They were for Proposition One before they were against it

Shortly after the start of the year, when some minor bit of legislative nonsense (about which I no longer remember any specifics) became the focal point of some squabbling, the honorable Dan Tagliente (D) remarked that "the silly season was upon us". I hadn't heard the term "silly season" before, so I asked him to explain. He indicated that the term is used to refer to political campaign season, and even though the election was many months away at the time he said it, he was right: the silly season had begun.

So just how silly does it get? Here is a transcript from a radio ad now airing locally:

Tom Hartnett (D) - "... remember how they ("they" refers to "some of those Republican county legislators") tried to take away our right to vote for Treasurer.. it's like they think their way is the only way and they don't care about what we think or how they treat people."

Carol Tytler (D) - "I see your point"

OK, there certainly was disagreement about Proposition One, the name of the proposal that appeared on the ballot in November 2004 offering a referendum on whether to continue to elect a treasurer (who, by law, cannot be made to hold any qualifications for the post, other than being at least 18 years old and living in the county) or to appoint one based on qualifications. But let's check the record, shall we?

On motion of Mr. Steve (R), seconded by Mrs. Brown (D) and adopted by a two-thirds roll call vote with Mr. Allen (R) (2789); Mrs. Breed (R) (2816); Mrs. Brown (D) (2320), Mr. Dafoe (D) (2,042) , Dr. DiGiovanni (R) (2362), Mr. Elston (R) (3,207), Mr. Hartnett (D) (2,334) , Mr. McKee (R) (3,351), Mr. Steger (R) (2,775), Mr. Tagliente (D) (2,357), Mrs. Tytler (D) (2,317), Mr. Willcox (R) (2,348), Ms. Wyant (R) (2,362) and Mr. Steve (R) (2,324) voting aye ;

Mr. Armstrong (R) (3,369), Mr. Cornell (R) (2,875), Mr. Ross (R) (2,314) and Mr. Wern (R) (1,973) voting nay; and Mr. Behrenfeld (R) (2,364) recorded as absent,

Agenda Item No. 1 became: Local Law # 1 for the year 2004, A Local Law Abolishing the Office of County Treasurer and Creating an Appointive Office of County Comptroller for the County of Cortland and Causing a Proposition to be Submitted to the Electorate at the Next General Election.

So, let's see, that would be the entire Democratic caucus (including Mr. Hartnett and Mrs. Tytler) in favor, and four Republican legislators voting against. But only "some of those Republican legislators... tried to take away our right to vote"? Curious.

Let's check discussion of the motion:

Mrs. Brown stated there were over thirty people who came to speak for or against this and she would be voting in favor of Local Law # 1 for the Year 2004 to allow all the people of the County the opportunity to speak by casting their vote in November.

So... we weren't trying "to take away" the people's "right to vote"?

Mrs. Tytler stated she would be supporting Local Law # 1 for the Year 2004 and commented that this issue should make the voters of Cortland County aware of the job they have at election time of looking more closely at the qualifications of the candidates that are seeking to be elected for positions to serve the public.

Hey, good idea. Like maybe they should look with great care at people who vote one way, then try to score political points by castigating people of the other party who voted the exact same way for identical reasons?

The Silly Season ends in a week, and not a moment too soon!

PS: Here is an open invitation to any member of the Democratic caucus: you have all the space you need on this blog to explain to the voters how this isn't hypocritical on your part. We await your response.