The three of them have attacked Councilwoman Knudsen ruthlessly, as well as Councilman Sedon, former manager Ken Gabbert, Village Clerk Heather Mailander, former Councilman Tom Riche, former Councilwoman Bernadette Walsh, and Chief of Police John Ward. They also have gone after certain members of the public, as when Aronsohn and Manager Sonenfeld double-teamed Mrs. Reynolds and badgered her about something she said. She had been neither incorrect nor impolite, yet they decided they could bully her because they did not like her message. They permitted the former labor attorney to go on a 50-minute rant, a verbal assault, against Councilwoman Knudsen. They publicly annihilated Tom Riche, against the advice of Matt Rogers, because they wanted to be bullies. When people go to the microphone to speak, Aronsohn will let someone with whom he agrees talk way past the 5-minute mark, while he shuts down anyone he does not like as soon as the buzzer sounds. This is despicable. Mayor Aronsohn, members of the public elected you (or at least some of them did) and they have a right to speak. And Aronsohn often strolls out of the meeting to schmooze with one person or another in the hallway, thereby thumbing his nose at whoever is speaking or whatever is being discussed in his absence. One of them was heard screaming at Councilwoman Knudsen to the point that the witness advised Susan to file an official report. The three of them have admitted that they text or email during the meetings, thereby disregarding that they are conducting an OPEN PUBLIC meeting. The list just goes on and on.
And why the heck has Aronsohn allowed three consecutive meetings to extend into the wee hours of the morning? Why doesn’t he manage things better, schedule more hearings, and make them have defined end-times, so that people can get home at a reasonable hour? This is another form of bullying, when you think about it. The idea seems to be that if they go late enough, people will get tired and head home before speaking. Seemingly many people are mad enough that they stay as late as 2:45 AM.
Anyone who watches these meetings can see that the hostility level is unprecedented. This past week one resident called another an “s.o.b,” and what did Aronsohn do? Nothing. One resident called three others liars, and what did Aronsohn do? Nothing. People are at the point of tears, they are angry, frustrated, they are pleading, they are screaming. People are getting babysitters and missing evenings with their families and going to bed a few hours before they have to start work again, and when they are at the meetings the anger level is off the charts. Residents are coming together to sue the Village. Residents are spending unprecedented amounts of money to take out newspaper ads that encourage residents to fight city hall. The entire atmosphere is toxic and completely unproductive. The topics are many – Schedler, Parking Garage, High-Density Housing, the ramp to nowhere, the bike lane under the train trestle, and on and on. Their ill-advised projects have pretty much antagonized the entire populace of Ridgewood. They have made sure that no resident would feel at peace. What a complete train-wreck this entire administration has proven to be.
And what do they do? Preach civility! Egad, how disingenuous.
Paul and Albert and Gwenn like to think that there are a few “bad apples” in town who are their only critics. They blast this Blog for the anonymity of its posters. Um, excuse me….have you seen the hundreds of residents who come to the meetings and complain about your plans and your policies? Not only are their numbers huge, but they are not anonymous. Have you read the published letters in the newspaper to which authors’ names are attached?
You three have carved your legacies in this town, and the image is miserable to behold. Yes, you will be remembered long after you have gone. Everyone remembers the people who ran over them, bullied them, and wreaked havoc. We won’t forget you, but oh, we will be so glad to see you go next July.
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.
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Rule 12=why anonymous commenting ticks the three amigos off to no end. They just can’t get at anonymous commenters in a personal way and it drives them bonkers.
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.
I just sent the item and comments above, none of which came from me, to the council with a cc: to the village manager, suggesting that they read it and reflect.
I could not agree more with the original post. You can add Anne and Boyd Loving to the list of people that the 3 of them have bullied and lashed out at when coming to the microphone to speak.
Not sure what anyone is hearing after midnight. It creates an uncivil atmosphere. But I agree with the blog entry. I have witnessed the most uncivil behaviout from the dais directed at their own colleagues and to the public.. It is the height of hypocrisy for the mayor to address town wide civility on a regular basis while allowing uncivil behaviout to occur at the council meetings. Are you as sick of the word “civility” as I am?
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?
Looks like Gwen was busy answering the request from a prince in Nigeria about claiming lost funds…
10:38 – No, Gwenn was trying to SKYPE with someone in Nigeria so she could vote on who would be the new deputy mayor.