SamPratt.com

Election over

Bill Hallenbeck (who, I learned tonight, is a big fan of Elvis Costello) won the absentee and affidavit ballots in District 5-1 by a 20-to-5 margin, pushing his lead to roughly 35, meaning the Hudson election is effectively over, with only 29 ballots left to count in 5-2. ... Congratulations to Hudson’s new Mayor.

UPDATE: The 5-2 count was 11 Haddad, 15 Hallenbeck. After the Haddad campaign released its challenges to some 20 ballots, the final margin of victory was 50.

22, 23, 24 or 25

Bill Hallenbeck's lead over Nick Haddad shrunk slightly today—to somewhere between 22 and 25 votes. This came as a result of a hand-recount of all the ballots cast on Election Day by Republican and Democratic inspectors.

A slight change in the 3rd Ward count moved one vote from the Bill to the Nick column, a two-vote swing, cutting into the former’s lead.

In addition, three ballots were held aside after being challenged by the Haddad legal team, due to those ballots having extraneous writing or identifying marks on them. Under the election law, such marks generally void the whole ballot. These automatically (per a pre-count court order) go to a judge to decide on their validity. This means Hallenbeck at this point is either up 22, 23, 24, or 25 votes.

At the end of a grueling day of both parties recounting over 1,500 ballots, Hallenbeck attorney Giff Whitbeck showed up at the last minute, and attempted to demand yet another count of the 3rd Ward votes—having missed the painstaking process that took up most of the day. This move was rebuffed by Commissioner Virginia Martin.

The action continues in the morning with affidavit and absentee ballots, which did not get touched today.

Round #1 to Hallenbeck

After about 40 minutes of lawyers preenting arguments, Judge McGrath ruled from the bench at about 11:15 am that Article 16 does not permit him to provide the remedy sought by the Haddad campaign. Some 32 ballots were at issue, 17 of them “carried” to permanently disabled voters by Linda Mussmann and Lyle Shook, despite provisions of the New York State Election Law indicating that such ballots cannot be handled by third parties—and must be mailed directly to voters confined to their homes (or nursing homes).

Hurry up & wait

 

Word is that the counting of Hudson absentee and affidavit ballots will now occur on Monday, the soonest that Bill Hallenbeck’s attorney Giff Whitbeck is available.

With just 27 votes separating Hallenbeck and his mayoral opponent, Nick Haddad, there are an estimated 220-225 absentee and affidavit ballots to be considered, though 10-20% of those could prove invalid. Ballots for the Hudson race only came out of their impoundment yesterday, with recanvassing of the Hudson results and logging of the poll book information and affidavit ballots taking place yesterday. (The Board of Elections has to first verify the election night results, and also review the books to make sure no one who submitted an absentee ballot also voted on the machine on November 8th.)

Ballots for other close races in Claverack, Greenport, Hillsdale and Taghkanic will likely hit the tables today (Tuesday) and presumably will be complete before Thanksgiving.

The already-slow pace of the counts has been further reduced by the existence of a super-tight judicial race between Republican Catherine “Kiki” Cholakis and Democrat Ray Elliott, with lawyers for each observing counts in every town in a seven-county area.

Box 343

The Gossips of Rivertown has posted absentee ballot tallies for the contentious Hudson mayoral primary. As expected, these did not change the lopsided primary day outcome, since Nick Haddad prevailed among the absentee voters, adding to his already statistically-insurmountable lead. But there’s another story buried underneath the raw numbers of the absentee ballot count.

Public documents (see this PDF obtained via a Freedom of Information Law request to the Columbia County Board of Elections) show that Haddad’s primary opponent, Time & Space Limited co-director Linda Mussmann, arranged to have several other people’s ballots mailed to her via a Hudson post office box: P.O. Box 343.

That’s where it gets interesting, because P.O. Box 343 is also an address used by Time & Space. TSL is a non-profit organization—tax exempt because it seeks to advance the arts and culture, along with other educational purposes.

These and other readily-available public records indicate that voters’ absentee ballots, TSL contributions, nonprofit IRS filings, as well as political donations all lead back to the same metal box at the Hudson Post Office.

Below is a detail of records obtained from the Board of Elections, which shows one of at least three voters whose absentee ballots were mailed c/o Linda Mussmann at P.O. Box 343:

Again, that request was for someone else’s ballot, not her own... Next up is a page from the TSL website, instructing donors to mail checks to P.O. Box 343:

NOTE: The street address listed above on TSL’s own website is actually incorrect; the correct street number is 434. Meanwhile, P.O. Box 343 appears on other pages at the TSL site as well.

Similarly, here is TSL’s 2008 filing with the I.R.S., again showing P.O. Box 343 as the organization’s mailing address:

Lastly, here is a recent political contribution made to a Republican candidate for the State Supreme Court by Mussmann’s spouse and TSL co-director, Claudia Bruce, on August 19th of this year, again citing the same P.O. Box:

(That last one is especially ironic, considering that Mussmann had been posturing as the only true Democrat in the race—even as her partner was donating to a GOP judicial candidate. Personally, I happen to like and respect that particular judge; and unlike so-called “yellow dog” Democrats, I don’t expect people to be party-line donors. But Mussmann can’t insist that others bake ideologically-pure cakes if she’s going to eat them, too.)

Nonprofits are supposed to be very careful about keeping this stuff separate, and are required to limit and report any possible lobbying or other political activity. Free speech allows a nonprofit to show a movie with a political viewpoint. Likewise in his or her separate private life, the director of a nonprofit is free to be as political as s/he likes. It’s the mingling direct politicking for one’s own candidacy with nonprofit resources that likely would be raise eyebrows at of the I.R.S.

Mussmann and/or Bruce could in theory pay for that Post Office box out of their own funds, rather than charitable contributions, and declare its use a donation to TSL. Even so, such overlapping use won’t pass most people’s smell test. It’s needlessly sloppy, when the problem could be cured easily and afforably by just opening a separate box for political stuff.

In the past, TSL’s co-directors were somewhat more careful to at least avoid the impression of overlapping political and charitable activity, even if it was going on behind the scenes. For example, a $300 contribution Mussmann made in 2009 to her own Bottom Line Party was properly attributed to her home address on State Street, not P.O. Box 343.

In any case, Mussmann made a major strategic miscalculation in her fourth quixotic mayoral run with her intense focus on absentees. The results suggest that far too much campaign time was devoted to an effort which only delivered at best a 20-vote bump up. Visiting voters at home, talking them into having her “carry” their ballot, picking it up at the BOE, taking it back to the voter, standing around waiting for them to fill it out, and then delivering it back to the Board is an arduous means of winning votes if you have limited time and space to work in. (In a number of instances, Mussmann even went to voters who had already designated someone to carry their ballot and actually been issued one, and got them to sign a second request for a second ballot. This tactic’s main effect was to anger those whose ballots she had “scooped” to work against her, a net loss to her final tally.) In a close election, it might have looked like a clever, if Macchiavellian, move. As it turned out, the effort just caused her to neglect more wholesale forms of campaigning.

The election law certainly allows voters to designate someone to “carry” someone else’s ballot, with permission. Normally the practice is benign: for example, an elderly voter in an assisted living facility might want her nephew to pick up and bring the ballot to her. But historically in places like Hudson, a handful of political operatives (most notably here, 5th Ward Alderman Bob “Doc” Donahue) have had long lists of non-relatives for whom they carried ballots.

In past election cycles, Linda Mussmann protested this practice as a shady and even potentially corrupt one, as it can place undue pressure on the voter to fill out their ballot a certain way. The person “helpfully” delivering the ballot can gain an advantage by delivering endorsements along with the ballot, and potentially intimidate the voter as they fill it out. Yet there Mussmann was, straining to turn a tactic once used against her to her own advantage.

Mussmann probably lost as many votes as she gained in that process—while Haddad was busy successfully wooing over 350 Democrats with calls, mailers, TV ads, events, appearances, and face-to-face talks. With hope this fourth failed mayoral run (and sixth electoral bust) will mean the end of Mussmann’s by-now futile campaigns... or at least cause her to be more careful about which addresses she uses on official forms.

Signifying nothing

’Tis the season when the leaves float down, and the campaign signs sprout up. It’s also the season when the partisans of various political candidates agonize waaaay too much over who has more lawn signs. In fact some campaigns think of little else but their signs—at the expense of the actual work of winning over voters.

The annual sign routine is predictable:

• Candidate Joe gets his signs up first, causing the supporters of Candidate Jane to freak out.


• Jane overcompensates by trying to put up twice as many signs as Joe, escalating the sign wars.


• Now it’s Joe’s supporters’ turn to freak out, so Joe orders another 100 signs to catch up, making Joe and Jane roughly even.


• Both teams suddenly realize that if they put TWO signs on each property, it looks like they have double the support! Then they realize that three is better than two. And four is better than three. (Five, however, makes the property owner look crazy.)


• Jane’s cousin gets caught with a trunkload of stolen Joe signs, creating a bunch of bad publicity for Jane.


• Meanwhile, the local zoning enforcement officer (a member of Jane’s campaign committee) decides to enforce a little-known local law, requiring Joe to take down his signs because they are 3.25 inches too tall.


• The ACLU steps in, with a letter (correctly) denouncing the local sign ordinance as un-Constitutional; the ZEO backs off; Joe gets most of his signs back up.


• After the first week of this annual ritual, voters stop even seeing the signs, as they become just another feature of the roadscape.


• All of this distracts from the mechanics of wooing voters, turning them out to the polls, and getting elected.

Finally, after months of sign wars, your local election occurs. The votes are tallied. Turns out that having more signs had nothing to do with who actually won. The outcome could be predicted as reliably with a coin flip. Because no one—well, almost no one—decides which candidate to support because of a sign.

People understandably love to count election signs, since they’re often the only visible portion of a local campaign. (Debates, if any, are usually poorly-attended, with mainly the inner circles of each candidate attending.)

But signs tell you virtually nothing about a campaign, except maybe which side assigned a more obsessive-compulsive operative to putting wax-coated cardboard placards all over town. I’ve seen plenty of elections around here—for example, in Claverack, Hudson and Taghkanic—where the candidate with more signs lost, sometimes by a lot.

A few people put up signs because they actually feel strongly about a candidate. But rarely does more than a tiny sliver of the voting public actually display signs for either side. Some are apathetic. A few don’t want to have an argument with their neighbor. Others simply want their allegiances to remain a private matter, especially in the event that the other team wins, and appoints a new tax assessor.

Still it is almost impossible for a candidate’s friends and core supporters to turn off the sign hysteria. In the minds eye, if you see three signs for Joe in a given neighborhood, it is natural to conclude that “everyone” in that neighborhood supports Joe, though only 3 out of 30 houses are sporting his colors. 

Signs also go up for a host of reasons that have little to do with popularity. They go up first on the lawns or houses of relatives of candidates, and their allied commiteemen. Then they go up because someone didn’t want to say “no” to an operative with a supervisory role over that person’s job. They go up on certain attorneys’ and insurance agents’ houses who depend on municipal or County work, even if they plan to vote for the other side. And so on.

So long as both sides have a reasonable presence on the street, the exact tally of who’s ahead in the Sign Wars tells you nothing. The only time to freak out about signs is if the only sign up for your candidate is on his own house. Then you might worry, as that absence probably reflects a much larger problem of organization that goes far beyond getting signs printed and distributed. On the other hand, your candidate may be lullling the other side into complacency, as s/he diligently and quietly knocks on the door of every single local household, building a giant electoral advantage which only becomes visible on Election Day.

Sure, once in a while someone comes up with a truly clever or winning sign design which truly captures voters’ imaginations and gives them some slight advantage. That happens maybe once in a lifetime, and usually is a symptom of the candidate’s prowess, not its cause. As one consultant put it:

Lawn signs are another case where more is less as candidates try to outdo each other to see who can plaster a neighborhood with the most signs. It’s a stalemate of mutually assured destruction: Competing campaigns drain their budgets as they litter the landscape with a blurry sea of colorful cardboard largely ignored by commuters and other passersby.  

And what about our neighbors who actually choose to post political lawn signs in their front yard?  I say this: Free speech is awesome, but we already know who you vote for, and you’re not changing anyone’s mind.  Let it go.

So wherever you may live, please don’t get too worked up about who appears to have more signs. If you care about a candidate, badgering them about the other guy’s signs does not help. Instead, organize an event at your home, or make calls on their behalf to voters, or write a personal letter to your five best friends, urging them to join you in voting for your candidate.

In a local election, the only reliable sign that your team may win is that John or Jane isn’t investing too much of their limited money, time and thoughts on campaign signs.

Bad service

 

Legally, “service” of papers typically means to deliver notice to people that they are being sued and/or must appear in court.

The two photos above represent what the Hudson Republicans and the Hallenbeck campaign consider service. These depict two belated attempts around mid-day today to alert two Hudson residents that just a few hours later, the GOP would be in court trying to prevent the Democrats from having a Mayoral choice.

Kinderhook Attorney Bill Better was spotted tramping around Hudson with sheafs of paper in his arms, attempting to track his quarry—evidently with little success and even less care. (Note: The above method of service is known to lawyers as “nail-and-mail,” though it appears in this case in person delivery is required by New York State election law... and here might be, um, better described as “tape-and-escape.”)

The GOP ought to have served them notice well beforehand, but had neglected to do so. The Republican side somehow “forgot” to name the three Dems responsible for the contested petitions in their lawsuit filed earlier in the week, only specifying Board of Elections commissioners Virginia Martin and Jason Nastke... But one of them apparently rolled out of bed this morning, realized their blunder, and had to hustle over the Courthouse for leave to correct it. (In fact, the first version of their Board of Elections complaint wasn’t even signed, and also had to be re-submitted.)

Better evidently was acting out instructions from GOP chair George DeJesus and candidate Bill Hallenbeck, who reneged on DeJesus’s publicly-stated words published just last week in The Register-Star:

“I feel for Mr. Haddad. It was a mistake,” DeJesus said. “During petition time you have so much going on. I can understand the mistake.”

DeJesus said the situation will make it much harder for the Democrats, as they have now opened the door for anyone to be a write-in candidate for the endorsement. The Republican added that he will not campaign to get people to write in his mayoral candidate William Hallenbeck’s name on the Democratic primary ballot because residents deserve a choice between two strong candidates.

“I just hope, for the sake of the city, that they have a choice and an opportunity to pick a mayor they believe will do the best job,” DeJesus said.

But now, instead of keeping DeJesus’s word and honoring the above sentiments, the GOP filed suit on Monday to block Democrats who might want to write in a candidate for Mayor. But in challenging the Democrats on a narrow technicality, they themselves stumbled all over basic legal requirements in bringing their suit.

Which brings us to this afternoon in the Columbia County Courthouse, where DeJesus and Hallenbeck huddled with Linda Mussmann and Tony Kellar, while lawyers for both sides duked it out before Judge Hummel of Rensselaer County.

By 4 o’clock, Hummel had delivered a setback to Better & Co: The Republican legal eagles had screwed up the wording of their complaint. This caused Hummel to find that their complaint had already been satisfied once the County Board ruled today that the Democratic petitions were valid—and thus could not be pursued as currently constructed.

As a result of Hummel's decision, the threesome of Better, Hallenbeck and DeJesus indicated they'd scurry off to re-file their case by 5 pm in hopes of getting a second bite at the apple, including a second chance to try to “serve” the affected parties... which is doubly ironic, since they don't want any Democrats who made technical mistakes to get any second chances. Apparently, the Hudson Republicans think that only their tribe deserves a do-over, while Democrats had better dot every i and cross every t.

Assuming Hallenbeck’s crew get their paperwork in order this time, Hummel will reconvene the parties at 9 am on Monday. Meanwhile, Hudson Dems remain in suspense about whether they’ll get the chance to have a nominee.

Bart a non-starter?

Hudson’s attention in the past 24 hours has been riveted on the Hudson City Democratic Committee’s feverish efforts to restore the possibility of candidate Nick Haddad’s name appearing on the top line of the ballot. A paperwork deadline was missed, thus invalidating the HCDC members' petitioning efforts for Haddad. (Those petitions had already been recalled once before prior to filing due to a shakeup in the Dem ticket.) 

Less attention has been paid, meanwhile, to another developing situation on the Republican side of things: namely, persistent rumors that GOP Common Council President nominee Bart Delaney has dropped out of the race.

Word is that Delaney (currently serving as 5th Ward Supervisor) failed to accept the Conservative and Independent nominations, and would like his name removed from the Republican line as well. If true, this would leave Dem nominee Donald Moore—who himself is a replacement for his party's initial choice, Sarah Sterling—unopposed. Another source has it that former Dem chair Linda Mussmann wants her close ally and former Dick Tracy mayoral aide Lynn Sloneker to replace Delaney on the Republican line if he drops out, but that does not appear to be technically possible at this point.

Notably, perhaps, Delaney did not appear in this group photo of the Hudson Republican candidates when they announced their slate less than six weeks ago.

Mr. Rodgers’ Neighborhood

There’s been some political chatter about the residency status of Timothy (Tim) Rodgers, who was recently endorsed by the Hudson Democrats to run for Alderman in the City’s 1st Ward.

One of his likely opponents, Geeta Cheddie of Warren Street, raised the question of where Rodgers lives in the context of his application to become a Commissioner of Deeds in Hudson—normally just a formality to help candidates overcome some of New York’s more arcane petitioning requirements.

In over a dozen years in these parts, I have never heard of any such application (including my own) being rejected. There are many, many Commissioners of Deeds on file with the County Clerk; the designation sounds like a lot bigger deal than it actually is. It’s kind of like becoming a Notary, only a lot less onerous—as there are few qualifications besides having a pulse and promising not to lie.

Naturally, an applicant needs to provide a valid address on their application. But anyone familiar with the shenanigans that mark each Hudson election cycle knows this unusual objection was purely political. It’s long been a local convention that all other differences get put aside when approving CoD applications, since they involve the fundamental right to get candidates on the ballot. As such, the objection is extraordinary, even if the grounds have some technical merit.

And indeed, my understanding is that Cheddie was engaged in a friendly dialogue with Rodgers—who’s prominent in the local hospital union, and who she may have imagined could help her electorally—right up to the moment she heard that he was running for a 1st Ward seat, at which point she went ballistic. (There are, by the way, two Alderman slots for each ward, and currently three likely candidates: Cheddie, Rodgers, and Larissa Parks.)

Now, I don’t have a dog in this fight, and have never met this Rodgers—though I’d be charmed to learn that he wears cardigans, speaks in a kindly voice, and sings helpful songs about getting along... But whether or not Tim Rodgers can become a Commissioner of Deeds right now is irrelevant to whether he can run for 1st Ward Alderman. Because as far as I can see New York State Election Law does not to require him to be a resident of Hudson’s 1st Ward in order to run for Alderman. It would only require that he become a 1st Ward resident before his term started next year.

The full election law can be downloaded here (as a PDF), but the relevant section seems to be this:

§ 6–122. Designation or nomination; eligibility, restrictions

A person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who (1) is not a citizen of the state of New York; (2) is ineligible to be elected to such office or position; or (3) who, if elected will not at the time of commencement of the term of such office or position, meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications thereof or, with respect to judicial office, who will not meet such qualifications within thirty days of the commencement of the term of such office.

Unless the City of Hudson has some local prohibition against petitions being circulated for Council candidates who do not yet live in that district (and I’m not even sure such a rule would be legal), it appears Rodgers could run for any City office—so long he is a resident of New York State at the time his petitions are circulated, and so long as he becomes a resident of the district in question by the time he was administered the oath of office.

Indeed, the Democrats of the 1st Ward could circulate petitions for Bill Clinton to be one of their 1st Ward reps, and if he got enough votes and moved to the ward by January 1st, he could assume office. (Just beware, Bubba; Hudson elections are in many ways tougher than national ones.)

If that Ward’s voters want to hold Rodgers’ residency against him—though he’ll surely find an apartment there soon if he’s serious about running—they can do so with their ballots. But as a practical matter, this early election year fracas is not about whether Rodgers will be able to run, it’s just a chance for Cheddie to try to throw a clod of Spring mud at her opponent, and see if any of it sticks.

P.S.: Some also may recall that former Congressman John Sweeney lived in Cohoes—outside of the 20th Congressional District—when he announced his candidacy for U.S. Representative. Sweeney only moved into the district shortly before the election, well after petitions were circulated on his behalf. His successor, Kirsten Gillibrand, likewise had a shaky claim to local residency. But it wasn’t an issue for either.

Voters deserve choices

In the last Hudson election, voters were given relatively few choices by the major party committees. Many incumbents ran unopposed, and many of the contested races occurred with only minimal public discussion and debate.

With no mayoral race on the ballot, turnouts for major contests such as the Council President race were unusually low—about half that of each of the previous five cycles. But this time around, it appears that voters may actually have some choices—both between the party nominees, and also in some primaries.

As already reported here, the Hudson Democrats are endorsing Nick Haddad and Sarah Sterling for Mayor and Council President, respectively. Many now expect the Republicans to run a ticket of Bill Hallenbeck and Bart Delaney for those offices.

In the 1st Ward, at least three Democrats (maybe more) will be vying for two Alderman slots—Tim Rogers, Larissa Parks, and Geeta Cheddie—and the Republicans may find at least one candidate of their own. Ditto in the 5th Ward, with three Democrats rumored to be running: Paul Beaumont, Bob Donahue and Cappy Pierro.

In the 3rd Ward, Democrat Chris Wagoner will seek a third term as Alderman, on a ticket with attorney John Friedman, with Ellen Thurston running for Supervisor. Mike O’Hara will challenge incumbent John Musall for 1st Ward Supervisor in a Democratic primary.

Though several incumbents in the remaining wards appear vulnerable to challenges, it remains to be seen if other party nominees or independent candidates emerge.

In this site’s opinion, contested primaries (in September) and general elections (in November) are good for democracy. Those already in positions of power will invariably rail against such competition—typically invoking expectations of “party loyalty” to whip others back into place. But it should be remembered that with or without party committee backing, anyone can run for office.

All it requires is to prepare petitions carefully, secure the necessary signatures, and file them in a timely way. If more candidates in a party file petitions for an office than there are slots open, that party committee can’t spend money on its endorsees until after the primary. So the playing field is more level than many assume, with the candidates who work hardest to reach the voters directly having the best chance of winning.

And that goes for all towns, not just Hudson.

Hudson, The Frenetic City

The Hudson political rumor mill continues to churn; every day brings a fresh round of whispered tips, red herrings and general speculation about the upcoming Fall elections. Below is an update on the previous passel of possible candidates for office—with the usual caveat that until petitions are circulated and submitted, nothing is the least bit certain.

Whenever there’s no incumbent in a race, a lot of names surface and many trial balloons get floated by the major parties—most of which sink without a trace. So with Rick Scalera spreading the word* that he’ll run for 5th Ward Supervisor against former ally Bart Delaney, the number of names floating around has multiplied.

Initial rumors that Gary Graziano would seek the Republican nomination have been tamped down, as the former Police Commissioner has hitched his star to that of Assemblyman Molinaro (who wants to become the new Dutchess County Executive). Likewise, word is that former mayor Ken Cranna has shelved his biennial exploration of another mayoral bid.

As a result Dick Tracy, another former one-termer who was said to be contemplating running for Council President on Cranna’s ticket, is now rumored instead to be mulling a second shot at the Mayor’s office—though he didn't seem to like the job much the first time around. Tracy is a member of the Independence Party, meaning he’d need the authorization of the Republican, Democratic and/or Conservative chairs to run on any of their lines except as a write-in candidate. The Hudson Republican committee, chaired by George DeJesus, is not known to have expressed any firm preference one way or another regarding any of these options so far.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side Mike O’Hara has joined Don Moore in telling friends that he wil not run for Mayor. Expectations are that O’Hara will try for 1st Ward Supervisor, and Moore for City Treasurer... This of course assumes that the popular existing Treasurer, Eileen Halloran, will not seek re-election, aiming instead for the HDC position vacated by Peter Markou. Also indicating interest in the Treasurer’s position is current 1st Ward Alderman Sarah Sterling. Her fellow 1st Ward Alderman Geeta Cheddie had been thought to be eyeing that Citywide job as well, but indications are that she will try to defend her seat instead, and will have at least two Democratic challengers.

Meanwhile Hudson Valley native Nick Haddad, owner of an electrical supply business, expressed interest in a Mayoral endorsement at Tuesday night’s Hudson Democratic Committee meeting. Haddad indicated that he would also reach out to other major parties.

In the 5th Ward, respected firefighter Paul Beaumont has indicated his interest in running for the Alderman’s seat which Dick Goetz is said to be vacating, while others intimate that former Alderman and current Mayoral aide Cappy Pierro wants back in the Council game there... Back in the 1st, Da|Ba chef and owner Daniel Nilsson, previously reported here to be exploring a Mayoral bid, is said now to be more interested in an Alderman seat.

If any of the above is to believed, then the most time-consuming but least-appropriately paid political position in Hudson, that of Council President, appears to have no takers so far. The most obvious pool of potential candidates is that of the existing Aldermen, and various parties have suggested that either Sterling or Chris Wagoner step up to the plate. Long-serving 3rd Ward Alderman Ellen Thurston is planning a move to the County Supervisor level, assuming she can best incumbent Bill Hallenbeck. Recent election cycles have attracted mainly CCP candidates who were afterthoughts, or even liabilities to the rest of their ticket; for example in 2005, Dan Grandinetti’s bid for mayor was thought by many to have been harmed by his selection of a running mate, Jablanski, who appared to have little interest in or familiarity with this detail-oriented, hands-on position.

Finally, it should be noted that several rumors were sent this site’s way which turned out to have been based solely on anonymous (and often slanderous postings) on anonymous chat sites best never visited, especially if your computer hasn’t been vaccinated for tetanus, rabies and dysentery... Whether or not Dan Grandinetii is returning to Hudson, or if Bill Hughes would really give up his County position to run for Mayor, are not topics about which one can gain any useful insight from unmoderated forums—90% of whose posts typically are made by the same 4-5 lurkers using multiple aliases.

As noted at the outset, all political rumors in this small city founded by whalers should be taken with several grains of the coarsest sea salt. The periodic election reports here aim less to convey hard facts, since so few are discernable at this stage, and more to expose to a broader public audience to the types of chatter which normally circulates only among Hudson’s tiny, incestuous insider circles. The actual candidates on the September and November ballots may prove to be only a few, or even none, of the above. Slightly more clarity may emerge once the party committees make their picks, but that does not preclude surprise entries as late as June or early July, since a member of a political party or independent candidates can always file their own petitions. The endorsements of the parties carry weight, but are not necessarily the final word on who may run.

 

---

* NOTE: In almost every election cycle after his original run in the early ’90s, Scalera has initially leaked word that he’s not running, or running for some other office, but often this proves to be misdirection. In 1999 and 2005, when his political negatives were way up, Scalera did in fact sit out the race, and his surrogates (Pierro in ’99, Grandinetti in ’05) lost in his place. In 2007, once Linda Mussmann announced her candidacy as a spoiler against Mike O’Hara, he appeared to change his mind about seeking other opportunities and ran, knowing there was a very low risk of losing a three-way race. While it appears that Scalera very much wants revenge on Delaney for some reversal of position or perceived slight, don’t count Scalera out of the Mayor’s race until it’s too late to petition for it.

Absent with leave

There's bad news out of Albany for Greg Fingar, John Ciampoli, Erik Tyree, Jim Paroli Jr., James Walsh, and other Republicans who like to try to deprive people of their right to vote.

This legislation has now passed both the Assembly and Senate--making it harder for political schnooks to manufacture trivial reasons to toss out absentee ballots.

Meanwhile, the 60-day deadline passed last Monday for Judge Jonathan Nichols to rule on a motion to sanction Columbia County GOP attorneys for their wasteful, irresponsible and fruitless efforts last winter to harass intimidate legitimate voters. There is no indication that Nichols has issued a decision.

Also unknown is whether County Dems will act to enforce the improper legal payments for that fiasco made by Fingar et al. from the GOP Housekeeping fund, which are not supposed to be used for such purposes.