Wow – great post. The “civility” assault, as the poster mentions, either shuts the potential dissenter up completely, or spins him/her up into a fury at the sheer chutzpah it takes to engage in such hypocrisy. Both reactions suit the purposes of the “civility” advocator, the first because it squelches dissent, the second because it allows the person who reacts with frustration to be singled out and portrayed as an angry rabble-rouser unfit to be listened to in the first instance. Meanwhile those of us who try the cool and calm approach tend to fade into the woodwork. Come to think if it, this is also favorable from the standpoint of the “civility” advocator. Killing three dissenting birds with one rhetorical stone–pretty impressive. Who the hell comes up with this stuff (cough, cough…Alinsky…)?
What about Albert stating that he was the only one with a full time job? The old “I’m more important than you are” bullying tactic. And then there is Gwenn reprimanding the audience for laughing or clapping – sorry folks, no emotions can be displayed, not humor, not happiness. Never In these meetings have I hear a booing from the crowd – it has always been positive assent in the form of applause or humorous laughter. Pretty civil as far as I can see it, and yet Miss Prim and Proper reprimands the group.
How about the Mike Sedon email affair? The three of them did NOTHING AT ALL until they were pushed and pressured to do so by a member of the public. Then, under great duress, Aronsohn sent the weakest most anemic email to the editor of the Staten Island Advance asking about the email that had been sent over a year prior. Of course the SI Advance editor said sorry, he no longer has the email. The three of them should have stood up from the very beginning in complete and total outrage against this blatant attempt to interfere with our election system. But, there was nothing from them. It was as if they could not care at all. We know, yes we KNOW that the email was sent by someone who really really REALLY did not want Mike Sedon to run for office. This was the most outrageous bullying episode yet to date, worse than any name calling. Even if on the remote chance that Aronsohn-Pucciarelli-or-Hauck did not send the letter, they should have been strong and determined to get to the bottom of that mess. But, bullies do not give a good god-damn who they hurt along the way, as long as they get their way. How in the world do they sleep at night?
I could not agree with this post more. They are attempting to tackle major issues that will FOREVER change our town. Regardless of where you stand on each issue (Schedler, parking garage, multi-family housing, sr. assisted living facility) they each deserve a full and detailed public hearing similar to what happened with Valley. Each one should have all the experts testify and be open to council and public questions during normal meeting hours. By trying to fit everything into one meeting that lasts into the early morning hours they are daring citizens into an episode of Survivor just to stay informed. This is a shameful practice that needs to be stopped.
Some will argue that we need to move forward and not have prolonged hearings. I think a fully informed public and full vetting of the issues so we can make the CORRECT decisions are more important than making A decision quickly.
