Chemung County Legislative Redistricting Discussion

[KarenK 382]

Looks like he is bringing up the same concerns we all had right from the get go.   

[MsKreed 1,173]

[MsKreed 1,173]

Just to be clear….is “Efficiency” of County Government Operations supposed to be a dog whistle for concentrated power and doing away with those tedious and “inefficient” checks and balances?

[Chris 2,158]

2 hours ago, MsKreed said:

Just to be clear….is “Efficiency” of County Government Operations supposed to be a dog whistle for concentrated power and doing away with those tedious and “inefficient” checks and balances?

I think it's one of those, "They'll never notice," type of things. 

[Adam 373]

11 hours ago, Chris said:

The Legislative Chair shouldn't have the power it has now, so there's no way in Hell I would support them having the power to determine who the County Executive would be. They'd be a mere figurehead at that point. 

yup, but since the members haven't heard complaints from their constituents; they don't see any of this as a problem....hand to God this was actually said

[KarenK 382]

3 minutes ago, Adam said:

yup, but since the members haven't heard complaints from their constituents; they don't see any of this as a problem....hand to God this was actually said

They are not hearing complaints because their constituents are not even aware.  Not everyone has social media and believe it or not alot of people still get the actual paper.  This info needs to get out to everyone.

[MsKreed 1,173]

http://www.chemungcountyny.gov/departments/a_-_f_departments/county_legislature/audio_recordings.php?fbclid=IwAR3CMwNlB4i-t_0NtnO6vN0NnsZPVd4WS1Ajakvh5LUDUBYbK-AT62lFcZI

The repeated insistence from committee members that they're only interested in concerns of "their" constituents is appalling. There seems to be open contempt for anyone who isn't able to vote them back into office.

11 hours ago, KarenK said:

They are not hearing complaints because their constituents are not even aware.  Not everyone has social media and believe it or not alot of people still get the actual paper.  This info needs to get out to everyone.

They don't identify themselves in the audio clearly....but at least one committee member was pissy about the fact that people can write letters to the editor and get their views published without  legislators offering a rebuttal.

Gasp.... Eeek... how dare they?

[Chris 2,158]

54 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

They don't identify themselves in the audio clearly....but at least one committee member was pissy about the fact that people can write letters to the editor and get their views published without  legislators offering a rebuttal.

And yet didn't one of legislators just have something posted in the Star Gazette? ( I know one of them shared it on social media yesterday and now I can't find it anywhere, the share or the actual web page

 

[Chris 2,158]

12 hours ago, Adam said:

yup, but since the members haven't heard complaints from their constituents; they don't see any of this as a problem....hand to God this was actually said

I wish I could say I didn't believe that, but I know it to be true. Well, our legislator got a brief message from me this morning. 

1 hour ago, MsKreed said:

The repeated insistence from committee members that they're only interested in concerns of "their" constituents is appalling. There seems to be open contempt for anyone who isn't able to vote them back into office.

At least one name practically leaps to mind, ironically one who caused an uproar a year or so ago about something that didn't take place in their district. 

Seems as though they forget their actions affect the people outside their happy little hamlet, except when it's convenient for them. 

[MsKreed 1,173]

31 minutes ago, Chris said:

And yet didn't one of legislators just have something posted in the Star Gazette? ( I know one of them shared it on social media yesterday and now I can't find it anywhere, the share or the actual web page

 

That may have been what they were referring to....but I couldn't find it in SG without knowing a date and/or keyword to search.

[Chris 2,158]

I looked and for some reason can’t even find the shared link on Facebook.

[MsKreed 1,173]

I haven't finished listening yet, but I think the audio recording link I posted above for the meeting is interesting.

 

I think anyone interested in this matter would find it very informative and recommend checking it out. I have another 30 minutes to go and will share some of my own thoughts when I'm done. 

[MsKreed 1,173]

OK…I finished the audio from the advisory committee meeting (2/22). The participation from CGR representatives and the members’ questions to them were worth listening to.

As Exec Moss pointed out, these consultations historically result in “nicely packaged study of what the legislature, who commissioned the study wants outlined in the report”.  With that in mind, the discussion in yesterday’s meeting certainly did not contradict Moss’s hypothesis….

 

It’s perhaps worth noting that the backgrounds of half the members of the CGR team are in journalism and sociology. That fact does seem to insinuate that “messaging to the public” is a significant priority for the $48k service.

It is also a bit concerning that the CGR lead noted [at around the 50 minute mark] that the committee will receive a Draft Report that is not subject to FOIL until…. “we make sure that it’s an accurate reflection of the work you’re expecting from us”.

In other words,  “the committee can withhold any data that doesn’t support their agenda” from the final report and public hearing presented by CGR...and the public will never be given access to that, even if they try to request it via FOIL.

If a redacted version of the report can be offered, then all the oozing about “ensuring transparency” by an independent study is nothing more than posturing….no matter how professionally prepared and expertly messaged the report CGR presents is.  

 

The last 10-15 minutes sounded like a lot of lip-service for the tape recording. While I’m sure some of it was sincere….the assertions that ‘it’s all for the good of everyone in the county’ and ‘no politics are involved’ fall flat in contrast to the earlier declarations that some have zero interest in any concerns that aren’t from “their” voters.   

 

And speaking of committee members only feeling compelled to consider “their own” constituents.... They may claim not to have been contacted directly by “their constituents”, but at least one of the letters read aloud at the full Legislature meeting on 2/8 and listed in the minutes looked like it might be from a citizen in one of the districts represented on the committee. Even if the public comment has been from outside their respective districts.....it still raises a few points for me:

1)  The excuse that “I have not been contacted by constituents expressing XYZ position” is hollow unless they can argue that they have been contacted by constituents supporting the opposite position. Otherwise, they’re really just speaking on their own behalf – not for any of their constituents.

2) Since part of the conversation included them all acknowledging that their districts will likely change, “no one from my district has contacted me” is pretty short-sighted anyway. Someone who may not be “their constituent” today…could very well become part of "their" district once this project is complete. During a campaign can be an awkward time to suddenly "care" about someone whose concerns you contemptuously dismissed in the past.

 

[Christina Sonsire 11]

Those are very good insights, Kathleen. Your interest and analysis affirms the position that independent-minded people from the community have a lot to add to this discussion  and are a necessary component.

I hope the legislators selected to sit on the Committee are not so committed to their viewpoints that they cannot step back and consider what so many members of the public - like you and others on this thread - have offered so far, but I unfortunately don’t have a lot of faith that will be the case.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Christina Sonsire

[Adam 373]

23 hours ago, KarenK said:

They are not hearing complaints because their constituents are not even aware.  Not everyone has social media and believe it or not alot of people still get the actual paper.  This info needs to get out to everyone.

some depend upon that very ignorance or apathy to keep themselves in office, why would they interrupt the gravy train?

Edited February 24, 2021 by Adam

[Adam 373]

12 hours ago, MsKreed said:

without  legislators offering a rebuttal.

kind of like how at County meetings public can make comments but will get no response or dialogue? Yet some of them have the gall to say this type of forum offers the public opportunity to take part in the process!

[Adam 373]

11 hours ago, Chris said:

Well, our legislator got a brief message from me this morning. 

i can honestly say he has always been receptive to input, has normally been available at monthly board meetings( though public participation is almost nill) and recently had mentioned concern that he hears almost nothing from constituents, even regarding this situation.

[Adam 373]

4 hours ago, Christina Sonsire said:

Those are very good insights, Kathleen. Your interest and analysis affirms the position that independent-minded people from the community have a lot to add to this discussion  and are a necessary component.

I hope the legislators selected to sit on the Committee are not so committed to their viewpoints that they cannot step back and consider what so many members of the public - like you and others on this thread - have offered so far, but I unfortunately don’t have a lot of faith that will be the case.

i normally would have same hopes, unfortunately one Legislator's reply as to why the previous motion to form the committee, and the attempt to make it more equitable, could not have been either tabled or voted down so as to bring the new motion(instead of affirming its passage despite the flaws) said that would never had happened only proves that this has everything to do with politics

[Adam 373]

5 hours ago, MsKreed said:

 

1)  The excuse that “I have not been contacted by constituents expressing XYZ position” is hollow unless they can argue that they have been contacted by constituents supporting the opposite position. Otherwise, they’re really just speaking on their own behalf – not for any of their constituents.

2) Since part of the conversation included them all acknowledging that their districts will likely change, “no one from my district has contacted me” is pretty short-sighted anyway. Someone who may not be “their constituent” today…could very well become part of "their" district once this project is complete. During a campaign can be an awkward time to suddenly "care" about someone whose concerns you contemptuously dismissed in the past.

 

1. silence means consent is an easy way for them to excuse that answer

2. but those that do become their constituents will be in the minority, so will be essentially irrelevant

[MsKreed 1,173]

9 hours ago, Adam said:

2. but those that do become their constituents will be in the minority, so will be essentially irrelevant

I wonder how many of them live on or near district borders.....and could possibly face the karma of them being displaced to a whole new district. 😄

I will say that the 2 legislators who have  public web pages and "public figure" FB profiles that I follow are open and receptive to everyone who engages on their page.

The rest do seem to rely on the strategy of having an uninformed and/or apathetic public. And sadly, they are probably correct. Even people who are eager to rant, protest, like/react, complain, sermonize, question and otherwise "engage" in local politics on social media don't seem compelled to take action that could effect change. It was proven that even hundreds supporting a (non-binding) online petition for live streaming was ignored....until the Governor mandated it by executive order.

I tried a year ago to get people on board with finding (or forming) a group to look into and identify "actions" that could be taken by citizens...like drafting true petitions that could require a legislative response, etc.

If such a citizens "action" organization exists in Chemung County, they are a secretive bunch...and I found maybe 3-4 people that display any interest in that sort of thing before the pandemic hit. 

[Adam 373]

now Brennan is on FB seemingly being against the redistricting committee idea despite the fact he voted in support of it when it had come up instead of voting to table it or defeating it, but again "politics has nothing to do with it"

and i guarantee you wont see his constituents voicing disapproval of those actions

 

[Kevin 334]

13 minutes ago, Adam said:

now Brennan is on FB seemingly being against the redistricting committee idea 

 

He is one I have seen a few times tell people on FB that he didn't care what they said because they weren't in his district. 

He is living proof that people vote party lines and don't care about the quality of the candidate. 

[Chris 2,158]

On 2/24/2021 at 8:06 AM, MsKreed said:

 

I tried a year ago to get people on board with finding (or forming) a group to look into and identify "actions" that could be taken by citizens...like drafting true petitions that could require a legislative response, etc.

Try beating your head against a brick wall. I promise it's easier than getting people to do things, even when it's in their own best interest. 

[MsKreed 1,173]

 

 

[Hal 341]

51 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

 

 

Yep , pretty much like that !