A Democrat and Chronicle editorial this morning called for County Legislature President Wayne Zyra to go, because Zyra appointed banker John Bartolotta to the Community College Board of Trustees in exactly the manner of Governor Paterson in making an appointment to the same Board a week earlier. (Somehow the D&C didn't think to call for Paterson's resignation for doing the same thing.)
What stands out is the D&C's statement that:
" ... Republicans themselves put fellow Republican Lori Van Dusen, whom Bartolotta replaces, through the wringer when her reappointment to the MCC board came up."
Sources in the County Legislature today checked the transcript of Van Dusen's October 2006 reappointment. They confirmed that:
• Van Dusen's reappointment went through without any debate or questions;
• Her reappointment passed unanimously;
• Like similar appointments, Van Dusen's reappointment went directly to the Full Legislature and bypassed the committee process, meaning that the time between announcement of her reappointment and the vote on it was the same as for this past Tuesday's vote on Trustee John Bartolotta;
• V.D. herself was not even present when the legislature voted on her reappointment (in keeping with all other MCC Board appointees);
• She was never questioned by legislators prior to reappointment.
Some "wringer."
Has Gannett's financial deterioration reduced the D&C to not even having staff to do basic fact-checking any more? This is the same editorial board that recently referred to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as "Justice Arthur Kennedy."
Or has the D&C declined to the point where it now defines "truth" as whatever might sell the most newspapers?
6 comments:
If the legislators HAD grilled Van Dusen and blocked her nomination, all the problems with the presidential appointment would have been avoided.
It began with a rigged search committee and spiraled down from there.
What do you mean by "rigged?"
It is silly to think the D&C is going to bother with facts (oh and truthful reporting) when they can't spell City Street names correctly, and continually use poor grammar and sentence structure in articles.
"rigged" in democrat terms means that elected republicans put their supporters (i.e., other republicans) on committees.
Everyone knows that to be fair, you have to use democrats to make decision - even if the republicans win an election.
I mean, look at the City. Mayor Duffy clearly appointed well-qualified people with extensive backgrounds, who were not political friends and/or did not mollify a group from the dem's base for every position.
I mean - Molly Clifford clearly had years of experience to draw upon to be named NET Administrator. That's why she got that position and why the D&C and all of these liberals never said "boo" about that.
I could name about 50 other appointments in the City gov't that were pure political appointments, but strangely, the D&C never said "boo" nor any of these "neutral, unbaised, critical-thinking" libs who complain so louldy hear and on other sites.
I wonder why that is? I guess it all goes back to the logical, fair, open-minded and intelligent thinking that "democrat = good" and "republican = evil".
Wait for it - Rottenchester will come on soon and explain how the appointment of Molly Clifford wasn't a political hack appointment and that all segments of the community were involved in picking her and beside that, Maggie Brooks and the local repubs are mean.
the MCC thing can be broken down very easily into the following:
MCC Faculty want someone from the "education" world b/c those people have been trained to avoid any confrontation and to avoid firing anyone.
Having worked with many education administrators, they make horrible managers and NEVER protect the public fisc. They roll over during every contract negotations, giving benefits and raises that are outrageous, and they almost never fire or discipline anyone regardless of the outrageousnous of the conduct or dismal performance. It's just not done in the "education" industry.
So, the college people want someone they know they can control, the MCC students have basically been brainwashed by the college faculty, and the dems just want to stick it to the republicans and try to keep the republicans from getting their choice.
Republicans want to pick a republican.
So, everyone is playing politics with this. there is no such thing as some "non-partisan" or neutral person or group who is just looking out for the best interests of the college. Heck, we probably could not even agree on what is in the best interest of MCC.
I would argue that someone with strong managerial/administrative experience who will vigorously control spending is in the best interest of MCC. A dem would probably argue that a diversity pick with an "education" background is in the best interest of MCC.
Either way, both sides are playing to their base, not to any objective truth as to what is best for MCC.
So, the false claim that one side is "playing politics" while the other side is somehow "fair" or "neutral" or "non-partisan" is pure and utter hogwash.
What do you mean by "rigged?"
That means David Gantt didn't get to pick the person.
Post a Comment