The definition of “open” vs. the politics of the smoke-filled room

Everyone knows what the word “open” means.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), the word “open” has been used for more than eleven hundred years to mean “exposed to the general view or knowledge,” “acting in public without concealment… spec. government in which the public is kept well-informed and is invited to participate.” Of the more than fifty senses of the word “open” discussed on more than eight-and-a-third pages in the OED, only three other senses of “open” have been around as long: (i) unenclosed, open space; (ii) an open door; and (iii) “brought to light,” revealed, exposed. For at least eleven centuries, the desire of people to participate in government has been expressed with the word “open.”

But to the North County News, etymology and history begin anew every day with the latest press release they receive from Peekskill’s new partisan majority. This week, the paper asked Mayor-elect Mary Foster to share with the public how her replacement is being selected. “Foster refused to get into specifics and would not say who they are interviewing,” the paper reports. They then quote Darren Rigger as saying, “We want the process to be open and deliberate.”

The paper doesn’t question Rigger’s assertion that the process is open.

But exactly what is open about this process? Did they solicit resumes from the public at large? Have they made the specifics of the process public? We have talked with most of the civically involved non-registered, Independent, and Republicans in town, many of whom are thoughtful independent-minded people, and none of them have been included in the process. Foster and Rigger's partisan website doesn't post any information for interested parties.

This is troubling for at least two reasons.

First, Foster herself is not a registered member of any political party. She has contributed to the campaigns of Republicans like Vito Fossella, who wants to eliminate the Estate tax for the ultra-rich, while many billionaires agree that "repealing the estate tax would enrich the heirs of America's millionaires and billionaires while hurting families who struggle to make ends meet.” Foster is a supporter of Republican Fossella, so why is she so committed to having a Democrat replace her?

Second, Foster went out of her way in the final weeks of the campaign to tell voters that she promised to end partisanship as we know it in Peekskill. On November 4^th, Foster told a packed room these very things. The other day, we were forwarded an email that was circulated shortly after that meeting. An eyewitness from the meeting was telling people the Sunday before the election, "[Foster] has expressed a strong willingness to work with all parties & people... I think the evil party in the Dem propaganda [sic] is not Mary, but Darren Rigger. He's running the machine."

Time has exposed the falsity of Foster’s seductive campaign promises. Foster is now in charge, and she is giving Darren Rigger his marching orders. The two of them have agreed to shut out the people of Peekskill from the process of selecting the replacement for the only Council seat held by someone unregistered with any political party, someone who has made sizeable contributions to both major parties.

Foster’s process appears to be no different than the politics of the smoke-filled room of days gone bye. One this is clear: her process is not open.