Friday, July 10, 2009

Dems Say Thanks But No Thanks

Breaking News: The New Paltz Democratic Party announced last night that they have decided to NOT endorse a slate for town board and are looking for other candidates.

The Democratic Caucus is set for September 14th, at the high school.

Announced candidates that Gadfly is aware of: Toni Hokanson for Supervisor, Kitty Brown and Jeff Logan for Town Board (2 seats available), Phil Johnson and Mike Nielson for Highway Supervisor. All but Mike are incumbents. Readers aware of any other candidates please update the Gadflies!

Background here, here, and here.


Anonymous said...

The New Paltz Democratic Committee isn't in the habit of thanking anyone for anything. And if the people in charge of the one-party system here can't decide which way forward, then what are the rest of us to do?
Pete Healey

Anonymous said...

The Democratic Committee did make a choice. They don't feel the incumbents are competent enough to endorse. What a statement of confidence in candidates when their own party walks away from them. A less cynical comment might be that the Democratic Committee believes in its party having a fully open caucus. NAH, after watching the town board show on public access, these three clearly need to be replaced. Just last night Jeff Logan was calling for hiring "a clerk of the works" whose job it would be to make verbatim transcripts of town board meetings. Apparently the video broadcast on channel 23 and the minutes taken by the town clerk are not enough for Jeff because he wants the taxpayers to waste our limited money on more minutes. And then Kitty Brown chimes in supporting this because "she" prefers skimming through dozens of pages of written minutes for each meeting to watching a meeting video on the Internet. Earth to town board--- WE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR MORE BUREAUCRACY--WATCH THE FREAKIN VIDEO IF YOU NEED MORE DETAIL THAN THE MINUTES.

Anonymous said...

We just watched it, The vote was 5-0, It looked like the issue is not getting every word but just a record of discussions. It seems like Jeff and the whole board were looking for more of a record of disussions and the board has none. It looked like the clerk is only willing to take down votes or actions but not discussions or if she is she will not share them with anyone. Looks like a request for open geverment to us. Kepp up the good work Jeff!

Anonymous said...

We just watched the meeting and the vote was 5 ayes and 0 nays. Bureaucracy is adding layers to hide what is going on, in this case they decided to make meetings more accesable by provding minutes of discussions that do not end in votes or actions. If there were minutes kept and available why would the vote be 5-0?

Looked like the board was in agreement that to promote open goverement a accurate record needs to be kept and provided to the public. Jeff did not seem to be adding anything the other boards dont have and the current clerk is only responsible for the votes, although we did speak to a board member that told us she has been unable to even get votes from the clerk.

Keep up the good work Jeff!