The City Board of Elections denied Independence Party candidate to replace the late John Lavelle representing Staten Island’s North Shore in the March 27 Special Election Kelvin Alexander’s bid to place his made up Family First line (Not to be confused with Working Families which supports Democratic opponent Matt Titone ) as an additional line on the ballot. The board ruled that 611 of the petition’s 1616 signatures were invalid, leaving him short of the 1100 he needed for that additional line.

Alexander, a Staten Island Democratic County Committee member, is running on the Independence line and potentially turning a potential easy Democratic win into an opportunity for Republican Rose Margarella because the party chose Titone over him. He is undecided if he’ll fight the ruling with the state Supreme Court.

Alexander has accused any challenge of his fabricated party petition as marginalizing minority voters. I find that a stretch since he’s already on the ballot as a better known party’s candidate.

I also need to clarify that I am supporting Titone in this race. I have donated money to Titone, campaigned with Matt and have a Titone sign on my front lawn. There are some comments on the Link TextStaten Island Advance’s SIlive political forum that take out of context my initial backing of Alexander in the Daily Gotham. Although I would have voted for Alexander in the first round of voting at the County Convention had I been allowed to participate, I would have switched to Titone in subsequent rounds. Also for the SIlivers who read my blog, I was not one of the January Committee additions thought loyal to Olivari. I was told I was added in June 2006 and still haven’t been named to the Committee and thus still can not vote in County matters.

The NY State and the local Brooklyn Democratic Parties have been facing difficulties for some time. Lack of vision, strong arm tactics, and, at worst, outright corruption have plagued NY State and Brooklyn Democrats. This has led to the rise of a reform Democrat movement which I have highlighted from time to time. Reform Democrats and Progressive Democrats overlap a great deal ideologically, though they also sometimes fall prey to the usual infighting that Democrats are prone to.

Today I want to urgently ask Democrats living in Brooklyn to help strengthen one of these reform Democratic organizations that ALSO holds progressive views. The Central Brooklyn Independent Democratic club (CBID) is an organization with deep roots both as reformers and progressives. Here is what they say in their "Who we are" section:

As a neighborhood Democratic Club, CBID has fought for reform and progressive causes since its founding in 1968 by reform Democrats, and anti-war and neighborhood activists. Based in Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, and Kensington, we have been instrumental in the election of many public officials.

Staunchly opposed to political corruption, and committed to JUDICIAL REFORM, we are proud of our independence and progressive politics.

The petitioning season just ended in Brooklyn. In the past, particularly in 2005, I found the efforts of the Brooklyn liberal grassroots to be largely all talk and little action. But in the NY-11 Congressional race in 2006, the progressive grassroots just did a dandy job petitioning.

Chris Owens is in a four-way race for the Democratic Primary. Owens is running a grassroots campaign with an all-volunteer petitioning effort. His opponants are spending far more money and have hired staff to help petition. In fact, I have seen his opponent David Yassky's huge paid army of volunteers petitioning all through the district. Yassky's almost exclusively white, clean-cut, paid army was a sharp contrast to the unpaid, diverse and perhaps a bit more ragged-looking volunteers petitioning for Chris (I was one of those ragged-looking volunteers).

Based on last year's poor showing by the Brookly grassroots, I had a secret fear that Chris was making a mistake relying on the grassroots for petitioning. My fears were re-enforced by the stories from IND that all those disenfranchised new members I wrote about before had been doing no petitioning. I knew that wasn't strictly true, but I wasn't sure that the disenfranchised were going to make a good showing.

Today, Father's Day, is one of Brooklyn's biggest street fairs: Seventh Heaven, all along Seventh Ave.

My wife and I live just off 7th Ave on Garfield. We were hoping, after I put in a bit of time at work in the morning, to do some petitioning if we could hook up with folks with petitions for candidates we wanted to help. One of our biggest problems was keeping our baby, who really wanted to be out in it, cool enough in the heat. So we had to take it in stages, stopping at home or at a supermarket to cool him, and us, off. Finally he started to look sleepy, so we just now took him home.

We never did hook up with anyone representing Chris Owens or Eric Adams, the two candidates we want to help whose districts include at least parts of 7th Ave. Bill Batson is outside of the district, so we didn't expect to meet up with his folks. But we were surprised not to meet a single person petitioning for Chris or Eric.

My wife and I only covered the distance from Flatbush to 10th St. The fair does indeed extend further south and it is quite likely that other candidates were covering the southern part of the fair. But for the northern region, only two candidates were out that we could see and they were out in large numbers: David Yassky running for Congress and Sean Patrick Maloney, running for Attorney General.

So here's the thing. Seventh Heaven is PRIME petitioning territory and the northern end is perhaps extra prime territory. I am pretty sure both the 20th SD and 11th CD include much of that northern section of the fair. So where were the candidates?

David Yassky, for all I differ with him on issues, knows how to run. He also has the bucks to get people on the streets with glossy pamphlets. Hell, not all of his volunteers bothered carrying petitions. Some just handed out those glossy pamphlets. Yvette, Carl and Chris: you ceded some prime territory to David today. I wish Joy and I had gotten petitions in advance for Chrs Owens and Eric Adams. We would have been able to cover some of that territory. But, we didn't and so we are part of the problem.

The other candidate out there in force was Sean Patrick Maloney. Rivaling even Yassky in numbers and enthusiasm. No sign of Green. And, of course, Cuomo would have no reason and no interest in actually soiling his hands with the people. Hell, he could barely stomach dealing with most of our district leaders and State Committee members, let alone you and me. But Maloney was raking in the signatures. Interestingly, my personal observation was that most people refused to sign Yassky's petitions while most people agreed to sign Maloney's. I certainly didn't see anywhere near a reasonable sample size, but it really seemed that Maloney's people were getting a better response. Both Sean and David were out there. Yassky saw us and waved. I am glad my recent more harsh criticisms haven't prevented him from continuing his cordial relationship with us. I am souring on him more and more as a politician, but I still like him as a person.

Given the attention race is getting in Brooklyn politics, I can't help but comment on this. Yassky's volunteers were almost 100% white. I believe I did see one black volunteer. But most were young, affluent-looking, fresh-faced whites who were genuinely eager for their candidate. In sharp contrast, Maloney's volunteers covered the entire racial spectrum, including Muslims with headscarves, whites and blacks. They too were enthusiastic as could be. I hadn't realized that Maloney had popularity among such a diverse group. I found it extremely refreshing given the racial splits over CD-11.

In 2005 I bemoaned the failure of the grassroots to get out there for the best candidates. I know the grassroots are more together this year than last, but if Seventh Heaven and my recent conversations with various exec board members of various clubs and organizations is any indication, this year may be another failure of the grassroots. We have several excellent candidates this year who are depending on the grassroots: Chris Owens, Bill Batson and Sean Patrick Maloney being the three main ones. There are others as well, though Eric Adams, for one, doesn't need the grassroots to win, from what I can see. Of all the grassroots candidates I am excited about, only Maloney seems to have the actual bodies out there. Why? Where is the disconnect within the grassroots that prevents the excellent candidates and the enthusiastic activists from getting together? People wonder why IND is the top club. It is because they deliver the most petitions with the most valid signatures. The grassroots rarely reach the level of effectiveness that the clubs manage. How can great folks like Bill Batson and Chris Owens win without people doing the footwork? They can't. And if the grassroots falls flat, it is money and machine politics that wins elections.

Am I drawing too many conclusions from observations of just one end of one street fair? I don't think so. Because my observations today match what I saw in 2005 and they match what I am hearing from the grassroots organizers. Folks. If you want to win the game you gotta put in the effort for the candidates.

Come to the Chris Owens Campaign Kick-Off
_______________________________________

When: Monday, June 5 at 6:00 PM

Where: Campaign HQ @ 761 Washington Avenue between Sterling Place and St John's Place in Prospect Heights, just two blocks from the Brooklyn Museum

Telephone: 718-604-7500

P.S. -- Recent endorsements of the Chris Owens candidacy by Democracy for New York City (DFNYC), Lambda Independent Democrats of Brooklyn (LID), and Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats (CBID) have given Chris momentum on the ground.

Wow.

Now that Andrew Cuomo has captured the state party's nod for AG, forcing all others to actually go out and petition, things are getting very hot very quickly. The Green campaign just sent out this:

I'd like to thank Tom Manton, Vito Lopez, Rich Schaffer, Jose Rivera and Jay Jacobs for their deals and threats at the behest of the Cuomo Machine. By bullying Democratic State Committee people in their counties whose only sin was wanting me as Attorney General, they have done me the favor of framing the fall race – an Independent Democrat versus a Machine Politician.

The problem is not just deals in May of 2006 but obligations created that would compromise him in 2007. How can he stand up to special interests and political insiders when that's how he got on the ballot? [Emphasis in original]

Ouch. Did Boss Tweed rise from the grave to assist?

The key number is not 25% at a Convention but 50% in a Primary. For this AG Democratic contest is comprised of two halves. Today the first half of pursuing political big shots concludes and the second half of talking to little shots called voters begins. Today their advantage ends and mine begins, for the other side can badger delegates but they can't badger 700,000 individual voters casting secret ballots.

As the contest moves from coercion to persuasion and principle -- from deals to democracy -- I couldn't be more confident that Democratic voters will choose a lifelong People's Lawyer who has already served in two attorney-general like offices over a housing manager with no serious credentials to succeed Eliot Spitzer as the State Attorney General. [Emphasis in original]

One can only imagine how poor Sean Patrick Maloney with his 0.4% of the vote must feel.

Personally, I think it makes for better candidates to force them to go out and prove that they have the support of voters in order to get on the ballot. That makes them stronger and puts them in touch with the people who are supposed to make these decisions – that would be "we the people".

By now everyone seems to know about my coverage of the Independent Neighborhood Democrats endorsement fiascos. But another player in the area is Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats club.

CBID just recently went through its own civil war, which I have heard about from many sources and witnessed the tail end of. But now CBID seems the quieter, less torn apart club. This was evident in last nights endorsement meeting which went far smoother than the IND meetings and was more of a pleasure to attend.

What I liked about last night's meeting was that no one was scolding the attendees as happens at IND. And to be fair, at IND both sides are scolding each other. Karen Johnson shakes her finger at everyone. I, as it has been called, yammer about integrity. Buddy Scotto yammers about invaders. It is one bunch of people scolding another group who all scold back. I have been as much a part of it as anyone, and I think no one associated with IND should be very proud of that club's image right now.

In contrast there was no scolding at CBID. Everyone treated each other with respect and acted like adults. Keep in mind this is not always the case! In fact, in the past IND was the more mature acting club and I have witnessed much scolding and accusation at CBID meetings. But for now, CBID is the more pleasant, respectful environment starting from the top and going right down to people like me.

And for the record, whatever battles CBID had just a short while ago, also involving the fear of newcomers, CBID is now welcoming of newcomers and in no way is making them feel unwanted.

When I complained about IND board members writing in their capacity as board members to advocate for a candidate prior to an actual endorsement meeting I was berated by many who said that "all the club do it" and it is perfectly allowed. When I pointed out exact sections of the club constitution that clearly stated such pre-endorsement support using a person's club identity were prohibited (more scolding?), two board members agreed at least partly with me, others went so far as to accuse me of being anti-free speech (yet MORE scolding!). Then the club's constitution was suddenly taken down from their website.

Well, you know what? Not one letter came to me from CBID board members plugging a candidate before the endorsement meeting. Two CANDIDATES sent letters using their CBID affiliation, but no board members. So it seems that not all clubs do this. Some clubs let the members decide without board members trying to influence them.

Back to last night's meeting. The other thing I liked was that the meeting went off far more efficiently than voting goes at IND. IND's voting is clunky and time consuming. CBID uses instant runoff voting. Now I have been wary of IRV because the Greens are pushing so hard for it and I find many of the political maneuvers of the Greens to be distasteful. But watching IRV in action I have to say it is smoother and means you don't have to have second and third ballots in a crowded room with everyone trying to vote at once. There was one vote, people ranked their choices and from that single ballot everything, including runoffs, could be determined. I may advise IND to do the same...if they'll listen to me : -)

One other difference between the two clubs is IND never even mentioned some candidates. Elizabeth King, running for SD-20, didn't speak and I don't remember her being on the ballot. Perhaps I am misremembering, but I am pretty sure IND ignored her. CBID had all candidates on the ballot.

Another for the record: I did not vote at CBID. Why? Because IND has a rule that they interpret to mean that people who vote in one club can't vote in the other because of overlapping territories. Since I have scolded IND for breaking its own rules, I figure I should adhere to them to be consistent.

So what happened in the end? Well, with all the infighting, "invasions," scolding and blogging, BOTH clubs endorsed exactly the people I expected them to endorse. Both clubs gave their love to the favorite unchallenged politicians, Joan Millman and Nydia Velasquez. Both clubs also endorsed Eric Adams for State Senate in the SD-20 race, another expected outcome despite a little maneuvering at IND by someone supposedly connected with the Musa Moore campaign but who identifies himself merely as a club member. CBID endorsed Bill Batson for Assembly district 57, a race not covered by IND.

And the two clubs split as expected on the key races: IND went for David Yassky; CBID went for Chris Owens for the CD-11 race. IND went for Marty Connor while CBID went for Ken Diamondstone for the SD-25. Both of those were completely expected and show that although both clubs lean reform, IND is the less progressive of the two, for what it's worth.

Next stop is petitioning. In the ongoing pissing contest between IND and CBID (sometimes friendly, sometimes not) IND usually wins the respect of insiders because they deliver the petitions better than anyone else. My advice to the newcomers who were screwed over by IND: Get your buts petitioning for CBID. If CBID outperforms IND, it will be a clear message that the newcomers aren't just packing to get a particular endorsement but rather are real activists who will benefit whatever club they are welcomed into. Delivering county committee members and accurate, plentiful petitions will determine which club is taking the smarter route. Who will deliver? I personally hope BOTH clubs out do themselves this year in petitioning and delivering county committee members.

The Independent Neighborhood Democrats (IND) has been one of the pinnacles of integrity within Brooklyn politics. A reform club specifically designed to fight against the corruption of the Brooklyn Democratic Machine.

I regret to inform you that the integrity of IND is in critical condition if not outright deceased as of last night. I recently wrote about one aspect of their decline, a move by the executive board that had the stated purpose of fighting club packing, but was interpreted by many as being a move to protect the interests of favorite candidates over the wishes of newcomers to the club. Last night’s IND meeting confirmed our worst fears about the new executive board and their intentions.

To put it quite pointedly, last night's IND meeting was a giant pile of stinking donkey dung and the inescapable conclusion is that the integrity that IND was so well known for has been replaced by outright corruption as soon as the new executive board took control. Last night confirmed my worst fears, but the signs of impending corruption have been accumulating.

Brooklyn politics is a complicated mess. As one of the most populous and racially diverse communities in the nation, Brooklyn is bound to be politically complicated. I am not sure it has to be a mess, though.

The Brooklyn Democrats are split amoung various factions. The dominant faction is the corrupt Democratic Party Machine whose head, Clarence Norman, has been lopped off by his recent corruption convictions. His successor in corruption is Vito Lopez, the man who adopted a Hispanic last name to run in a Hispanic district even though he has no Hispanic ancestry and speaks no Spanish. Vito Lopez may be next in line for indictments if the Brooklyn D.A. does his job since Vito Lopez has participated in the same kinds of corruption as Clarence Norman.

My wife and I have watched the then Clarence Norman machine at work at the last Democratic County Committee meeting in Kings County (in 2004). We were naive enough to be excited to be attending our first County Committee meeting and were proud to serve the community by participating. What we participated in, though, was one of the biggest farces I have ever witnessed. First off, less than 10% of the County Committee members actually bothered to attend. The only way we had a quorum was because of the huge stack of proxy votes Clarence Norman’s people had on hand. When a motion was made to count the proxies to confirm a quorum, the motion was voted down, so in reality it was unclear whether a quorum actually existed. But the machine was in control and didn’t want poor attendance to get in their way.

What followed was a scripted farce. When I say scripted I mean it literally. Individuals were called on based on a script and those individuals read off their copy of the script to make motions, which were then voted on by a voice vote. No motion made that was not on the script was allowed. The script was followed to carry out the necessary business, to confirm the already decided upon executive committee, and then to adjourn the meeting so that the executive committee, which consisted exclusively of Clarence Norman’s followers, could meet and decide on party business in seclusion, away from all of us extraneous, non-machine Democrats.

It was only then that I realized that I was a Brooklyn reform Democrat and what the corrupt machine was really about. The machine had no interest in the vast majority of County Committee members. Its sole purpose seemed to me to be to hold power within the party.

A political machine can be a good thing, even though they tend almost unavoidably towards corruption. A good political machine delivers votes and serves the community. And one thing that impressed me very much about the Clarence Norman (now Vito “Lopez

So I have heard in and around the internets there is a big chunk of Betsey Gotbaum haters who can't wait to get to the voting booth come November 8th so they'll be able to write-in Norman Siegel.

I have also heard there is a similar iniative for plumming Paul Wooten for Brooklyn District Attorney.

Democracy always seems to creep into these election thingies, n'est ce pas?