The worst town in the nation -- part 1
What would you think of a town in which every decision of
the town board had been unanimous for at least a dozen years, and in which town
board members are allowed no public dissent at meetings, and none is ever expressed?
A town in which it was virtually impossible to get a meeting with the town
supervisor? One where citizens who express any dissent were met with either
silence or disdain? You would probably think you were living in the pre
perestroikan Soviet Union, or Mao’s China but you would be wrong. You would be
living in Greece New York, the worst run town in the nation.
Greece is a large suburb of Rochester New York with a
population of almost 100,000. If you
live outside of New York you might think of the whole state as an extension of
New York City liberal and democratic. Would that it were the case. Upstate New York
outside of the City of Buffalo and now the City of Rochester is solidly
Republican. As far back as I can recall the town of Greece has been run by
republican as was the City of Rochester up the mid 70’s. However from the
seventies onward there was always some dissent, At least one democrat held one
of the four town board seats. By the 1990’s however that began to change. As
happened in many parts of the country
politics became more mean spirited and adversarial. Without downplaying the
extent of differences in the past, the republicans in the county and the
democrats in the city were able to cooperate on a tax sharing plan that helped
the city stave off fiscal disaster in the previous republican administration. However
that relationship deteriorated once the new republican leadership of Steve
Minarik and Jack Doyle took over as party leader and county executive,
Following the blueprint of the Reagan era for demonizing of the poor and
minorities, a strategy which gave cover to neo-liberal restructuring of the
economy, the new republican leaders in Monroe had to face the
deindustrialization and declining fortunes of workers in// Rochester industries
like Kodak Xerox Bausch and Lomb and GM. They responded to this crisis with the
politics of hate and fear. Instead of addressing the nature of the economic
changes that were devastating the middle class they scapegoated the poor and
the outsiders and the minorities, In the midst of these tough times the
republican message said, these people are taking your hard earned money, The
lazy no good black folk and the democrats who support them are making you poor
and raising your taxes. More than this the Minarik/Doyle party specialized in
the use of personal attack and degradation of the opponent. It wasn’t just that
democrats were wrong they were corrupt immoral and degraded people. The worst
example of this occurred when the African American mayor of Rochester ran for
county executive, proposing consolidation of city and county services. The very
thought of the black folk invading suburban schools and the hardly subtle
racist campaign run by the Republicans insured a huge defeat.
The strategy of hate and division was a big success. The
republicans came to totally dominate in the suburbs of Rochester. Besides
winning the county executive, republicans regained and expanded control over
the county legislature. But the worst thing about the rise of new republicans
was there authoritarian autocratic style and rigid top down party discipline.
Every republican in the county legislature had to tow the party line and
support all the decision of the leadership. When 2 legislators once went
against the party on a matter they were immediately stripped of committee
positions and were replaced in the next election, No dissent allowed. This
party discipline was also reinforced by an extensive spoils system. Most
positions in the county government were filled by political cronies, often
those who served on town boards. Other jobs were filled by wives, children and
relatives of these town politicians friends and large contributors, While this
may be seen as just corruptions it served a crucial role in maintaining
discipline, Those who are dependent on the political leadership for their
livelihood are unlikely to stand up to it.
The county leadership looked not only to control the county
political apparatus but the larger towns in the area. With this in mind county
leadership pulled a coup in the town of Greece and forced out the town of
Greece supervisor and replaced him with their own man, John Auberger, who had previously
been the leader of the county legislature. This didn’t happen by an election or
decision of the town republican party or the town board. The county republicans
basically took over the local party and in midterm made the incumbent
supervisor leave. It happened without warning. I was working for local public
access at the time and we were called one morning to show up at town hall for
an announcement with no indication what it would be. This gave the new supervisor a decisive
advantage, Without needing to get elected, the new supervisor could run as the
incumbent in the next election with all the benefits that conferred, This was a
trick the local republicans would often use to advantage over the years. The
effect was to make political office more like an inherited right than an
elected office controlled by the people.
Now the previous
leader was no great shakes but he did allow discussion and dissent, and the
town board meeting often featured contentious debate of current issues. All
that changed when Auberger got in. He took the authoritarian top down style of
county government and intensified it with own tyrannical paranoid outlook. All town communication had to come out of his
office and under his name and imprimatur. As part of our programming at the
public access channel at which I worked we would often before Auberger have town
officials on to address issues and even have call in shows in which they would
answer questions from the public, When there was property revaluation the town
assessor would be there, An ice storm or other weather damage would get a visit
from public works. Other times people from zoning or even the deputy supervisor
would be on. These were often useful and informative. Once Auberger took over he instituted a
dictatorial style. No one outside of his office was allowed to speak or voice
an opinion in public. Once he was able to consolidate power and defeat the
democratic town board members this dictatorial style extended to public
meetings as well. Town Board meetings were reduced from twice a month to once a
month, all votes were to be unanimous 5-0 votes with no dissent or discussion
with any policy content allowed. He even passed a referendum that his term of
office was extended for two years to four to double the time he could serve
before term limits kicked in.
Greece officials often defended this policy of unanimous
votes by claiming that they had discussion of the issues at the more private
agenda setting meetings held a week before the town board meetings. This had
two problems, First of all it wasn’t true, and People who had attended these
meetings said that there was in fact little or no discussion of agenda items.
Much like the public meetings the initiative came from the supervisor and his
heads of the Greece bureaucracy. There was little indication that town board
members had any input into town policies. Second even if it were true, it
contains a strong anti-democratic cast. If democracy is a matter of public
deliberation in which reasons for decisions are deliberated together in public,
then that element is totally missing. The public, unless one was a special
interest like a developed in on the game, had virtually no input on these
matters and one would struggle in vain to hear any reasons why decisions were
made. Many town boards introduce controversial matters and discuss them with
the public and in public with members of the town board, before voting. Decisions
were often reserved. The only time this ever happened in Greece was in matters
of zoning where public hearings were mandated by law. Even then while the
public was “allowed” to speak, the town board members never publically debated
differing views. Property issues were very important to the board, protecting
the property of residents from the invading city hoards, or accommodating the
interests of developers. Most of us, democrats non –parry republicans and the
publically unaffiliated, came to see the town board as a political puppet show.
On cue the puppet master would pull the stings and all the hands would go up,
My uncle, who still lived in the city of Rochester used to
chide me that I lived in communist Greece (not the country). He wasn't that far
off. THe town of Greece under Auberger often seemed like a Stalinist cult of
personality. Auberger’s picture was all over the place. When you entered town
hall there was a picture of Auberger on the door. When you got any piece of
literature from the town even one about leaf pickup it had Auberger’s visage.
THe summer concerts were renamed John Auberger’s summer concerts. It was clear
he considered himself regal ruler and owner of the town. It was John Auberger’s
town of Greece. To mix metaphors a bit, republican rule in Greece took on a royalist
tint. Only the republican’s had the right to rule almost by divine right. THe
mere that a democrat might actually
might hold office in greece was seen as an affront and the mere fact of running
a serious candidate was an act of usurpation to be met with personal attack and
degradation,
Trying to meei however with the supervisor of Greece to
discuss any matters proved daunting to the average citizen proved daunting. It
was a bit like trying to get hold of the character Major Major in Catch-22. If
he was in, he was out. A call to the
supervisor would get his administrative assistant, who was little more than a
glorified political operative disguised as a public official, She would maybe
call you back and give you an answer but you would never get to see the
supervisor, give your view or hear his reasons. In the few cases where you
would see the supervisor he was never alone, He was always accompanied by his
assistant/operative to protect him from misstatements, He had come to have a
profound distrust of and paranoia about the public, and seemed to think that he
couldn't trust the public to have an open and honest discussion.
In all of these examples a common theme is present: the
notion of public and democratic accountability is absent. Not only was the Auberger
administration totally unaccountable in its own actions, the supervisor did
everything he could to limit accountability. Isn't the elimination of such
accountability really to essence of authoritarian and dictatorial rule? Clearly
Auberger thought of Greece as one party state, in which the party apparatus
speaks for us all.
Like the old centralized soviet model, the Auberger
administration set out not only to centralize control of the political administrative
apparatus in his own hands, it worked hard just as in the old soviet union to
erase the distinction between the government and civil society, Community
associations and groups, which are often important to localism and citizen
participation, and often provided paths to politics, had to comply with the
party line or the Auberger administration would try to delegitimize and
eliminate them. Even traditionally republican groups like the Chamber of
Commerce and the Rotary Club came to have either Auberger’s administrative
assistant, his deputy supervisor, or town board members in positions of power
where they were able to oversee these groups and monitor and direct their
decisions. The real ire of Auberger was directed at community groups like local
neighborhood associations which threatened to organize citizens and take views
which dissented from their own, Worse yet they might invite politicians to
speak and ask them hard questions,
One group that I was familiar with a local neighborhood
association in the area in which I lived was quickly subject to surveillance
and harassment once they threatened to show some degree of independence. This
neighborhood association was by no means a party affair, the president for most
of the time I was around it was a staunch republican, as were other members of
the association, but there were democrats and even democratic party members in
it who raised questions and issues Auberger did not like. This was enough for
the Auberger operatives to spring into action. No non-governmental institutions
which were independent of the town were to be tolerated. In the local blogs and
in everyday discussion this group was labeled as “political” and likened to a
plot by the democrats to take over power. Because it had democratic on the
board it was for that reason alone, illegitimate. It was as if the judgement of
the democrats is always not only biased but dangerous and threatening, They had
no right to participate, unless they bowed down to the views of republicans,
Republican office holder began to refuse to appear in any context in which they
might be questioned, and republican operatives began to join the group to try
to steer it away from any concerns that were unacceptable to Auberger, There
was to be no dissent in civil society in Auberger Greece.. Only the Republican
Party and its leadership was allowed to speak “for us.”
Even members of the public trying to express dissent at a
town board meeting found it was risky proposition. Citizens who were not
familiar with procedures, occasionally came to town board meetings hoping to
engage in a dialogue with their public officials were often stunned to find out
that while they were allowed a very short period several minutes to make
statements or ask questions, the supervisor nor anyone else ever replied. THe
public forum was not really a forum for discussion or debate. Thus for the most
part, few if any comment in the public forum. Town Board meetings which were
once well attended were only sparsely populated. There was no reason to attend.
The sole exception were for meetings where a new police officer was sworn it or
some citizen got an award, But after the ceremonies the family and well-wishers
would file out before any actual business was begun leaving only the echo of an
empty room. Occasionally Auberger did comment. When the leader of the
Democratic Party spoke on an issue of public concern, the supervisor stepped to
identify the speaker as a Democratic Party member and several others as members
of the democratic committee. Now their comments on this issue had little or
nothing to do with the issue. The implication was that what they were saying as
“democrats” was deceptive and illegitimate. In other cases the supervisor it to
shut down a questioner who had preceded him at several meetings on matters of
public and private misbehavior/ When some of us protested the treatment of this
citizen the board simply adjourned the meeting. so we could not talk The town then changed the rules of the forum
to limit what you could say, Of course this big lie technique is not without
its irony, THe auberger government was perhaps the most partisan and political
of any I have ever seen
And they call it democracy
More to come
No comments:
Post a Comment