NY-21: Tonko Was Endorsed By The Albany County Democratic Committee?

WOW. (0.00 / 0)

That's beyond either chutzpah or sloppy.  I'm shocked, I hope they (the Committee) sue.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 14:54:19 PM CDT

and... (0.00 / 0)

apparently they agreed.  It is taken down now.

---

by: robinia @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 14:56:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A minor mistake (0.00 / 0)

This is hardly news.  It was a minor mistake and quickly fixed.  Saying there should be a lawsuit is extreme.  Also, lets not forget that there wasn't even a quorum at the time of the vote for an endorsement and under Roberts Rules there shouldn't have even been a vote.

---

by: JustAStudent @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 16:28:14 PM CDT

I actually agree on one point (4.00 / 1)

This was clearly a typo.

However, the endorsement vote was legal. The ruling was made by   the Parliamentarian that night (who is close to Frank Commisso who is also a Tonko supporter).  

Tonko did campaign for the endorsement, sending out letters and making calls. When it was clear he didn't have the votes, he teamed up with Jennings and walked out. His lack of support surprised him and John Wellspeak. I was in the room that night.

I'd also point out that The Montgomery County vote was clearly wired for Tonko. No interiews, no screening committee, etc.

At the end of the day, County endorsements won't win this election.

---

by: Marcellus @ Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 18:56:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Questionably legal: (0.00 / 0)

To say that the vote was legal, with no mention of the quorum break and incompetency on behalf of the Chairmen and Parliamentarian (and the complete stupidity of Mayor Jenning's timing on the walk-out) would be almost as much of a misrepresentation as for Phil Steck to say he has the endorsement of the "Albany County Democrats"...

I personally made the motion to call the question that brought about the walkout - and things couldn't have been more muddled, misunderstood, and questionably legal in that room.

The vote that was taken wasn't even a vote to endorse, it was a vote on the motion to call the question (as to whether or not we should vote).

That being said, the County Rules clearly state that a one-third quorum is necessary to begin the business meeting. And further states "In the event is not present at any meeting, no action other than to adjourn such meeting shall be taken" - Article 3, Section 4. and;

Article 10, Section 1 also remits further rules interpretations to Roberts Rules of Order (unless covered in the by-laws or under law) - which states that the quorum must be maintained and that if, upon a call for quorum being recognized,there is no quorum present - there is no business.

The fact that the parliamentarian refused to recognize this point of parliamentary procedure that was raised by a number of members of the body (from any number of 'camps') shows that, at the very least, the parliamentarian was surely not necessarily a Tonko supporter (in fact I am pretty sure he's a Brooks supporter), and that he was merely afraid to bring upon himself another lawsuit - of which Mr. Steck would surely have filed (to the taxpayer expense I might add...).

All of that being noted, the ultimate vote was indicative of the sentiments of the Colonie Democrats, a sparse gathering of City of Albany Democrats, and a fraction of the Guilderland Committee that are backing Mr. Steck - and little else.

So... For Mr. Steck to claim the backing of the "County Democrats" is, at best, a misrepresentation of the facts.

Being a concerned member of the County Democrats I don't necessarily know what the solution is to the growing frustration between the urban / suburban factions of our organization - but it's definitely not helping our Party.

Anybody have any suggestions? Thoughts on the weighted vote? The simple majority? And regional party organizations?

---

by: PineHillsResident @ Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 14:43:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Our approach (0.00 / 0)

Tompkins County is gerrymandered up the wazoo, in order to be sure that none of that far-left concentration of sentiment results in an elected representative, I guess.  Anyway, our County Committee often has endorsement votes that do not include all members of the Committee-- on those votes, only the members who are in the districts represented by the office that the endorsement is for vote.  I don't remember any time when the "quorum" was not considered to be of the entire body (but, then, maybe nobody challenged it, so it wasn't an issue), even though only a subset of members were voting on endorsement.  We do sometimes have a fairly significant urban/rural divide, but we try to pull together at ocassional social events, etc., to help diffuse it.... we have a listserv that helps people know each other better.... and each town and ward has a diversity and inclusion plan, as does the County Committee as a whole.

---

by: robinia @ Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 15:42:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No question about it (0.00 / 0)

Phil Steck has the endorsement of the Albany County Democratic Committee.  The way my committeeman described it to me was the same as Steck campaign officials told me.

My thoughts?  If quorum was denied, it is Jerry Jennings's antics that caused it in the first place.  With all the city versus suburbs stuff going on, someone in there should realize that all three candidates, Steck, Brooks, and Tonko, had campaigned for the committees endorsement.

Then, all of a sudden, Tonko and Brooks flip-flopped and started to support a non-endorsement measure.  Which they still couldn't have won.  Because the weighted vote is a more democratic way to go.  My committeeman did laugh a bit about how long it took...but I signed for him to return to the committee because he did his job: he stayed and represented me.  He wasn't a Jennings/Brooks lackey who bailed on his duty.

The blame for any confusion rests squarely on the lack of leadership apparent in major Jerry Jennings.  As he is a big-name Brooks supporter, I think any questions regarding the County's endorsement need to be answered by her.

The solution to Albany County's urban vs. suburban problem is incredibly simple: the members of the committee who believe that decisions can be made for us need to realize that the glory days are over.  Specifically, Jennings, the Breslins, and the McNultys need to realize that their names are not "Erastus Corning 3d"."

They need to realize this because of simple demographic changes that they must follow in order to be representatives.  There's an article in the Times Union detailing how over 100,000 people have moved from the city to the suburbs since the days of the Corning machine ended.  This is one of the reason I think that Phil's candidacy makes more sense at this time.  Phil Steck won the support of this demographic simply by representing them as a Committeeman, Town Party Chair, and County Legislator, and in doing so built the largest faction of support in Albany County.  So the path to intra-party reconciliation lies with simply representing the changes that have taken place, and there should be no reason for hard feelings or childish walk-outs.  

It's very easy to switch confrontationaism with a spirit of cooperation; it's just a question of putting your own self aside and showing some true leadership qualities.

---

by: Soundpolitic @ Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:57:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]