To the Editor:
Democracy remained alive on Jan. 6 because it is a word come alive only in action. In any form, whether at a town board meeting or a meeting of the state legislature, it claims and exercises its power in action.  Ideally, informed action, reasonable action, community-minded action propelled by study, facts, well-reasoned discourse, and with the interests of the people always in view and central to any discussion.

On June 22, a short time from now, Guilderland will find itself on Primary Day. This is the first time the Democratic Town Committee has presented endorsed candidates through the mechanism of a primary prior to a November election.

This is a form of selection of candidates urged on by community members unhappy with the previous means to choose a candidate for town office, that form being the traditional caucus. After many months of deliberation of a special committee appointed by Jake Crawford, chairman of the Guilderland Democratic Town Committee but not a member of the special committee, to examine the pros and cons of a primary versus a caucus, the special committee met and the decision was made to select candidates via the primary method and no longer the caucus. This was in 2019.

This year, rigorous interest has been displayed in the two Guilderland Town Board seats that are open.  All four individuals who met the New York State bar for the required number of petition signatures who will be on the primary ballot are: Amanda Beedle, Paul Pastore, Christine Napierski, and Kevin McDonald. 

The former two, Amanda Beedle and Paul Pastore, are the candidates who received the Democratic Town Committee endorsement. Napierski and McDonald chose to challenge these two people on the primary ballot and seek other endorsements as well.

The required submission of information from each person interested in the endorsement of the town committee encompassed requests for submission to the vetting committee for résumés or curricula vitae, completed questionnaires from the same committee, a list of references, any recommendations, and any additional documentation the applicant desired to submit.

The vetting committee interviewed all potential candidates for the primary set for June 22 in two different sessions. Each candidate’s submissions were reviewed carefully by each vetting committee member prior to the actual interview.

Subsequent to those interviews on Zoom, the committee voted to endorse Amanda Beedle and Paul Pastore for the two open town board seats, based on their character, background, and submitted credentials.

It seems to me that these measures do not signal those marks of a machine candidate. Nor of a political machine that operates in the dark and has secured the fix for its candidates.

In the June 8 print issue of The Altamont Enterprise, Christine Napierski once again makes the allegation that the process that culminated in the selection of the endorsed candidates for town board is essentially a machine.

I find that remark to be a slur not only on the democratic process in which she willfully participated but an attack on one of the most fundamental aspects of a foundational grassroots democratic process.

For perspective, it is helpful to refer to Ms. Napierski’s attempt to secure a four-year town justice seat in 2018. At that time, Christine wanted the town committee’s endorsement for town justice.

She had been interim justice for  several months by then, having been appointed in March to fill a spot vacated by Judge Richard Sherwood, who had been removed earlier in the year due to charges of embezzlement as a private practicing attorney.

But it was attorney Bryan Clenahan who ultimately proved the favored choice of the local Democrats and was put forth as the committee’s favorite to appear on the November ballot. And in November, Mr. Clenahan went on to victory in the general election.

Roadblocks were immediately thrown up by the Napierski team in response to the news there would be a race between her and Clenahan at the caucus. Jake Crawford; Peter Barber, town supervisor; and Bryan Clenahan found themselves in federal court the Friday before the scheduled caucus time, slated for Thursday evening, June 26, 2019 at 6 p.m.

But, with the last minute-filed Naperierski claims being brought before a federal judge the Friday night before the caucus, this date was in doubt. Would there even be a caucus if the judge ruled against the Democratic Party leaders?

The cliffhanger allegations ultimately fell flat but changes did have to be made to modify the Tawasentha Park accommodations for disabled voters. These measures were taken and the caucus thus proceeded and Bryan Clenahan won the caucus vote that night. 

I wondered then, as I wonder now, what is it with playing victim of a so-called machine when one has engaged in victimizing a system just a few years ago. And who is the victim here?

In sum, in this year’s candidate endorsement process, it seems to me that the Democratic Town Committee and its vetting committee acted just as they were supposed to, according to New York State Law and regulations for supporting candidates and getting them on the ballot. For anyone who has any kind of background to claim to be victimized is laughable.

Because I have continued to believe in the upside of the potential for what democracy can do, I have stayed engaged in the mix of the endless rounds of trying to make democracy work in its many forms and processes over four decades. It is hard work, for sure, with long hours at times, but, as the saying goes:  “What's the alternative?”

Let me be clear. I am not equating Jan. 6 with small-town political scuffling nor our present disagreements about our election process with a matter as large and significant as the threat to voting rights going on nationwide every day.

What I am saying is that there is no point in throwing ice-packed snowballs at something valid that is trying to work for you, something, very importantly, you may misunderstand, and something that is really not your enemy. There is more than one way to settle differences. Repeatedly pointing the finger and playing the victim is not one of them.

For anyone who wants to denigrate, defile, or turn away in disgust at what they see as how this democracy is working, I invite them to look at the failed or failing democracies of the world — Iran, Rome, India, and our own.

And, as well, and as importantly, look at what you are doing yourself to actively contribute to the sustaining of your government in a healthy, doable way. What can you give?

Listen. Act in humility.

Tearing at and tearing down institutions set up to work for the people does nothing to preserve the institutions that serve us.  

Inquiring, being patient, choosing listening over criticizing, speaking to those of like and unlike minds, putting others’ interests above one’s own — these are some of the basic work habits of a working democracy.

And, more importantly, speaking truth. And then taking that truth to power when it is necessary and holding a government accountable.

We choose. Every day we choose. Do we look honestly at ourselves and say: “It’s tough, but I need to participate, not sit on the sidelines.”

Only each and every person who considers his or her own role in participating in government can choose to apply his or her own individual answer. In the end, we all decide whether we will push our democracy to a disaster in slow motion or we will choose a means to keep it afloat, steady, heading in the right direction with good people who feel fully their responsibility to do the job they were elected to do.

You elect. You participate.  

You stay informed and you realize, every day, your democracy is really an ongoing experiment, not a static exhibit in a museum.

Betty Head

Altamont

Editor’s note: Betty Head is chair of the Altamont Democratic District.