| Proud Sponsor |
|
| News Sections |
|
|
| Membership |
|
|
| Features |
|
| Sponsored by |
|
| About the Smugtown Beacon |
|
|
| |
|
| Breaking News: The Race for the 131st Begins; Protestors Besiege and Beseech City Council |
By: Aaron E. Wicks
|
Posted: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:57 pm
|
Rochester, NY (January 20, 2010) -- In a year when all political roads run through Albany, the Rochester area is sifting trough the fallout from two events: the escalating battle around mayoral control and the surprise announcement from Assembly member Susan john that, for the first time in 20 years, she will not be seeking election to the NYS Assembly.
Mayoral control: Latest News
Unsurprisingly, one of the ongoing distortions of the mayoral control issue has been the fawning, unquestioning media coverage of the mayor and proponents of mayoral control. Thus far, no mainstream media outlet has reported on the history of the issue, including Mayor Robert Duffy's lengthy record of disingenuous statements regarding his position -- or lack thereof -- on the issue.
On Monday, Duffy referred to the issue at the city's major MLK celebration downtown. While some media outlets reported that his comments were greeted with cheers, video of the event showed a much more mixed response: some attendees were seen standing and clapping, while others sat silently. Some who attended the event observed that there was shock that the mayor would bring a politically divisive issue like mayoral control into an event meant to honor a man who sought to bring people together. To some, MLK is a figure of veneration, a man who gave his life for others and who stood with people who had nothing so that they could be recognized as human beings. Whether King would have supported or opposed mayoral control is beside the point: honoring his memory should transcend the political skirmish du jour. Duffy may have picked the hill he wants to die on, but he should leave America's other heroes alone.
Earlier Tuesday, activist, educator and former school board candidate Howard Eagle distributed an open letter to the mayor challenging some of the mayor's statements on the subject.
**********
Dear Mr. Duffy,
As darkness falls over the City --- I imagine that you have completed your political rounds (running to and fro, spewing political rhetoric concerning your love for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for the principles that he advocated and lived by).
Well sir, I feel totally, absolutely, unequivocally, certain that if Dr. King was a citizen of Rochester, New York today --- he would be fighting you tooth and nail regarding your unprincipled, despicable attempt to strip the people of Rochester of our Constitutional right to vote for representatives on the Rochester Board of Education.
I am quite sure you recall that Dr. King spent a significant portion of his life fighting against Jim Crow laws that deprived mainly poor people of color of suffrage rights.
In any case, I hope that you had a happy Reverend, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
As a City of Rochester, New York State, and United States of America, tax-paying, politically astute and involved parent, citizen and grassroots community activist --- I am writing concerning a situation that occurred on January 15, 2010 (the actual day of Dr. King’s birth in 1929).
As you know, I was in attendance at City Hall during your press conference on January 15, 2010. I must say that it was somewhat awkward, especially since it likely would have been perceived as inappropriate and disrespectful for me to respond --- when (during the course of the press conference) you acknowledged my presence, and noted that I oppose mayoral control of the Rochester City School District (RCSD), and then asserted that you are “willing to debate [me], Van White [or] anyone else” regarding the issue of mayoral control.
I just wanted you to know that (like yourself, or at least like you claim to be) --- I am definitely willing to engage you and/or anyone else in debate around this critically important issue (anytime, any place, under any rules, circumstances or conditions). If debate is your desire: Let’s do it.
I am quite certain (since he has been publicly requesting to do so) that Commissioner White would also be more than willing to debate you and/or the “experts” that you have been flying in and out of town (more than likely at taxpayers’ expense). In fact, as you know --- your Chief of Communication, Mr. Gary Walker, has attempted to dismiss the Commissioner’s request for civil debate by declaring that he is desirous of creating a public “spectacle.” Walker’s comments remind me of the time when Malcolm X’s house was firebombed during the 1960’s, and media operatives (such as Mr. Walker) attempted to validate a theory that Malcolm had staged the firebombing himself. As Malcolm stated at the time --- “if [Commissioner White] wanted to put on a show ---
[he] certainly could have found a better way to do it” than by challenging you to a debate about this vital issue, which parallels and surpasses the seriousness of Malcolm’s home being firebombed. I hope you understand the analogy. If not, I would be happy to elaborate.
After having said all of that --- this critical issue is not about individual debates. Instead, what’s really needed, and what a huge sector of Rochester’s population is asking for --- is broad-based, serious, community dialogue.
You seemed overly confident at your January 15th press conference regarding your ability to razzle-and-dazzle your most loyal cheerleaders (major media --- for more than an hour) --- concerning, in many cases, pure, polished, political rhetoric, which has absolutely nothing to do with educating our children well. I hope you didn’t go away and pound your chest --- because those of us who are not cheering for you, or duped by your smooth rhetoric --- found large holes and glaring contradictions regarding that which was presented by you and your main henchmen (David Gantt and Joe Morelle) during the press conference. If you would like for me to explain why I referred to your political pals as henchmen --- I would be happy to do so. By the way, it is just plain scandalous that you are asking these men and others (who compose that which is widely accepted in many local, regional and national political circles as being one of the most dysfunctional, so-called “governing” bodies in the nation, that’s right, the infamous New York State Legislature) --- to make a determination regarding whether or not the citizens of Rochester should be stripped of our Constitutional right to vote for local representatives. The New York State Legislature is a body that absolutely cannot effectively or efficiently govern itself --- one that (for four weeks) couldn’t even decide which Political Party was in charge of its upper chamber; one that can’t effectively address its own huge budget deficit; can’t reduce taxes; spent $170 million in the 2009-10 budget (in the midst of a full-blown recession) on so-called “member items” --- not to mention corruption convictions of State Legislators such as Anthony Seminerio, and the criminal who led the New York State Senate for decades --- none other than Joseph Bruno. This is the gang that you apparently believe are qualified to determine whether or not the people of Rochester should be stripped of a hard won, blood stained, Constitutional right? You have got to be kidding. One of the most fundamental and glaring contradictions relative to this whole scenario is that, as it relates to malfeasance, every single thing that you are accusing the Rochester Board of Education of --- the New York State Legislature is also guilty of (ten-fold). So, as I stood there watching Gantt and Morelle pompously poised at your side on the 15th, again, all I could think was: ‘These guys have got to be kidding.’
The following represent just a couple of the most blatant, specific, contradictions during your lengthy press conference, which of course Gary Walker’s cheerleading, media-pals missed and/or would not dare report --- even if they hadn’t missed them:
Although you have been clearly touting elimination of an elected Board of Education, at one point Mr. Morelle exclaimed that under your scheme there “will be a directly elected board for governance.” Apparently, either this was a slip of the tongue or a trick of the tongue. That is, Morelle said the governance board would be elected, but he did not say who would compose the electorate. Perhaps he believes that he can arrange for the smart people of Irondequoit to become those who choose the governance board for the dumb people of Rochester.
Where Mr. Gantt is concerned, he has outright abandoned and is thoroughly disrespecting a huge sector of his constituents --- by claiming that he will introduce a bill, and he “don’t care who likes it or not” --- because he will get __________? Since you know better than I --- you fill in the blank. Many, particularly in the African American community, are of the widespread belief that David Gantt does not do anything, especially if it’s politically risky (and this situation is indeed very risky) without getting something in return. This leads to the next glaring contradiction regarding the position that you articulated at your unusually long press conference:
2. You claim that prior to initiating dialogue with parents and other community members, you want to “wait and see if an affirmative decision” comes forth from the Governor --- relative to introducing a “program bill.” Yet, your constituent-abandoning henchman declared that “I intend to put a bill in --- whether there is a program bill or not.” Thus, Mr. Mayor, unless henchman #1 (whom you all supposedly, affectionately, refer to as “the dean”) is just blowing smoke --- obviously, open, “transparent” (your word) --- community dialogue should already be well underway, and you should not make the mistake of believing that it is adequate to engage in so-called “transparent” dialogue via WXXI and other such venues, in which Mr. Walker (the ex-newsman) likely has inside connections in the highest of places. No sir, you must face the people, and since you have declared that “education is the hill that you are willing to die on,” politically speaking --- don’t be surprised if it is the hill that the people of Rochester, particularly those who are parents, and whose children’s lives you seem to think that you can play with, and kick around like a political football --- choose (politically speaking) to kill you on.
Sincerely,
Howard Eagle
Rochester, NY
*********************
What is interesting about Eagle's opposition and some of the points he makes is that it i becoming increasingly clear that mayoral control is a battle between the political haves and have-nots. On one side, Rochester's intelligentsia and self-appointed elite: the mayor, the Monroe County Democratic Committee Chairman (and Assemblyman) Joe Morelle, Rochester's political dean, David Gantt and most -- if not all -- of Rochester's elected leaders. Add to them the fawning media elite and other moneyed interests (the usual "community leaders" sch as Danny Wegman, Joe Klein, and the Rochester Business Alliance crowd) and you get the idea. On the other side, the people who have been increasingly ignored by this crowd. Grassroots activists like Eagle and Glenny Williams, political independents like Van White, political newcomers who are finding their voices like Melisza Campos and some of the public employees unions who have been shunted aside, such as the Rochester firefighters, still smarting over the patronage appointment of Molly Clifford.
On Tuesday, Duffy cited the example of Rochester Prep charter school to prove that Rochester's children are capable of learning, given the proper environment. A curious example, since charter schools are governed by neither the city nor the RCSD Board, but by state education law. The mayor could also cite several examples of outstanding educational achievement in certain district schools -- but he is still unable to point to any of his own accomplishments in the field.
John is Out -- So Who's In?
With the announcement that Susan John will not be seeking re-election to represent the 131st Assembly district, residents can expect a free-for-all (at least behind the scenes) in the race to succeed her in Albany. Not only do Democrats see this as an opportunity to seek an open seat (not having to challenge a well-funded incumbent), but Republicans are also likely to have hope of taking the seat -- especially in a year when it is expected that Republicans could do very well.
John has not yet explained her reasoning, but the truth is, at this point, no one much cares. The focus now is on who will seek and ultimately win the seat.
Speculation so far centers on several possibilities:
* Harry Bronson: The most likely theoretical "front-runner", Bronson is the current Monroe County legislator representing the 24th LD (a significant chunk of the 131st in the city and parts of Brighton and Henrietta). Bronson is the minority leader in the legislature and has paid his political dues, assisting a number of Democrats locally and taking a voluntary beating by Joe Robach in an ill-fated Senate run. No one could "give" Bronson the 131st in exchange for his party service, but he could certainly make that argument to the party -- and would find a welcoming audience. Bronson is smart, likeable and accessible -- the latter two definitely not applying to John.
The knock on Bronson, though, is that he cannot be counted on to be an independent voice for reform. You do not become leader of the Democratic caucus in the Monroe County Legislature by speaking your mind; you do it by bringing people together, forging alliances and fighting the party's fight. If Bronson brought those skills to Albany he would only reinforce an already-dreadful system. The last thing the 131s needs is a legislator who will be a team player -- especially when Sheldon Silver is the team Captain.
* Allan Richards: One of John's leading local staffers and the leader of the 23rd LD, Allan Richards is a potential candidate -- someone who would continue John's policies in much the same form. Like Bronson, Richards has been active in the local party for years, though this could become a liability if opponents scrutinize that record. For example, Richards was one of the key leaders that threw some of his second ballot votes to Cynthia Elliott, securing her renomination to the RCSD school board. Old news? Not if you look back over the past year and read the record of Elliott's service. And even more relevant when one compares the votes of Richards' LD with his vote. If Richards' runs, he may have "some 'splainin' to do."
* Malik Evans: Facing imminent political unemployment (if mayoral control passes), Evans, as President of the Rochester City School Board has impressive credentials -- on paper. He is heir to a political legacy begun by his father, Minister Lee Evans. But this acorn fell far enough away from the family tree to cause some concern.
For one, Evans has only lately come to conclude that the mayor's attitudes toward the city schools have been disingenuous and rooted in political cupidity. Evans is a good soul, wanting to believe that others are motivated by the same passion he has. But that too often leads him to give his political peers the benefit of the doubt when their behavior clearly shows they do not deserve it. When the time has been right for forceful statements, Evans has demurred. He may well have finally found his voice, but he will now need to show his actions can match his words. This has been his weak point -- he has little time to show he has grown in this area.
Other potential candidates may yet emerge. On the Republican side, Chili Supervisor David Dunning would be an excellent choice for the GOP -- a former Dem who, running a town, knows who wretched state policies are and how desperately they need to be changed. But can Dunning win a general election? Depends on who the Dem run. Stay tuned on this one.
BREAKING NEWS FROM MASSACHUSETTS:
DEMS LOSE SENATE SEAT BY TAKING AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE FOR GRANTED
Wait, that's not really news, is it?
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: admin on 1/21/10
The politicians are now talking about Mayoral control of City schools. Is this a good idea? I would argue no. Here's why: The first problem is that Mr. Duffy doesn't know anything about education. Of course, many have argued that most school board members don't know anything about education. Yet, since all the Democratic Committee-endorsed candidates won the election, the responsibility for that problem lies with the Party. Those same people who produced a bad school board -- Joe Morelle and David Gantt, among others -- are now the strongest proponents of Mayoral control. They created the problem, and are now asking us to trust them with the solution. There's a credibility gap here that supporters of Mr. Duffy's takeover strive to ignore. Rather than offer concrete proposals, Duffy says that education is the "hill [I] want to die on". I assume Duffy does not mean this literally. Our children's future, and the future of our community, representing hundreds of thousands of lives, depends on the quality of our education. Yet Mr. Duffy will not enroll his own children in City schools. His bold statements are designed to hide this fact: Mr. Duffy is in no way personally invested in our City's education. Sophomoric rhetoric about dying on hills is a poor substitute. Mr. Duffy and the Democratic establishment have created this problem. Asking us to trust them with the solution, while offering only hollow words and vague promises, is an insult to the thoughtful and intelligent citizens of our community. I take offense, and you should also. Where's the beef? I have an alternative proposal. Rather than continue to entrust our children's education to the party bosses, we should eliminate their influence. Rochester used to have non-partisan school board elections. The vast majority of towns and cities in New York have non-partisan elections also. In fact, the quality of education in the City was better under non-partisan elections. Ever since the Party took over the school board, things have gone downhill. The solution is not to adopt empty, finger-crossing proposals, made by the same party bosses who created the problem. The solution is to end partisan control of the school board. We should have no party names listed on the ballot, only people. That worked before, and it can work again. More party politics will not. Chris Edes Rochester, NY
Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
