I saw a Riverside Party Flyer and had a question on one of the charges against the RCA contained in the flyer. The RP party website 'contact us' form did not work.
I wanted to know what the basis was, or what is the back up, of the stmt that members of the RCA would not , or is it , promise not to, serve if the whole bunch were not elected.
I think the question posed is the one found on the Riverside Party web site:
The RCA says that its entire slate needs to be elected to implement its agenda and that it will block vote to do so. If so,
What is the role of the existing trustees? Are they irrelevant?
What happens if one of the RCA candidates disagrees with Mr. Gorman?
What happens if your whole slate doesn't get elected?
The question seems to be pretty simple. Four positions are up for election. Four constitutes a majority. What happens if less than a majority is elected? I think this question is valid for both parties. The dynamics of Village government for the next 4 years could very well hang on the answer.
The statement in the flyer is a rather strong, and odd, statement: that, after being elected by the people, someone would not serve. I just want to know who said this and when. Just now I did ask the RCA from their website, and they replied that they made no such promise (not to run if not all are elected).
If what the RCA said is true, then this is a baseless claim issued by the RP flyer tantamount to mudslinging.
One cd theoretically say the same of the members of the RP if the whole slate does not get in, since they, too, are members of a party, or a group adhering to a platform, by means of which they all agree to run.
They are not independent, but are a package deal, backed by the Riverside Caucus, which is the same organization that has backed the current and outgoing administration - which is the same administration that brought the Village ...
the TOD - literally, a Transportation oriented design which would sledgehammer Riverside's basic tranquil and semi rural nature, which led directly to...
the TIF - trounced by the Villagers in a referendum by a four to one vote; this referendum, it should be added, was vehemently opposed by the current administration and would not have happened without the leadership and support of the members of the RCA.
the TAX increase request - also rejected by the Villagers 4 to 1.
... Do we want more of the same?
Backing by the Riverside Caucus does not mean that candidates must follow a platform dictated by the Caucus - each candidate thinks and votes independently in whatever manner they personally feel is right. This is why votes by the board are often not unanimous. Whether you prefer this independent method of serving or the majority method proposed by the RCA is a matter of choice. There have been pros and cons expressed for both sides on this forum....and I'm sure we'll see a lot more before the 7th as everyone continues to express their own views ... we all have a different POV, which makes for lively discussion!
My personal view at this point ...After meeting the candidates individually and hearing the first forum, I prefer the independent thinking that the 4 candidates of the Riverside Party are proposing.
I think we get it idic5, you don't like the Caucus supported candidates. You also don't like the way the question was posed. The question is, nonetheless, out there. We have a slate of candidates who have appeared and present themselves as the agents of change. How much change are we going to see and how much control? How solidly are they standing together? They seem determined to push some agenda, but very vague about exactly what this agenda is. Transparency-reduce spending-no new taxes. What happens if the top down review, outside consultant for budget, and outside consultant for business development don't work? Will they be able to work with the 3 remaining trustees? Is this going to be a 4 year experiment in script reading. You have to admit, these guys don't exude trustworthiness. The slick video on their web site begs the question-you poke fun at the opposition for charging money for a political fundraiser but where is your money coming from? Why didn't they post their campaign finances before bringing the subject up? Transparency starts in the election.
hsimpson-Those initiatives were done without significant debate amongst the Village Board and in the end there was an easy majority for those initiatives. There were no differing opinions among the caucus backed village board from the president's / village manager's agenda.
The only countering point of view was applied by the people who now comprise the Riverside Community Alliance, gorman, saatchi, shevitz, and reynolds, and a host of other community members.
Fred-I like the people running tho RP candidates, they seem like nice conscientious Riverside citizens, and I respect them for putting their personal lives on hold to run for the Village Board. However, I do not want a continuation of the same agenda and policies.
Good questions about where their money comes from - ask them that question. I thought there is some sort of law requiring disclosure about contributions to political parties. It was through that law that I found out that the biggest owner in the CBD, Kafka - or was it his mother? - made sizable contributions to the Riveside Caucus.
idic5 - sounds like we are in agreement on at least one point - votes from the sitting board are not always unanimous.
This is because they vote independently - there is no outside group or philosophy telling them how to vote on each topic. No "party view" like in most other levels of government. They make up their own minds.
This is a very important factor for me personally and has strongly influenced my choice in the election.
Hsimpson, I put out my last post, where I pointed out that there was NO significant debate over those major village initiatives, after your last post. Those initiatives, and the manner in which they were prosecuted, were very much disconnected with what most of the Riverside electorate wanted. THAT was an example of reading off a script prepared by some unknown author for eight yrs, and the RP party promises to be more of the same.
I recall, during the TIF debate, Mr Smith drawing a distinction between a Village representative needing to 'lead' the people vs 'listen' to the people. But The People won. Maybe these pesky voters were the 'outside' influence to the Village board's 'free' decision making process.
Their fliers are full of dubious suggestions, like Miezio is competent, Lesniak is balanced. Diversity? RCA has that too. And since when did women sink to recommending themselves by virtue of their gender? Smith is experienced all right. That does not answer whether that is the kind of experience that is wanted.
Divisive rhetoric? Smith's specialty. Screaming at residents, commissioners, and trustees. Insulting existing trustees by saying now is not the time to have a board that doesn't know what it's doing, as if only he did. Talk about one mind. Spend your savings and increase your debt? Smith wants to levy a real estate transfer tax and voted for expenditures that 3 trustees considered irresponsible. RCA has one mind? No, there are 4 minds there. RP has 2 minds: Smith and Lesniak. If you want to blow money on useless consultants, build ugly empty buildings, and put a bar in on your corner, vote for Lesniak.
What a load of cr-p. Why don't the two with experience run on their records. Are they ashamed of them? If you can't discuss the issues, tell it like it is: Be very scared and do thing the way they've always been done and vote for us.
I'm not interested in arguing with RP trolls so save your breath.
Excuse me, I should be PC and say trolls of any description.
Talk about towing the party line. The RCA can work with Sussman and Sells as easily as anyone has. Mr Scully will be himself. I do not want 4 people who do not know what they think but will decide when they get there. I want to know what they stand for now. And I use the word 'think' advisedly. Smith and others of them have said they are going to continue the 'wise' policies of the past, the 'golden age' as he calls it. I don't want 4 people to get there and decide to do more of the same. This idea of candidates who have no positions is archaic and ridiculous. I don't want a board stacked with lawyers, I want business people. I want people who have time to devote to the issues instead of letting the unelected village staff do most of the thinking and working for them.
Script-reading indeed. The RP was in need of a script at that debate. The RCA candidates were able to think, and for themselves. Nice try with the Soviet Union angle, but that is the RP's party line.
I asked the RCA why they didn't have a fundraiser. They said they didn't want to ask people for money at a time like this. Money is no object for Smith supporters, apparently. But then they're ready to pony up the real estate transfer tax too, or rather dump it on anyone lucky enough to sell their house, or unfortunate enough to have to. RCA take donations as they are offered as far as I know. They were not tasteless or thoughtless enough to hold a $100 a plate fundraiser.
I don't think the RP exudes trustworthiness, competence or intelligence. And their campaign literature and rhetoric is oily enough to cook on. I would rather see Smith on the board than at least one other sitting trustee; it is regrettable he decided to run for president, but perhaps inevitable. He has the brains for the job, but not the temperament. And I am not in favor of Home Rule or transfer taxes, nor Lesniak's schemes.
You must log in to post.