And they call it Democracy

One of the salient features of democracy is the right to dissent. If the average person were to imagine a state without dissent we would think of the one-party states of communist societies or fascist societies in which only one party is allowed. There are also defacto one party states where there are nominally elections, but one party completely dominates. For a long time, Mexico was essentially a one-party state. These examples seem to us undemocratic because they don’t allow dissent or make it too difficult to achieve.

We have our own example of a defacto one party state in Greece. It is not simply the fact that republicans dominate, after all there are many places in the US where one party has dominated for a long time, it is the fact that the Greece Republican party allows no dissent. Every item that goes to a vote is passed with a 5-0 vote. Moreover there is never  discussion that indicates any deviation from the party line.. It doesn’t matter if the people elected you, the party has control. Dissenting is a sure sign that you will be removed as a town board member

I wonder why this is necessary. After all an item before the board that passes 4-1 or 3-2 still passes. Republican control of the town is hardly threatened. Nor would the occasional dissent bring collapse. It might even lead to improving a proposal. I can only conclude that the reason for the lack of dissent is the need for absolute control by and fealty to the Republican Party. In Greece most town board members fortuitously end up with jobs for other republican politicians like Joe Robach or work for the county government. Given this kind of patron client relations it seems to me fair to ask whether our elected representative serve the people or are guided by their ties of loyalty or to a generous patron. That is certainly not democracy. Instead it seems to assure a system I which benefits, and rewards are given to other friends and cronies with little consideration of the public interest. It takes political sovereignty away from the people who are supposed to have the authority

When confronted with these issues in the past, that the real discussion happens in the agenda meetings that are usually held a week before the board meetings. There they say you will see real debate and discussion. There are two problems with the claim. The first is that it is not true. As far as I can determine there is not a lot of discussion that and input at these meetings either. A lot of time is expended over who gets to introduce items and who seconds. It is more like a preshow run-through of a tv show than debate. But let’s be generous and say that discussion goes on. This still falls short of the bar. Democracy is not a system in which we elect leaders and let them to go off in private to make decisions. Democracy is a theory of public authority and elected officials have to vindicate their policies through public debate and discussion. While they get to set an agenda, the agenda is still open to critical examination and open deliberation just as we see on the state and national level.

I won’t ask anyone here to vote for a specific candidate nut I think you should not vote for anyone who does not pledge to dissent if needed and to make government more transparent and open.

 

The History of Educable part 1

Educable in the beginning

 

 In the early 1980’s a recently retired director of Adult Education at the Greece Central School District was looking for a new venture for his energies. Retiring early he still had a strong interest in community involvement. He ran across information on Public Access Television and it turned out to be a perfect fit for his interests and abilities. In 1982 Sal Caterino, my father, and Angie Caterino, my mother, along with John Kells, a media specialist at a local college, formed Edu-cable corporation as a not for profit corporation as a vehicle for running public access television. (I -- Brian Caterino – was also on the board of directors but not in town and active in the operation at that time.) Later another non-profit Educable Communications Corporation would succeed it. In July of 1982 Edu-cable began broadcasting on cable channel 12 (I believe there was only one access channel then) the public access channel on the People’s Cable system. 

Educable despite difficulties and tensions with the towns in establishing and maintaining public access had some initial successes. It became established as a presence in the community and contributed to the public discussion of local events. Still Educable’s ability to achieve its aims were very limited. These I think were both financial and part of the political culture. The lack of financial support or secure funding meant that public access was never far from a crisis. It didn’t have the facilities or the resources to do its job fully. Neither the municipalities educable served, nor the cable company have fulfilled their mandates to provide funding for facilities, equipment and staff to run public access. While public access was lauded and its aims accepted it still had to be limited and its more radical aims co-opted if possible. Thus in this case Educable had to pay for things that should have been provided by the cable company (or the towns). One of the main cleavages and one that increased over time was the truly public character of access.  These revolved around whether Educable would receive sufficient funding and be free enough from governmental interference to run a truly community and public access operation, In the end neither condition turned out to be fulfilled.

It was not easy to get public access going in the town of Greece and the two other towns they first served. It took him a couple of years to get town approval and there was definitely opposition to the idea. It was only due to the intervention of the cable company that public access began. In the early days of cable, the cable companies viewed PEG channels as an asset. It distinguished them from over the air channels and attracted viewers. People’s cable was a small company looking for an edge in the market. They told the towns they had to allow public access to operate. Their support however did not extend to aid with funding, facilities or equipment. At first the cable company that served the city of Rochester (a different company at first) had run a studio for public access. When an independent non-profit took over public access, the cable company had to make an extensive commitment to supporting it. The 1992 franchise agreement with the city of Rochester stipulated that cable company provide an original grant of $175,000, renovate facilities for access, provide equipment for the studio a remote truck and provide an additional grant of $5000 per year for equipment.