What Don’t the Ulysses Democrats Want Us To Hear?
A new report by Allen Cartsensen, about a meeting of the Ulysses Democratic Committee this week, puts a few nagging questions in my head. It seems that people at the meeting pressured Carstensen to delete an audio recording he had made of the meeting.
Why would they do that? What was happening at that meeting that the Ulysses Democrats don’t want us to know about? What were they saying that they don’t want the rest of us to hear?
At the level of our town’s politics, is this kind of secrecy appropriate?
I wasn’t there. I’m in Maine. So, I’d love to hear a justification from a member of the Ulysses Democratic Committee for the destruction of the recording.
Anyone care to speak up?
I am not a committee member, but sometimes have been and sometimes attend.
Meetings of political parties are not public meetings. There really isn’t anything more to write.
Well, sure there is more to write, Don. Sure there is. There’s a lot of nuance to the situation.
There are many levels between public and private, for instance. There are classified top secret meetings where it’s downright illegal to tell anyone who wasn’t in the room what took place at the meeting. Then, there are meetings that are open to members only, not for the public in general, but are recorded for interested outsiders. There are public meetings that aren’t recorded, but are reported on in great detail. There are other public meetings where recording is only allowed to certain parties who pay for the privilege. Then, there are wide open meetings.
Where do you think that the Ulysses Democratic Committee’s meetings range on this scale? What about that place on the scale between absolute public and absolute private do you think justifies the decision to push for the destruction of an audio recording of a meeting of the committee?
Why does the Ulysses Democratic Committee want to exclude the general public from its meetings? What kind of information from its meeting does it want to be kept from the general public in Ulysses?
What’s the perceived benefit of this arrangement? Are you willing to acknowledge that it has any drawbacks?
There’s a lot to write about on this subject, Don, if you care to consider it for a moment longer.
Hi Jonathan
The main problem in my opinion is that the Democratic Committee meetings have never been recorded in the past and members were unaware of the recording device. Making that clear at the BEGINNING of the meeting, rather than part way through would have helped the situation.
And the committee welcomes other democrats who want to work on the elections. There’s plenty of work to do. Having political party meetings open to the public during an election season might not be such a wise strategy.
Thanks for your thoughts, Liz.
Was there a policy against recording?
I’m wondering what in particular you think would be unwise about having an open political process for Ulysses Democrats during the month preceding the Democratic caucus, during which Democratic voters are supposed to turn out to select their own candidates in an informed manner. Wouldn’t that be exactly the time when openness would be important, so that people could understand the issues at stake within the Democratic Party in Ulysses?
The general election won’t start until after the caucus, September 1st, after all. It’s not as if the campaign against other parties’ candidates has begun. It’s all Democrat vs. Democrat now, so why would secrecy matter at this point?