy of undermining city-board relations in order to point to a state of disarray and dysfunction that needs a unifying, temperate man at the helm (like maybe Robert Duffy).

March-April 2009: Silent Designation Season
Voters think of October and November as the "political season" each year, but March and April are actually critical months on the political calendar -- at least for city Democrats. It is in these months that candidates begin to emerge formally and make their appeals to the party's designating committees. This is the ideal opportunity to introduce an issue for public debate: candidates sitting on the fence, trying to decide to run, which sorts of alliance to seek out and which platforms might have the strongest appeal have to finally take the plunge and put at least some of their cards on the table.

Had Duffy wanted a vibrant public debate on the issue of mayoral control -- one that, no matter its outcome, could at least add legitimacy to the result -- this would have been the time to commence such a debate. Particularly in 2009, when the positions of mayor, a majority of city council and three school board seats were all up for election. Designation season is a particularly good time for such a debate to begin because many designation meetings had candidates for different offices in the same room at the same time. School Board candidates and city council candidates could have debated one another. The mayor -- with no declared opposition -- could have also been a more active participant. Indeed, it is possible (though perhaps unlikely) that an opponent might have emerged simply on the basis of this issue.

Given such an excellent opportunity for debate (at least among political elites), why did Duffy remain silent during this season? Again, if one is to take the mayor at his word, the only logical explanation is that he was truly conflicted on the issue at the time and not prepared to take a clear-cut position for or against. Yet again, this explanation would require the mayor to explain what changed from April to December that pushed him over the edge? There is no clear event that the mayor has described or that any reasonable person could point to. The conclusion, then, is that the silence was strategic. A strategy that would continue for several more months.

Summer 2009: An Olive Branch Extended... and Ignored!?
One of the most inexplicable phenomena in the mayoral control debate has been the mayor's refusal to respond -- in any substantive way -- to a proposal made by School Board Commissioner Van H. White meant to address one of the key issues dividing the city and the school boar: accountability and control of funds. In his letter, White proposed that the mayor and council consider a "cross-pollenation" approach, where council would permit school board representation on the city's finance committee and the board would permit council/mayoral representation on the board's finance committee. Not a final solution to all the problems that have been raised, but a constructive, meaningful start -- and an unprecedented gesture of openness an dialogue from one governmental entity to another.

The mayor's response? None. That is, nothing that responded to the substance of the letter. The mayor could have used this letter as an "opening bid" in a back-and-forth between the school board and the council. He could have used it as a invitation to take the debate public, to invite public comment on such a proposal and test the waters for the public's appetite for more comprehensive reform (such as complete mayoral control). Yet the mayor remained silent. Why? Could it be that the mayor did not have to respond? That he already had a plan underway? If not, then why not take this opportunity to put his own indecision on the issue before the public?

September-November 2009: A Distracted, Disengaged Public Gives Duffy a Green Light
One of the major questions in this story is what changed the Mayor's mind? What brought him to his December decision to go forward with plans to consolidate (his word) the city schools with other city operations? As has been discussed, his stated reasons do not hold water. The shooting of police officers did not represent new insight to the mayor. The social fabric of the city, as revealed in crime and educational statistics, does not support a change in his position either -- both have improved in the past three years, hardly cause to believe that the current system is failing. So what DID change? 

With no publicly-stated position on mayoral control, candidates for mayor, city council and school board entered the September primary in the city (the "real" election in this one-party burgh) debating the usual issues. The mayor, unopposed, trumpeted a theme of continuing the work started in his first term. Council focused on revitalizing the city, in terms of economic development, more vibrant neighborhoods and a more responsive, engaged council. And the school board candidates talked about continuing progress improving graduation rates, improving parent engagement and ensuring accountability in the district. With no compelling "new" issues on the table, voters responded as one might expect: the "usual suspects" turned out to vote, while most residents simply stayed home.

How low was voter interest? In the September primary, the leading candidate for Council, Loretta Scott, won the approval of 7.3% of the city's Democrats; the leading school board candidate, Van White won the votes of 6.2% of city Democrats. In a city with 66,000 registered Democrats, a mere 2,050 votes would have won a candidate a place on the November ballot for City Council (and almost certain election).

I November, the voter malaise continued -- with one exception. The city contains just under 100,000 registered voters. In November 2009, only 19,000 of them went to the polls. The citywide candidate winning the most votes was mayor Robert Duffy, with about 14,000 votes. Trailing him were Loretta Scott and Van White, each garnering close to 13,000 votes. In other words, a small fraction of Rochester's voter were moved to go to the polls (perhaps because they are so satisfied?).

An interesting footnote to the November election was the performance of Tom Brennan as a write-in school board candidate. Brennan won 1,200 votes -- far short of the 7,500 needed to move into third place (and earn election), but a relatively significant number for a write-in campaign on a shoestring (and virtually no time).

So the story from September and November is this: voters, by and large, are disengaged. Note that this result is not uncommon: local elections generally suffer from low turnout. This election did not set a record for low turnout, but it was a slightly more dismal performance by voters than anticipated. The Brennan write-in suggested, however, that among those who DID vote, there was concern about the school board and the people leading it.

How does this turnout story relate to the Duffy position on mayoral control? Simple. The mayor's plans to seek control of the schools hinged on his re-election (obviously) and an ability to demonstrate to the state legislative delegation, once and for all, that he could pull this off with minimal disruption to the current political alliances that keep Gantt, Morelle, john and Robach in power. Duffy believes he has done that, showing his popularity with voters (he was elected without opposition, after all) and also allowing the voters to show their own lack of fire.

Conclusion
The story above is meant to provide a check on some of the rhetorical claims made by the mayor. If he claims that his current position on mayoral control is a result of a change in the data or a change in his view of the state of the city of Rochester, such a story is inconsistent with the facts. If he claims that he desires a vigorous debate, there are several decision points in the past years where Duffy has studiously avoided such debate.

It can be safely stated, based on observed behavior, that mayor does not favor mayoral control for any of the reasons he has heretofore publicly stated. In that sense, one can therefore conclude that, to this point, the mayor has been less than honest in his dealings with the residents of Rochester on this issue.

What could make a good, decent man engage in deception, rhetorical sleight of hand and avoidance of debate? The same thing that turns all good men bad: money.

In the second installment of this series, the role of money and how public schools are financed in New York's cities will take center stage. Until then, let the "debate" continue.

We'd like to hear from you!
If you'd like to share your opinion on this article, please login (or create a membership login) and enter your comments in the "What's your opinion?" field. We ask that underneath your opinion, you provide your first and last name and the city and state in which you live. Only opinions that include full attribution will be approved by our authors. Thanks very much!

Click here to get email updates!

Printer-friendly format

Member Opinions:
By: Howard on 1/12/10
Aaron,

Thank you very much for providing the community with a comprehensive, historical overview of Robert Duffy’s hypocrisy concerning the issue of mayoral control of the Rochester City School District (RCSD). Since so many people in this community seem to suffer from acute, historical amnesia --- many of us view your chronological treatise (below) as representing a very important contribution to the mayor less debate concerning this critically important issue.

You had noted that “the mayor claims to welcome debate on the issue of mayoral control today.” If that is the case, then why is he (as you had pointed out in a January 4, 2010 article) still “ducking and dodging?”

As you know, Rochester Board of Education Commissioner Van White has challenged the Mayor to open debate, which Duffy’s Chief of Communication, Gary Walker attempted to dismiss as an attempt to turn the issue into a “spectacle.” Additionally, many taxpayers, including parents and other community members and organizations have been practically begging Duffy (without any success) to engage them in discussion regarding his plan to take over the RCSD.

Apparently his honor, and would-be RCSD overseer is too busy attempting to solidify support in what is unarguably one of the most dysfunctional and corrupt, so-called governing bodies in the entire United States of America, that’s right --- the New York State Legislature.

Contrary to what seems to be (at least in some political circles) popular belief --- mayoral control is not a done deal. In fact, many of us believe that no matter how much support Duffy might have in Albany’s Houses of legislative corruption, whether or not mayoral control becomes a reality, depends almost solely on the degree and extent to which the people of Rochester mount an effective resistance campaign, which we predict they will.

As an aside, you have indicated in at least a couple, if not several recent articles your belief that “an interesting footnote to the November election was the performance of Tom Brennan as a write-in school board candidate. Brennan won 1,200 votes…” Of course I’m probably biased, but I just can’t understand why you apparently find Brennan’s performance any more, or even as interesting as mine.

As you may or may not recall --- running as a third-party candidate --- I garnered nearly three times the number of votes that Brennan earned. Also, I more than doubled the number of votes that the incumbent, vice-president of the Rochester Board of Education, Van White, earned on the same third-party line. In fact, I earned more votes than any local candidate that has ever run on the Working Families Party line, and I accomplished this without one iota of help from the Party. Other than provide the ballot line (for which I am appreciative) --- the Working Families Party did absolutely nothing to support my campaign. So, I’m just curious about why my accomplishment is not seen as “an interesting footnote?” Maybe you can help me understand.

In any case, once again, many of us appreciate the historical critique that you provided, which lays bare the hypocrisy surrounding Robert Duffy’s fake claim relative to being concerned about the best interests of RCSD students and families. We just hope that the people of Rochester will accept, and not argue with (as many in this community have a tendency to do) the crystal-clear facts that you laid out, and the bottom line that “the thing that turns all good men bad [is] money.”

Howard J. Eagle

Chairperson, Education Committee

Activists Against Racism Movement (AARM)

Website: http://aarm.rocus.org;

Email: aarm@rocus.org


By: Terry_Schnurr on 1/12/10
A minor factual correction:

Mr. Eagle did not receive "more votes than any local candidate that has ever run on the Working Families Party line". In his campaign for school board in 2009, he garnered 3,371 votes on the line. 3,903 votes were cast for Tim Mains on the line for mayor in his 2005 campaign, which Mr. Wicks co-managed.

Terrence E. Schnurr
Rochester, NY

By: tfb on 1/13/10
Tim Mains would have been a terrific Mayor. His campaign was honorable. Everybody associated with it should be proud, whatever his numbers.

However, we ought not denigrate Howard's accomplishment. The turnout was much lower in 2009 than 2005. A far higher percentage of people, who went to the polls last year, voted for Howard.

Beyond that, Howard was actually victorious, defeating Elliott, in Charlotte. People who know Charlotte, and know Howard, can not help but smile about this, and consider it a great step forward for both of them.

I have no complaints either. I wasn't on the ballot. Hello? The last minute write-in effort, made for me by others, was victorious in several districts in the southeast(where I was clobbered in the primary). As in the primary, my neighbors in Maplewood were good to me. I can only imagine the dismay this causes Mr. Schnurr, Mr. Pritchard, and the Conklin-Rowe Crime Family. It is also evidence, as family and friends relish telling me, that I get more votes keeping my big mouth shut, and letting others do my talking. Fat chance of that.

But I particularly resent the lack of media kudos for the beating I gave Montgomery Burns. You didn't see THIS in the D&C. But its true. The New York Times reported that the highest write-in vote in New York City was 27 votes for Monty Burns for Mayor. Only the Beacon reported my 50-1 landslide. Burns is a staunch supporter of Mayoral Control.

While I agree that Howard's accomplishment has under-reported and under-respected, if we were both candid, we would place the credit where it belongs. With Cynthia Elliott.

The most interesting number from November 3rd is 61%. That is the percentage of people
who went to the polls and declined to vote for Cynthia Elliott, despite the huge advantage of the Democratic line, and no competition other than splinter parties and a late write-in. This was a landslide repudiation of a deeply irresponsible decsion by Democratic party bosses.

It is worth noting that Mayor Duffy, even after Elloitt apologists like Gannett came to their senses, persisted in supporting Elliott. And this is the man who, after decieving the public about his intentions in two election cycles, wants to appoint non-city residents to the school board, rather than trust the judgement of voters, whose judgement seems to be considerably better than his.

Tom Brennan
Rochester, NY

By: Terry_Schnurr on 1/14/10
Tom:

A great American once said, “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”

Given the casualness of your relationship with the truth, it's hardly surprising that you would confuse a simple factual correction with denigration.

Though I've never voted for Mr. Eagle, as I have regrettably done for you, I've long admired his energy, passion, and bluntness. I am sure his error was unintended. I hope he doesn't mistake my desire to set the record straight for malice.

For the record, Tom, my only disappointment with respect to your write-in campaign is that it eliminated whatever tiny chance Mr. Edes or Mr. Eagle had of defeating Miss Elliott. (Ironically, I suspect many of your escapades last year had the presumably unintended effect of advancing her candidacy.) Congratulations on your 1208 votes, a far more impressive result than the seven or so votes my own two-day, zero-budget campaign garnered.

Terrence E. Schnurr
Rochester, NY

By: godmother on 1/15/10
I believe that Mr. Brennan referring to "The Conklin - Rowe crime family " exceeds the boundry of fair and responsible reporting for your newspaper. Unfortunately when a person choses to disagree with Mr. Brennan then he resorts to personal attacks. Hardly the civil discourse I should like to see covered in your paper.

Carolee Conklin
Rochester, New York

By: tfb on 1/16/10


Councilmenber Conklin knows that comments on this site do not derive from the Beacon publishers. The policy is that, so long as you use your real name, you can fire at will, and people can fire back if they choose. If you don't like that, don't start things you can't finish.

Conklin knows this because she and her cronies have used the open rules of this site to direct lies and abuse at Pastor Norman Roberts and myself, since September.

I stopped replying after Mr. Pritchard's screeching assertion I had slandered my home town (I had made a joke calling myself "an ignorant country boy from Hilton." The belly laughs of my friends at the Hilton Family Diner were the best answer to Pritchard).

I seem to have courted Carolee's displeasure about something else. The Kennedys had their "Irish Mafia." Carter had his "Georgia Mafia." Yet the "Conklin-Rowe Crime Family" seems awfully defensive about this sort of shorthand. This despite their swagger about how tough and "old school" they are, and about their superiority to puny mortals, who might not have summered with the Lindleys or Sullivans on Keuka Lake. Scroll to the comments by the Rowes, under the story about Molly Clifford's Fire Department patronage, on this site, and get a load of this excess sense of entitlement.

I have been trying to maintain a sense of humor about this. But frankly, since Ms. Conklin has the gall to start a public conversation with me about civility and fairness, some serious and blunt truths are in order.

Last summer, Conklin's city council campaign went to this very publication, on the eve of a primary election, and misrepresented a Fair Elections complaint against Pastor Roberts and I. The Chair of the Fair Elections Committee has confirmed, in writing, that Mr. Rowe was informed -- at the time he made the complaint -- that it had no standing, and would not be heard. Yet Mr. Rowe told the Beacon that a hearing was pending. On primary day the Beacon was full of indignation, and speculation about likely rulings in Conklin's favor. This was accompanied by the famously pompous and delusional "I'll see to it you never eat lunch in this town again" voice mail, left at my home by Councilman Pritchard, and a hysterical smear e-mail, which Pritchard circulated primary day, on behalf of Conklin, which charged Pastor Roberts and I with every crime a depraved mind could imagine.

The complaint itself had no merit whatsoever. Conklin's retreat from support for public voting rights in city school district elections is unambiguously part of the record. Pastor Roberts and I only addressed that issue. Were it our wish to "smear Carolee Conklin's good name," there was plenty to say, but we declined to do so.

The public has come to better understand a number of things since that primary.

They understand that local Democratic party leadership is zealous in bullying the idealistic in their own ranks -- but feeble in competition with Republicans.

They may even be scratching their heads about the motives of a Mayor, who bemoans school board dyfunction, but supports Cynthia Elliott for reelection.

No doubt the public better understands the threat to their voting rights, under fresh assault by a City Hall safely past an election, and now seeking a fast Albany fix, not public understanding and consent.

Certainly the public better understands that state legilslators who have spent decades in Albany, might actually have something to do with what is wrong there.

All of these things will make for an interesting new year.

In any event, Councilperson Conklin, let me put it straight to you and yours. It is not so that I personally attack anyone who disagrees with me. I do reserve the right to reply when I am attacked, especially from behind.

You and yours are up to your necks in nepotism, and in arrangements that compromise the integrity of our party, and our city government. This offends me, and perhaps others. I suggest that the next time you and yours decide to hold forth about the quality of public discourse, or the insufficient deference shown you by a community that has been most generous to you, that you engage in a bit more introspection.


Tom Brennan
Rochester, NY

By: admin on 1/16/10
(from the Co-Owner & Publisher of the Smugtown Beacon, Christopher J. Wilmot)

Dear Mr. Brennan and Ms. Conklin:

I like you Tom, but I must agree with Carolee on this one. Your comparing the Conklins and Rowes, to what 'some' citizens, media types, and pols called the Kennedy clan, or President Carter's family and supporters is disingenuous, at best.

The Honorable Carolee Conklin (she deserves that title, just like you and I did, Tom, when we were elected officials), her adult children Mitch and Abby Rowe, and deceased members of the Conklin and Rowe families who have been active in public service, should never be referred to, ever, as the "Conklin-Rowe Crime Family". Mr. Brennan, I suppose feeling like an outsider next to the friendship between "the Lindleys, the Conklins, the Rowes, or the Sullivans" down at Kueka Lake during summer's of old, feels it necessary to ameliorate his ancient jealousy, by comparing the inherent 'decentness' of Carolee Conklin and her family to the brutality of New York and Chicago 'Mafioso' crime families. Boo.

Tom, you possess an unusual and sky high intellect, and you have a flair for the written word, but you do not need to denigrate an entire family in Rochester, by giving them feint praise next to the Kennedys and Carters.

Tom, part of why I left the Democratic Party is because of the way you describe the inherent 'club-i-ness' and cliques inside the MCDC. I was virtualy always an outsider, simply because local Dem's hate wealth (but they loved my donations!); and the Larry Kirwan crowd, et al., I estimate, did not like my grandfather, and his swagger, wealth, and power. So believe me, I 'get it'. But let's not overdo it. Thank you.

Christopher J. Wilmot,
Pittsford, NY

By: tfb on 1/16/10

Hi Chris,

Boo yourself. I like you too.

Remember, I did not initiate this exchange. I was minding my own business, when Mr. Rowe took a gratuitous swing at Aaron Wicks and myself.

I mean this kindly, but your admonishments would resonate more were they balanced. You might say, "Tom, the crime family language was a little harsh, but the Pritchard voice mail, the Pritchard e-mail smear, Mr. Rowe's fraudulant representation of the status of his election practices complaint, Conklin's duplicity on voting rights, Ms. Rowe's decisive role in designating Cynthia Elliott, etc. are also to be criticized."

You are strangely silent about such matters, but seem to pop up, regardless of the facts, to invoke some divine right of Conklins, every time their bad conduct is challenged. I can only attribute this to your personal friendships, which I do not begrudge. Good people can do bad things. I can also only tell you that I have experienced the people in question differently than you have.

The terms Georgia Mafia, Irish Mafia, or Conklin-Rowe Crime Family are invoked to decribe insular, heavy handed, and arrogant political conduct, and not underworld brutality, as you must know. The tradition of such monikers is well established, and I think the local one is particularly apt.

Rest assured that most of the human race, myself included, harbor no grievance (ancient or otherwise) at being deprived of the royal presence. Strange as it may seem, we have our own lives, our own social interactions. Grandios delusions of ones own social superiority, might indeed feed objectionable arrogance in other areas. Were social climbing a preoccupation of mine, I would probably try to break into a set where nobody had done time. What was it Smugtown author Curt Gerling said? "A Rochester debutante is a seventeen year old girl without a police record."

Rest assured that I have no ill will for anybody's family, or their ancestors. I object to conduct in positions of public trust that is less than decent or honorable, and which undermines party or governmental integrity, or democratic process.

I have directed questions to Councilmember Conklin in the past, about such matters. When she speaks for herself, and addresses those questions, I will respond. I hesitate to abuse the hospitality of this site to engage in pissing contests with her surrogates. Thank you for your understanding.

Tom Brennan
Rochester, NY

By: Terry_Schnurr on 1/18/10
Tom:

Can I come visit your world some time, especially if the sky there is magenta? I've always wanted to see a magenta sky.

Our volleys here began seven months or so ago when I responded to your statement that Aaron Wicks had “overapologized” for publishing a story alleging fraud that existed only in your fevered imagination. My response, though probably characteristically supercilious, focused on the substance of your statement. The diatribe you issued in response was series of ad hominem attacks and innuendos directed at me. It would appear that you perceive every disagreement as an attack from behind.

Now seven months later, you have used my Joe-Fridayesque correction on a matter that had no direct bearing on you as an occasion to gratuitously slam me and those you associate with me. It would appear you now perceive the appearance of my name on this site as an attack from behind.

If you perceive this thread as a continuation of the thread on Mr. Wilmot's January 8th article, it's odd that you think of Mitch Rowe's passing reference to you and Mr..Wicks as starting it, given the continuous stream of vitriol you have spewed at his family at least since his sister voted for Miss Elliott at convention last May, a vote which no one with a passing acquaintance with elementary school arithmetic would call “decisive”. It would appear that you perceive a decision not to vote for you as an attack from behind. (It's obvious that no decent or honorable person could fail to see the wisdom of voting for the brilliant, noble, and gallant Thomas F. Brennan, ne-c'est-pas?)

While we can debate the appropriateness of people thirty to fifty years ago using the term “mafia” in reference to the president's associates, I would be surprised if most readers don't perceive a difference between those often ironic expressions and your rhetorical excess here.

Tom, if you lack the strength of character to apologize when you cross a line could you at least spare us your ludicrous rationalizations?

Finally, let's be clear that I am no one's surrogate. The comments I make here are at my own instigation, are written by me, and reflect my own views. No one else should be blamed for what I write here. (You may be confused about this because of a mistaken impression that your own use of surrogates fools anyone.)

Terrence E. Schnurr
Rochester, NY

By: wfpritchard on 1/22/10
Tom, Carolee mentioned your posts about her and her family to me, but didn't say that you continue with your obsession over me. Really Tom, your comments about Carolee and her fine family were over the top and ridiculous. And to continue to bring up one phone message left months ago is just pathetic. Give it a rest already. There are other issues such as mayoral control of the city schools that needs intelligent debate and discussion.
Bill Pritchard
Rochester, New York

By: admin on 1/25/10
In reply to Mr. Schnurr and Mr. Pritchard,

Mr. Schnurr's hysteria is hardly "Joe Friday-esque," unless he means Joe Friday on acid, which might account for his "magenta sky" reference. He can insist that the sticking out of tounge, in which he engages every time Councilmember Conklin refuses to answer a legitmate question, is sheer coincidence. I wouldn't dream of spoiling his fun. The reader can sort it out.

Mr. Pritchard's belief that anybody is '"obsessed" with him is as delusional and megalomaniacal as his belief that he can order people out of public life with a threatening voice mail to their home. As an aside, Pritchard's sleazy conduct was not confined to one voice mail. He also made a written threat, boasting that he had the "resources" to retaliate in court if his conduct was disclosed. It was. He also attacked the "character" of Pastor Norman L. Roberts, in a stealthy, cowardly, widely circulated smear e-mail that he knew could never be replied to before the same audience. Were I to address all, or even the most grave breaches of decency and integrity by Mr. Pritchard, I would be closed for any other business.

No, I do not consider the casting of a vote I do not agree with as "an attack from behind." The Conklin campaign misrepresentation of the status of a Fair Election Practices complaint, City Hall duplicity about their assault on voting rights, that Democratic Headquarters was the origional source of misinformation published (and promptly corrected) by the Beacon, the well established use and understanding of terms like Georgia Mafia and Irish Mafia in describing insular and arrogant conduct in politics, and the relevance of the question as to whether people with prison records should be party leaders or city council staffers -- are all matters of record.

Not only have I and others shown restraint in these matters, to equate them with attacks one's familiy is simply the manipulative, Nixonian blubbering of bullies -- who are finally being stood up to. Next they'll try and distract us with "a little cocker spaniel dog." Smugtown readers, particularly those with a keen pleasure in the bizzare, need only examine the posts on this site since last summer, in order to discover exactly who and what Councilmember Conklin, exCouncilman Pritchard, Mr. Schnurr and the Rowes represent in this community. And I wouldn't touch it with a garbageman's gloves.

Tom Brennan
Rochester, NY

By: Terry_Schnurr on 1/26/10
Mr. Brennan:

I believe that you are literate and are being disingenuous when you pretend not to realize that I used the term “Joe-Fridayesque” specifically in reference to my correction of Mr. Eagle, the correction you used as a pretext to launch this latest barrage of calumny. I challenge you to scroll up to that particular comment (the second comment in this thread) and identify a single word that is “hysterical” or, for that matter, anything other than “just the facts”.

You persist in blaming the Monroe County Democratic Committee staff for Mr. Wicks' June 8, 2009 article erroneously alleging vote fraud at the April meeting of the Northwest Democrats. We know from you that you were Mr. Wicks' source and that the chain of custody of the sign-in sheets that formed the basis for the article was from MCDC to you to Mr. Wicks. We have your word and your word alone that someone at MCDC represented the March sign-in sheets to you as being from the April meeting. I don't find you a particularly credible witness, but even if we were to stipulate that someone at MCDC did misidentify the sign-in sheets where would that leave us?

Faced with the discrepancy between the sign-in sheets and the number of votes cast, you could have taken a breath and thought something like:“That's strange. I was at both meetings. This is my home quadrant. I know all these people. Wait a second! I don't remember X being at the April meeting. She was at the March meeting, though. Maybe these are the March sign-in sheets.” That's the sort of thought process EVERY person I was in contact with in the wake of Mr. Wicks' article who attended one or both of the meetings went through. Not you though. Assuming you're not simply lying, you didn't take any time to consider an innocent explanation; instead you ran to Mr. Wicks with visions of conspiracy dancing in your head. Mr. Wicks published the story as you presented it without attempting to corroborate your representations.

So, whether or not someone at MCDC, as you claim, made a mistake, the blame for Mr. Wicks' erroneous story falls squarely on two people, Aaron Wicks and Tom Brennan. Mr. Wicks published a retraction and apology soon after learning the truth. You, on the other hand, accused Mr. Wicks of “over-apologizing”, continue, even now, to insist that MCDC is to blame, take not one iota of responsibility for yourself, and make no apologies. That speaks volumes about your character, as if we needed any further evidence of that.

Terrence E. Schnurr
Rochester, NY


Login and voice your opinion!
Do you know someone else who would like to see this?
Your Email:
Their Email:
Comment:
(Will be included with e-mail)
 
 
Copyright © and Trademark ™ 2007-2009 All Rights Reserved
Copyright Statement | Privacy Statement | Terms of Service | Host your Web site with IPOWER!
Making Web Design Easy Since 2001
Newspaper Software, Magazine Software, HOAs, Trade Associations & Community Website Software  |  Email Marketing, E-Commerce