Scroll down to view article
Scroll down to view article
Scroll down to view article
Scroll down to view article
Scroll down to view article
Scroll down to view article

2014 charter amendment results (updated)

Elections_Article2

With all districts reporting, all five proposed charter amendments have been voted down.

Yes No % Districts Reported
Amendment #1
(Mayor removed as chair of Common Council, picks own Deputy Mayor)
1238 1992 100%
Amendment #2
(Add two at-large members to Common Council)
1124 2095 “”
Amendment #3
(Separation of authority between Mayor and Common Council)
1416 1772 “”
Amendment #4
(“Strong mayor” form of government)
1220 1978 “”
Amendment #5
(Set minimum budget levels for Mayor and Controller’s office)
1107 2083 “”

* Preliminary, non-certified results from Montgomery County Board of Elections.

Tags: , , ,

16 Responses to 2014 charter amendment results (updated)

    • Rob Millan says:

      Yes, the people spoke. Now let’s move on. There’s really nothing more to it other than wanting to keep stale the current government. it boggles my mind the number of people cry for change and then vote it down the minute it presents itself. Albany is no different.

  1. PO says:

    wasnt really close at all. Admit it or not, for many voters, this was a referendum on the mayor’s performance for the past seven years

  2. Luis says:

    And again she is pushing back against the public’s vote by not accepting the results, as noted in the Gazette. How is she going to work with a council she shows no respect to nor does she respect the vote of the public.

  3. TJ Kelley says:

    In what world of revisionist politics does one arrive at the unsubstantiated conclusion that this was a referendum on Ann Thane? Let’s remember that this commission was comprised of a heavy majority of Republicans; a Republican alderwoman, a Republican supervisor, a Repuplican court clerk with his own judicial aspirations, and a Republican-identified chairman. If this was a referendum on anyone or anything, it would have been the policy agenda of the party not in mayoral power.

    The only thing of which Ann Thane is guilty in this scenario is purposefully forgoing a progressive commission that would have given the residents of this city a govt equipped with solving solutions of the 21st Century. Instead she made every attempt at bipartisanship in selecting committeemen who shared nothing in terms of her vision for this city or its govt…much less that govt’s expectations.

    And it was those policies/ideologies that were soundly rejected by the electorate. If I were advising this administration as a political scientist or statistical empiricist, my counsel would be to take a hard left towards progressive, appoint a new commission, and expressly give it instruction to overhaul the antiquated governing document that was rejected last night from A-Z.

    Ann Thane gets to put this in her win column.

    • rogo says:

      It was Thane hand picked commission. If she had listen to anything from other commission, maybe so. This the second referendum (last year elections), that has not gone Mayors way. Do you think she will listen?? Doubt it!!!

      • Rob Millan says:

        “It was Thane hand picked commission.” – That’s the way ALL the Commissions have been. Remember, the Common Council-picked Commission is illegal and there was .

        Your continued desire to cherry-pick which arguments you want to use is as astounding as your desire to ignore fact.

        Do you think you will listen? Doubt it.

      • Tim Becker says:

        I don’t recall anyone saying the council’s committee was “illegal”, just that according to NYS Law, the mayor’s commission superseded it.

      • Rob Millan says:

        Tim,
        There was case law from the Appellate citing saying just that.

      • Tim Becker says:

        Here’s the NY State appellate court case that was cited by DeCusatis when the issue came up –
        http://www.nypti.org/?p=422440#4CASE

        It doesn’t say that a legislature appointed commission is unlawful, just that a mayor appointed commission takes precedence.

        I recall there was another issue as to whether the first group, which was referred to as a “committee” could actually put anything up for referendum, but that could have been fixed with a subsequent resolution. Maybe that’s what you meant? But even if constituted properly, the mayor’s commission would still take precedence per the NY State Appellate decision.

  4. TJ Kelley says:

    Since this thread is about election results and actual number-based realities, I reject your premise. Let us talk about those off-year elections then and the caliber of candidates that resulted in the current composition of the Council, not related in any way to Ann Thane.

    The Democrats were unprepared for game day and handed the election to fringe candidates like Diane Hatzenbuhler. I say this because voter turnout was so low in that cycle that only conservative power voters came out to vote. That’s not a reflection of Ann Thane, nor is really even a reflection on Dave Dybas; he didn’t motivate his base to go to the polls; it was rather those that always turn out who turned out voted for the fringe extreme candidate.

    Let’s turn to the other wards where, likewise, the results had no bearing on Ann Thane. 1st Ward’s Ken Mazur is a nice-enough guy but ran a terrible ground game and didn’t turn out his people to vote (low turnout again). The conservatives-leaning few that showed up were more familiar with the CSEA-backed and funded candidate. 3rd Ward’s Deb Baranello, too, ran a horrible ground game and name recognition of a neo-con gave the slot to Barone.

    But interestingly, and here’s my proof that Ann Thane was NOT on the ballot — even tangentially: Valerie Beekman, a liberal democrat soared to re-election in a ward that has the record of voting into office the fewest number of liberal progressives in two decades. The 2nd ward in those 20+ years has been represented by hard-right members like Dan Magliocca, Babe Pallotta, Dan Roth and Julie Pierce. But in 2011 and again in 2013, voters from ward 2, arguably the most conservative, sent a liberal Democrat of African-American heritage to sit at the Council table as their representative. Why?! Because she had a plan, a vision, and motivated her electorate to the polls.

    By the way, all commissions are hand picked. That’s why they are commissions. The check and balance occurs at the voting booth when voters give consent (or not). I argued above that Ann Thane forwent a progressive commission and instead chose Republican members with their own agenda for the sake of compromise. It was that agenda, not belonging to Mayor Thane, but to a party opposing her at every step, that the voters rejected.

    One last rebuke of your premise: 2 years ago, Mayor Ann Thane was fully supportive of a county-wide charter change in govt for residents of her city that resulted in a new style of representation, and frankly, a Democratic majority of Legislators. That was the vision with which she agreed, supported and advocated. The voters concurred and ushered in a new form of govt for themselves better able to handle municipal politics in the 21st Century.

    So yes, Ann Thane’s vision of progressive govt is alive, shared with, and supported by the electorate. And I’m confident that support will translate into success in 2015 when she is returned to office for a third term, and Democrats, who have fired their city chairman and selected new leadership, will regroup and return with a caliber of Council-candidates worthy of holding office. That will be the referendum worth watching!

  5. Rob Millan says:

    TJ,
    Not sure I agree with your assertion that “Deb Baranello, too, ran a horrible ground game.” ‘Ground games’ by far and large include door-to-door visits, phone calls, meet-and-greets, and non-campaign events. Having personally worked on that campaign, I can tell you that all of that was done by Baranello, none of that by Barone, and in fact that the opposition actually made aggressive and strident efforts to attach the Baranello name to Thane, which surely irked a lot of people, which further supports the belief of a Thane referendum.

    • TJ Kelley says:

      That’s a straw-man argument and I expected better from you that Thane was the reason Baranello lost. In fact the numbers don’t support your argument at all.

      Standing by assertion that Deb Baranello failed to energize voters in her ward to come out in her support, I point you to her vote tally. Baranello secured 298 votes. There are 270 Democratic power voters in the 3rd ward (Thane’s peeps). They can, with almost absolute certainty based on prior voting tendencies, affiliations, and demographic extrapolation be expected to not only vote ‘D’, but also GET OUT & VOTE. (I spent a lot of time and money on the power voter analysis).

      So, my powers of statistical prowess aside, it looks like Deb Baranello, and by extension you, only managed to convince 28 people to vote for you who weren’t already going to anyway. Brava!

      • Rob Millan says:

        Well, golly, not sure what to say to the argument that these numbers are proof-positive and foolproof because ‘a lot of time and money’ was spent on statistical ‘analysis’ on numbers that are otherwise pretty openly available; and that all but contradicts the premise that name recognition had something to do with it.

        And I do apologize for thinking that the Baranello ‘attachment’ to Thane (as being a ‘rubber stamp’ or a ‘yes girl’) was so blatantly obvious given the constant barrage on two radio stations by the golfers, fake letters to the editor written by the Barone camp (as seen here, written by a ‘Santo Zenon’ who isn’t in the 3rd Ward and admitted to never having met Mr. Barone:
        http://recordernews.com/iPad/lettersnative/10242013_letters)
        and Mr. Barone’s illegal campaigning at poll sites on Election Day, that they didn’t need mentioning.

        So I guess ‘brava’, however, on stating the obvious reason being name recognition coupled with anti-Thane sentiment, especially with the magical 270 number that guarantees absolutely nothing.

        Similar can be said on the Glorioso-for-Sherriff vote, which (sucks as it may for having been stolen from a seat on the ballot thanks to poor and irresponsible campaign management): name recognition probably coupled with a tad bit of laziness in not wanting to write in a candidate. This is too bad, too, since I feel Mr. Glorioso would have made a fine sherriff.

        Now on to 2016!

    • TJ Kelley says:

      P.S. Baranello, despite being painted as a Thane-puppet by the yokel radio fringe in 2010, mounted a campaign for citizens review board garnering 556 votes in ward 3 alone (2560 city wide). That nonsense didn’t stick to the wall then; it surely doesn’t today.