Gimme Mayor
The talk of Trumansburg today was the resignation of mayor John Levine and the meeting tomorrow night at which his successor will be appointed and, depending upon who that successor is, a member of the Village Board of Trustees may be appointed as well. From the comments I’m reading here on the blog and hearing out on the street, it seems that popular support is growing behind the idea of John Hrubos as mayor and David Filiberto appointed to fill Hrubos’s position on the board. Both positions would be up election next year, to give voting residents more of a direct democratic input.
There appears to be some coffee house politicking going on as well, as the daily Trumansburg Gimme Coffee sign, seen here, indicated today. Now accepting applications: 1) Barista, and 2) Mayor – Apply within. Would you like whipped cream on top of that?
What is the protocol for public input on this matter? I probably won’t be able to attend the meeting but would like to get my comments in.
As a supporter of Rordan Hart, I find it interesting that you claim “popular support” for re-instating Filiberto on the Board. Not to rub it in, but Filiberto did just lose an election last week. So the popular support for Filiberto does not appear to be as strong as you claim. Comments on a blog should not supplant results from an election. The principles of democracy would be better served by allowing the recently elected board to choose the new mayor once the new board takes office next week. The voters of Trumansburg just voted Filiberto out, and it will seem awfully strange in the eyes of many people if he is hastily re-instated during the last week that the current board holds office.
Former T- Of course, as a former Trumansburg resident, you probably weren’t actually in Trumansburg talking to people about these issues, as I have been. I didn’t just cite the blog entries, but also what I was “hearing out on the street”.
You may not be aware, not living in Trumansburg, that Rordan Hart won by the slimmest of margins – only by a handful of votes. So, by your measure, Rordan Hart doesn’t have very strong support in Trumansburg either.
Carissa, I really don’t know whether there is any protocol for involvement in this important decision. I hope that the process will be open to public comments. I will be attending the meeting tonight, and I am taking a letter over to the village office this morning.
If you can get a letter to me, I will be happy to take it to the meeting with me, and will read it if there is opportunity for public input.
Former T – You can say it would be strange, but it seems to me that if the newly appointed Mayor, appointed a highly qualified member of his party, to the board, that I would call it a smart political move. Please bear in mind that Filberto lost by a hair, as a result of Republican mudslinging.
Can you honestly tell me, that if the roles were reversed, and you were the newly appointed Republican mayor, that you wouldn’t behave the same way? Can you point to any members of the Bush administration, that you look to for ethical guidance at moments like these?
Hmmm… I sense some hostility here. My only suggestion is that, if we value the ‘direct democratic input’ that Jonathan alluded to in his initial post, then it seems best to allow the voters’ NEW board to select the new mayor. The newly elected board reflects the voters’ most recent wishes (and still contains many Democrats, I might add). The voters appeared to be voting for change.
Allen, perhaps you are right that appointing Filiberto would be smart politics – but that is not what I’m addressing. May the people judge if these ‘smart politics’ are honorable…
Former – I could equally say that your implication that appointing David Filiberto would be dishonorable belies some hostility on your part.
No appointment of a mayor or a village trustee will be satisfying, as it won’t be the voters’ choice.
Remember that Rordan Hart only represents the recent wishes of 18 more Trumansburg residents than David Filiberto does.
It is a mistake to look at this year’s village election as a communicating a mandate for any village board member, or for any agenda. It was too close and too contentious for that.
Why not appoint David to this one-year post? At least he wanted it enough to run for office.
Both Democrats and Republicans have to beat the bushes to find candidates to run for local office. Note that Rordan was his party’s sole candidate — they could have run two candidates, but I imagine they couldn’t find another person willing to run for office. Chris Thomas wasn’t even nominated at the Democratic caucus, so I imagine there was no small amount of arm-twisting involved in getting him to run. Think of past village elections: trustees and the mayor often run unopposed.
Losing by 18 votes hardly qualifies as a landslide defeat. Get real.
These local elections are funny. I had to laugh at an Ithaca Journal article about the election in one of the other local villages, where one candidate “doubled” his lead when it went from one to two votes after absentee ballots were counted!
From what I remember from the last time this happened (when John Levine was appointed mayor in 2004), there was no real feedback from the public. John was the deputy mayor and made the most sense to elevate. The board will vote to approve the new mayor, likely to be Deputy Mayor John Hrubos. The new mayor will then appoint a new trustee, and he does not need the approval of the board.
I hope that whoever is named mayor tonight takes some time to talk over the appointment of a new trustee and then leaves the decision to the April meeting, so that time is allotted for the mayor to discuss the appointment with other people in the village.
This time, there has been feedback from the public, and it has not been insubstantial. Whether the village board chooses to acknowledge it, or even be open to listening to it tonight, we will see. The trouble with public input in private conversations with the new Mayor is that they will remain in private.
This ought to be an open process.
Oh and one other thought to append to my last one.
I hope that whoever get appointed has some experience on the board. If they don’t, then likely it’ll be a board 80% comprised of newbies, which wouldn’t be such a good thing. People underestimate the amount of knowledge needed just to be brought up to speed on the intricate workings of government, even local government. It just would be common sense to appoint someone who has some knowledge, that’s all. (And for the record, I am not suggesting myself, AT ALL!)
If the NEW board ends up selecting Hrubos / Filiberto, then that would seem more acceptable. I am not addressing the difficulty of finding candidates or the satisfaction of having a board-appointed mayor. What I am saying is that, given the imperfect circumstances, democracy seems better served by waiting JUST ONE WEEK so that the newly elected board can select the new mayor.
Why not wait just one week so that the 400+ people who voted for Thomas and Hart can feel a little more satisfied with their new mayor? Can anyone answer this question?
Former T-Burger,
What makes you assume that the people who voted for Chris Thomas disapprove of David Filiberto?
I voted for Chris Thomas and David Filiberto. Please don’t assume that I supported Rordan Hart’s election.
It is mathematically impossible for “400+ people” to have voted for Chris Thomas and Rordan Hart, as Rordan Hart didn’t get over 400 votes. Rordan Hart should be considered separately from Chris Thomas, and as others have pointed out, Rordan Hart didn’t get much more support than David Filiberto.
I wonder – did you support waiting for a replacement for Mary Bouchard until after the election? Did you see that appointment as dishonorable?
As someone who has left the community, your voice carries less weight in this matter than village residents. I have not heard one current village suggest anyone other than David Filiberto for the board.
Jonathan,
I was in fact assuming that most of the people who voted for Hart did not also vote for Thomas, and since each got over 200 votes, there may be ~400 people out there who voted for EITHER Hart OR Thomas – and these people may be more satisfied if the new board selects the new mayor. Perhaps some of my assumptions are wrong, as you pointed out there may be many Thomas + Filiberto supporters.
Regarding Mary Bouchard’s resignation, that analogy does not apply here because her replacment was Mayor Levine’s decision, and, at the time, we did not think Mayor Levine was leaving office. If Mayor Levine had announced his resignation at the same time as Mary, then yes, I would have supported waiting for a newly elected board to sort things out, timing permitting.
I accept your statement that my voice carries less weight. I only hope that some others in the community may find my perspective helpful.
Hmmmm. What’s the downside of waiting a week? Well, I’m simply more comfortable knowing that most of the Board members who select a new Mayor will have had some actual experience running the Village before they make such an important decision. Sure, I think even the new Board might make the sensible choice of Hrubos, but why take the chance?
If Village voters had thought they were in effect electing a new Mayor, I think it’s entirely possible that the result might have tipped in another direction. It is one thing to enter a protest vote for two newbies (to add to the appointed newbie, Horn) when you think that Hrubos and Levine will still be around to recognize and deal with Town/Village shenanigans, it’s another thing entirely if you think that voting for two newbies could result in the Board’s newbies actually selecting the next Mayor. In that case, I think the protest votes go away and Filiberto is reelected. So, I wouldn’t give any weight to the recent election results on the question of whether the current or the new board should make the choice of Mayor.
Former,
You’re welcome here, and I hope that you come back to check in often.
I do think that it’s helpful for you to come here and give your perspective. Open questioning is essential in our community, in our conversations here as well as in our government.
By Former Tburger’s logic, as soon as we elect the next president, the whole damn government should stop and wait until the innauguration.
George Bush should immediately lose power, based on the fact that the “voters have spoken” and not be allowed to do anything else.
laughable!
Hart won by 18 votes. That does not a mandate make.
Tell us again why we should wait a week?
Can you imagine that after this campaign of mudslinging that any of us could care less about rordan hart and his supporters’ feelings of satisfaction?
and in terms of sequencing of events and apparent impropriety, maybe the hart family could have waited ONE WEEK after the elections to SUE THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT!
And, X, maybe the Harts could have managed to turn to vote in just one village election before complaining about the village government and trying to destroy it.
I have a feeling, just a feeling based on no knowledge at all of what anyone on the Village Board is going to do, that David Filiberto is going to be offered a position on the board of trustees, and then will decline it.
Pure guesswork on my part.
Any other guesses about what will happen?
X and others,
Judging from Mayor Levine’s statements, it seems Levine does feel that the ‘protest votes’ had some direct bearing on him and his decisions. Also, if you read Mayor Levine’s other quotations, you’ll find that it was the Mayor himself who ‘broke news’ of the Hart petition before the election. The whole petition thing would not have been revealed publicly before the election, were it not for Levine’s decision.
In any case, given that Levine’s resignation appears to be in response to the recent election, I stand by my earlier statement that the will of the people seems to be best served by waiting one week for the new board to select the new mayor.
No matter what happens, it is my sincere hope, even after all of the ‘mudslinging’, that the people of T-burg can come together to try to find common ground for the good of everyone. After an election is over, we should lay down our arms and seek to work with those who are elected. We’ll never agree all the time, but the spirit of democracy is to seek to make decisions for the good of all when possible, not to say ‘I don’t care about the people who voted for the other guy’. We may disagree about how to go about it, but our goals should be the same – to benefit the whole community as much as possible.
For this to work, we must also be willing to seek the good of everyone even if we don’t feel like the ‘other side’ is doing the same. I know this is idealistic. But I hope some in the community will agree this is a good goal, and that you can all come together to serve T-burg as well as possible.
You may now resume attacking my statements…
Attacking your comments? You mean disagreeing with you?
I hate it when people equate disagreement and debate with an attack. It’s a strategy for squelching free discussion.
why does “former” keep using words like “our” and “we”? Are you, or aren’t you, here? Or by “former” do you mean that you moved a mile out of the village and now you are upset that OUR local governmet has denied YOU your GOD GIVEN RIGHT to village water?
One intriguing thing about this blog is trying to guess who’s hiding behind a pseudonym. You read a few posts and you start to get an idea… I’m going to guess that “Former T-burger” is in reality Rod Porter. Hmmmm?