Last week I covered the scandal that has hit the Brooklyn Reform Democratic Club, Independent Neighborhood Democrats (IND). I have talked with people on both sides of this issue and wanted to send out a clarification/update. This is a very important issue because IND has been one of the better groups fighting corruption in Brooklyn. But the new leadership of IND is already running into trouble and the fact that the recent scandal seems to be protecting favored candidates and the new president breaks with tradition in being actively working on the staff of a politician WHILE being the member of a club are worrisome trends. This could set back the reform movement and that is why we have to fight it.

First off, I think it is important to note that the outgoing president, Devin Cohen, was solidly against the disenfranchisement vote. He was known throughout his stint as president of IND as being honest and upstanding. It is hard to believe that anything like this would have happened under his leadership. It is worrisome that IND is losing its integrity so quickly after the new president has taken the reins.

IND insists that their move was not taken to benefit a particular candidate. This assurance comes from one of the dissenters, not from one of the supporters of the disenfranchisement vote. The official, and probably largely true, story is that this year a particularly blatant and ham-handed attempt to pack the club occurred and the club felt it had to defend itself. It seems certain that this packing was not done by any particular candidate and all rumors to the contrary are probably opponents trying to take advantage of the situation. The packing attempt occurred at the very last minute with membership forms bundled together and dues checks mostly cut from the same bank account. It seems likely that our buddies at Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) were the packers.

UPDATE: I want to add that DDDB denies the charge of packing. They deny that the bundled membership forms and the checks all cut from the same account came from them. They fully admit to urging all their members to join IND...which is perfectly reasonable and is no different from what I do when I suggest everyone who is interested in Brooklyn politics should join IND as well as CBID, etc.

My statements regarding DDDB's role represent three things: a commonly held view that it was them, the fact that their members are among those who are most affected by IND's decision, and my own thinking on all I have heard. UNderstand that my thinking it was them is not really a criticism of them, simply a recognition that they are a player in the Brooklyn game. However, whether or not they are the origin of the particular set of new memberships that triggered this whole thing is not something that I know. It is perfectly possible that more than one group is involved and that the most blatant packing was not DDDB. But there is indeed a commonly held view that it was DDDB.

I also should mention that as I write this I wear my DDDB T-shirt (coincidentally). My support for IND is what is threatened by this, not my support for DDDB.

Now let's be clear. No one really likes packing, but everyone in Brooklyn does it to some degree. Chris Owens and, for that matter, David Yassky essentially have done it by urging their supporters to join clubs as early as possible and to be as active as possible. They do this not only to make sure their supporters on in the clubs but also to benefit the clubs themselves. I know for a fact that Owens always has been strongly supportive of the reform clubs independent of his run for Congress. And from all I know of David Yassky, the same applies to him. No one argues with their approach because it is done above board, well in advance, and it does benefit the clubs as well.

Others get their people in last minute and their supporters simply show up for the endorsement vote and are never seen again. This is the kind of packing that Gifford Miller and Mark Peters were accused of last year. No one likes this. However, it is by no means against any rules. People who do this are simply playing the rules to their own benefit. A club who doesn't like this should just change its rules to make it harder for packers to do so without showing some commitment to the club. Since IND's dues are $35, one could even say that they are benefitting from packing since it raises their revenue. Democracy for NYC forces involvement by requiring members to attend three meetings before being eligable to vote. Doesn't stop packing, but both dues and a quota for number of meetings attended mean the club benefits from packing in some way.

The DDDB packing is somewhat unique. No one can accuse DDDB of not being activist and it seems certain that they would be full and active participants in IND simply because that is how they can best fulfill their goals. So although DDDB's packing attempt was last minute, I strongly suspect that they would be active and positive members of IND. A note to DDDB: plan further in advance and be more subtle. You would have had much better success and might even have been admired for your ability to work within clubs. Note to IND: by targeting DDDB's packing to set an example, you are showing that activism is NOT what you are interested in, but only activism that maintains your status quo. That is not reform!

So, despite the last minute nature of the DDDB move, they have not broken ANY rules and probably their members would be a good shot of new, very activist and very community-oriented blood into IND. In short, the DDDB move should have been carried out in a better way, but who can possibly complain about a neighborhood advocacy group being involved with their community's local Democratic Club? It is a natural and positive match!

What the DDDB members would not do for IND is support all of the same candidates as the old guard. It would indeed change the nature of the club to have some 100 new members from DDDB. It could indeed affect the endorsements.

Herein is the reason why IND's reaction looks so bad. Even if it is true that the motivations of those who supported disenfranchising new members were doing so mainly because they are angry at a ham-handed packing move, there is no way that anyone can view this as helping anyone but the favored IND candidates. This is especially suspicious since it comes at a time when the presidency of IND has just come into the hands of someone who is actively involved with a politician's office. The new president is on Congressman Ed Towns' staff). To have this seemingly protective move come immediately after she takes the presidency makes IND look exactly like the machine it is supposed to be battling.

Many suspect David Yassky and/or Marty Connor of collusion with the new IND executive board to exclude the new members to protect endorsements that were seen as "rightly" going to Yassky and Connor. This suspicion is entirely natural and it is hard not to see either an active collusion or, at the very least, the personal preferences of individual executive board members affecting their votes. I strongly suspect, though I do not know, that all who voted to disenfranchise the new members are Yassky and Connor supporters and were afraid that the influx of DDDB members would threaten their favored candidates. I am, however, assured by IND members I respect that these candidates did not have any input directly into the meeting. I also personally suspect that David Yassky's association with IND is not so strong that he personally was involved directly or indirectly. Marty Connor has a closer association with IND and it is harder for me to believe, despite assurances from someone I trust, that there was no influence at all.

What IND has done is to completely piss away their respected integrity in a snit over a move by DDDB to increase its influence in the club. IND knew well in advance that packing was an issue and that, with some hot races this year, that this year would be a year of packing. To ignore the issue until the very last minute when it is clear that the packing will go against favored candidates, then taking retroactive action to block it really makes it look like IND endorsement votes are a farce. IND's whole identity has been based on integrity and a fight against corruption. To take a move that is so contrary to that integrity and that fight against corruption quite simply threatens IND's very identity. This is NOT the IND I have known and loved (more or less) for two years now.

For those who want to fight this decline in a once-great club, our primary goal should be to attend the April 20 and May 4 IND meetings and do our best to convince the executive board that they made a colossally stupid and inappropriate move and that they have to reverse it. This will be a cloud over IND for a long time to come if it isn't reversed. Reversal of the disenfranchisement would be the honorable and reasonable response of the executive board.

Our secondary goal should be to protest this action. Those who were disenfranchised can take their money back. If they choose to do so, they should make it very clear that they will donate that money to the candidates that the club seems to be trying to shut out. Whether or not Connor and Yassky had any influence, the message needs to be sent both to IND and to reform politicians that this kind of action by a reform club is unacceptable to reform voters. Donate your refunded money to Ken Diamondstone or Chris Owens and make that donation known to IND as well as to Marty Connor and David Yassky. Those who still can vote, please vote your conscience. Personally, I had no strong preference between Connor and Diamondstone. But I feel that under current circumstances I cannot vote for Connor. If Connor does not get the endorsement after this, it will send a clear message to IND that fixing endorsement votes...or even APPEARING to do so...is not acceptable. A similar argument could be made for the Yassky/Owens race. But it is less clear to me that the club's endorsement for Yassky was or, even now, is so assured or that Yassky's name is as sullied by the IND action as Connor's. Nevertheless, if Owens gets the endorsement it would send the message that IND's move was not appreciated. Vote for who you think you should vote for, but keep in mind the message that it sends. IND's reputation can be saved either by getting the executive board to reverse its decision, or for IND members to clearly vote against the candidates who most clearly benefit from the disenfranchisement. So please attend the April 20th and May 4th meetings, speak your mind and vote your conscience. IND is a valuable club: their effectiveness and integrity stood out in Brooklyn. Losing that helps no one but the machine.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |