It was an electoral miracle that Ridgewood residents got their collective back up and soundly rejected the slate of three candidates that openly idolized and were in turn warmly endorsed by Aronsohn, Hauck and Pucciarelli (and, unofficially, by Sonenfeld). When in office from 2014-2016, Aronsohn, Hauck and Pucciarelli always seemed to have some sort of motivation different than what was best for the village as a whole. In 2016, by contrast, we thought we were voting for three candidates that, if elected, would produce in matters of importance a five-to-nothing unanimous vote in favor of whatever was best for Ridgewood and its residents. The last thing we wanted was another council member prone to wigging out and spitefully throwing a monkey wrench into the works every time someone came within a country mile of bumping into their precious little ego. Was it a pipe dream to think we had purged the Village Council of such nonsense? Four-out-of-five good eggs is not bad, but it is a far cry from five-out-of-five. Having one bad egg in a five-person Village Council sets up a situation in which the next municipal election could produce a three-to-two Aronsohn-like tyrannical majority bloc. And in the meantime, having that one bad egg colleague on the Village Council inevitably stresses out the four good-egg Council Members, precisely because they are good eggs! We desperately need the latter to remain in office, rather than quit in frustration. And clearly, we need to do whatever we can do to encourage them to run for re-election.
The one thing I didn’t vote for was unanimous votes. We got that with the last crowd. The Three Amigos voted in lockstep and that was rejected soundly at the ballot box. What I hoped for is that each councilperson would vote for what they thought was best. That doesn’t mean unanimity on every issue. Normally you only get that in Russia.
Your classification of Jeff Voigt as a “bad egg” makes me think Rurik may have had some valid points.
Jeff… In your prepared statement Wednesday you stated the residents had a problem trusting the past council but shouldn’t with you because your motives are to work hard for the village. You state that the residents have a right to know if something doesn’t seem right, in your opinion you felt the Mayor’s insertion in your committee was a violation and worthy of public debate.
Cut the shit! I’m not sure why you don’t like her but I know you don’t. You have to work with her for the sake of THE VILLAGE (remember?) and your angry behavior towards her is not rational and makes you look unstable. Your actions have broken resident’s trust in you because you have demonstrated such a vile response that appears to be very personal and certainly should not be for public display. This FAC episode seemed to be your “gotcha” you were looking for to go after her. You were legally advised there was no merit in your claims. Wednesday’s support, from members of the last council’s entourage, to keep the FAC intact sends nothing but mistrust and red flags. It seems clear to me you orchestrated this pony show – a page from the last council’s playbook – we DON’T trust you or the FAC now.
You have demonstrated nothing to gain resident’s trust by your actions and angry attacks. My advice to you would be to suck it up and offer an apology, publicly, to the mayor and the other council members and redirect your energy to fulfilling your campaign promises of working for the residents for the betterment of the village. Put your personal feelings aside. Stop conspiring, plotting and playing politics, we are all to savvy to put up with this BS. Figure out how to cooperate with your council members, respectfully, and stop the divisive, petulant behavior.
I didn’t vote for them so they would vote unanimously. I voted for them to be respectful of each other, and the residents of this village, even in disagreement. Jeff has proven to be a hot head and a baby when he doesn’t get his way. I am so sorry I helped him.
Mayor needs to work this out with Voigt it’s her job to manage the situation/team.
Yes, 9:14 and 12:32, you’re right, unanimous 5-0 votes are only a “nice-to-have”, and nobody needs to be forced into compliance with the majority, particularly if they are maintaining an honest line of disagreement. What we’re really looking for, even when differences arise, is good faith cooperation, and constructive and honest dialogue. The prior majority, usually up to no good, and being artificially in agreement with each other most all of the time, was forever gaslighting the minority dissenters, publicly flogging them solely for expressing honest disagreement and thereby representing an obstacle to whatever plan or scheme they were trying to run. Councilmember Voigt is certainly eager to portray himself as the honest dissenter in this instance. Unfortunately for him, residents perceive him as a gaslighter in dissenter’s clothing.