The article reported on questioning of the Democratic Registrar of Voters by the Drew campaign and the Chair of the Democratic Town Committee, questioning which led the Registrars of both parties, and the Town Clerk to believe that the Drew campaign did not trust the Registrar to run a fair and impartial election. In the article, I quoted Drew saying that the controversy was manufactured as a distraction.
The Teamsters Union represents many city hall employees, their full letter is below.
Mayor Giuliano, in a press release also issued on Friday, called for an end to the harassment of city employees, and pointed to his responsibility as their employer to provide Zero Tolerance protection.
Click on images to enlarge.
Funny how this never made the Middletown Press- clearly very bias and pro Drew.
ReplyDeleteI as a member of the Teamsters Union am appalled that Drew would question the integrity of individuals withut just cause. The only reason he got nominated by the Teamsters AFLCIO is because Todd Berch who is also a democratic candidate was on the nominating committee. He should have excused himself as a conflict of interest but instead did not. I am saddened by Drew's unprofessional nature. By the way he claims to own a business in town but who knows what the business actually is? Anyone?? The Eye should investigate and let readers know.
Teamsters don't expect Dan Drew to apologize. That's below him. Remember who is pulling the puppets strings ......Serra boys. They're the big shots who call the shots and who will be running the city behind the scenes should Dan win. Oh my God.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to see why the union is getting involved when Mr. Drew is not even the clerk's supervisor. Interesting also that Mr. Drew has chosen to take the high road and not speak publicly so the only person who harmed this person's integrity is her. Makes you also wonder if she doth protest too much.
ReplyDeleteThis "issue" is thoroughly ridiculous. The Democratic registrar is complaining that the Drew campaign is harassing her and accusing her of impropriety, mostly through emails from Mr. Luxenberg. I thoroughly read the emails that were a part of the original story and I simply do not see any basis for taking offense to anything written by Luxenberg. In fact, in the email from Luxenberg that the Eye selectively quoted in the body of the original story he explicitly stated "I am not suggesting that there has been any wrong doing on your part, I am merely asking questions that are reasonable questions, and for which you have a responsibility to answer." The original story made much of Luxenberg's refusal to meet face to face and request that the anwers to his questions be written. The ensuing events and the attempts to recast this as some type of inquisition have proven that Mr. Luxenberg was quite wise to be wary and prefer that a record be preserved. The questions that were presented and the manner that they were presented seem quite reasonable and polite to me. I don't see anything in those emails that should cause even the most sensitive person to feel that they have "been raked over the coals", had their integrity questioned or been mistreated in any way whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteThe union's claim that Dan Drew's statement in the Eye accuses the town clerk of lying and is a threat of retaliation raises the stakes from the ridiculous to the absurd. First, Drew's comments clearly do not accuse the town clerk of lying, nor do they identify her as being responsible for manufacturing the controversy. Second, the town clerk in her letter stated that "Mr. Geoff Lunxenberg [sic] (Drew 2011 Campaign) seems to feel the need to pressure, interrogate and intimidate YOUR Democratic Acting Registrar, Anne Tommasi regarding who is working at the polls and why." If these comments are based on the same information that the Eye presented I think Drew is entirely justified in believing that the town clerk has made an entirely unrealistic and unfair characterization, i.e., that this is a manufactured controversy. Finally, attempting to take the statement that "people want government to work to improve the economy and that is what I am going to focus on" as a threat to the town clerk is so far removed from any reasonable interpretation of the statement that it provides clear evidence that some people are quite willing to completely distort the truth in an attempt to keep an entirely manufactured, and entirely baseless, controversy going.
Voters should read the emails that were attached to the original Eye article. After you do that you can decide for yourself if Luxemberg's comments deserve all of this sound and fury. I think that his characterization of his emails that he is not accusing, but asking questions is a very fair assessment and should be taken at face value. People should be entitled to ask our elected officials questions without being villified in this manner, or being accused of slander or threatening. Responding may be a pain in the neck, but answering questions should be an important part of the job for both the clerk and registrar. Finally, it should be the responsibility of the mayor to ensure that reasonable questions are answered, rather than attack those that would dare to make an inquiry. Where would the Middletown Eye be if people were not allowed to question our government officials?
Interesting issue. Knowing the two individuals as well as I do, I really think Mr. Luxenburg should have met face to face. These two women will go beyond to ensure fairness. It's a shame and typical Middletown politics it has reached this far. The Mayor has every right to defend City employees. Because they work for City government does not give anyone the right to destroy their reputations or question their job performance. I remind everyone that there is only one way to question an employee, it is through their bosses, not the newspaper. If there is an issue, bring it forward and file the proper complaint.
ReplyDeleteBeing an employee of City, State, or Federal government does not give anyone the right to attack them. If you want to question their professional duties, you should do so through the proper channels. They should never be subjected to political games or retributions. Thats twice in the last month political retribution has been claimed. An independant investigation may be warranted.