What was the Israeli Flag Flap in New Rochelle REALLY All About?
Mayor’s Attempt to Sideline Sole Republican on New Rochelle City Council Blows Up in Her Face
NEW ROCHELLE, NY (February 16, 2024) — Newbie Council Member David Peters repeatedly framed a discussion item on the Israeli flag and flag policy Tuesday as a failure by Al Tarantino to understand how David and a mysterious “we” perceived the demands of constituents to remove an Israeli flag from a flagpole in front of City Hall.
He went on to defend removing the flag as well-intentioned and not hostile towards Israel or the Israeli flag, which is quite obviously untrue.
PETERS: To say that issues associated with the flag somehow someway need to need to or there is some hostility associated with the taking down of the flag, there’s not hostility associated with that.
Tarantino never said a word about hostility associated with the flag — or has even taken a position on removing (or not) the Israeli flag, so who Peters imagines he is addressing is another mystery of the opaque mind of David Peters.
The reality is that those opposing the display of the Israeli flag, Peters’ political base, are quite hostile towards Israel and the Israeli flag, as the compilation video I put together makes clear:
To Peters’ way of thinking — mindlessly applying his anti-racism construct to every situation he encounters (as usual) — there is no legitimate disagreement with him, only intentional or unintentional racial bias. In others, if you do not see things his way you are a racist.
It is going to be a long four years for his fellow council members if David will spend their time (and staff’s time) giving patronizing lectures as if he has been hired to provide anti-racism training (his day job) and not elected to represent his constituents in District 3 and the City as a whole.
I may have to start referring to him formally as Council Member David Peters (Anti-Racist — Earth) instead of Council Member David Peters (Democrat — District 3).
He may also bore his colleagues to death.
At the 17:15 mark in the video embedded above from Tuesday’s city council discussion, David rambles on in a disjointed monologue until the 20:56 mark to say, in about 4 minutes, that he agrees with Al on the need for a flag policy, but he does not like Al saying that the backroom efforts by Democrats, led by Yadira, Shane and David to remove the Israeli flag without the public knowing was wrong, underhanded and a violation of the Open Meeting Law.
PETERS: We have a level of positionality, you and I that is in all likelihood the same it is what I’m objecting to is just the implied language that just appears too strong and accusatory and I would request that perhaps you consider that as we’re in a discussion around this very sensitive situation, it’s a situation that is I know when I ran for office I did not run for office nor was I asked any questions around whether or not I am in favor of putting up the Israeli flag that was never a question that emerged in the context of me being in New Rochelle on city council. Now there… situations in circumstances during the campaign and being engaged in the community which I’m a part of where I have been concerned about and heard about instances of antisemitism. I make a distinction in relationship to that in relationship to my role as a council person here in the City of New Rochelle and constituents that are part of of the dynamic of New Rochelle, situations of hate and things along those lines are things for any community that I am opposed to. That is how I think, that is how I feel, that is how I behave so when I’m in this setting and and and so I’m asking you to consider when you if when you characterizing your language that you consider that, that you consider that you are not inside any of us and when I say us you don’t understand how perhaps we think and feel similarly how you may think or feel so I don’t think we are outside of of of of each other I just think it is important that we begin to have a policy that will allow us to not be put into this kind of a situation again and it is a situation where there is a whole lot going on in the world and it may not necessarily be be the role of us at city council to be engaged in conversations around foreign countries and what’s going on in the conflict in relationship to them we can have empathy for their situation, we can be concerned about it but there are many many different people that we also have to take into consideration as a city and so all we’re saying is if there are any constituents in our city who are offering any kind of opposition or questions around around a flag of a different country other than the United States being flown as a foreign government that’s something that we now because of what’s going on here now we need to be able to rectify that so I think we’re in the same place. I really do. So, the process whether its we do it now in terms of a policy which I think we should or whether as Matt had mentioned it was something that was discussed because of the kind of information that we were receiving, right? That we are now able to move forward so my hope is that is what we do, that’s all I’m saying let’s just move forward and get it done. That’s it.
Sorting out this long-winded, incoherent word salad is near impossible. I have no idea what “implied language” is supposed to mean but David is not objecting to Al’s implied language but his actual language — that the effort to take down the Israeli flag with the public knowing was “underhanded”.
Readers will do well to note the theme of David’s monologue is positionality.
So, what is that?
Although he starts by saying he and Al have a level of positionality that is probably the same he goes on to say that at another level they do not: “consider that you are not inside any of us and when I say us you don’t understand how perhaps we think and feel”.
It is unclear why David imagines his role is not to debate an issue but tell another council member what words they can use in the debate. It is certainly reflects an unfounded sense of superiority and an exaggerated, artificially inflated self-esteem. Al demurely replies, “that’s your opinion”.
And who is “us” and “we” in this statement? Black people? Residents of District 3? Democrats? He never says.
For those not familiar with the term, positionality is a made-up word found in the anti-racist dictionary. It is a code word David uses to accuse people of being racists solely because they do not agree with his opinion on issues and policies or the best flavor of ice cream.
Positionality is a core element of critical race theory:
Intersectionality, positionality, and privilege are terms that can be used to explain the ways in which multiple social identities can coincide to create frameworks of inequality and oppression. They are part of a growing body of scholarship known as critical race theory which recognizes race as a social construct and aims to acknowledge and unravel the systemic nature of racism among its other tenets.
In David’s muddled mind, Al Tarantino is a racist (intentionally or unintentionally) because Al does not appreciate how he hurt David’s feelings by making the public aware of David role in his failed attempt to secretly remove the Israeli flag.
It is hard to imagine how David Peters thinks accusing another council member of being racist will end well for him. He seems unaware that a day will come when he needs Al as a fourth vote on a pet project. Good luck getting that.
Tarantino said repeatedly throughout the meeting his concern is not about the Israeli flag but the process and lack of transparency.
Notably absent from the 27-minute discussion is Yadira, the architect of the entire disaster.
If we suspend belief for a moment and take Yadira at her word, as given loudly in her disingenuous “raise the Israeli flags” speech at the Golden Horseshoe, and delivered while she was secretly trying to take down the same Israeli flag, she did not want to remove the Israeli flag. Based on their words in the public discussion, it is clear David and Shane were the pair most aggressively pushing to remove the Israeli flag. So, why would Yadira court controversy with Jewish voters given her well-established track record of alienating them by supporting David and Shane on the flag issue.
Whatever she really thinks about Israel, Yadira attempted to use the Israeli flag issue to establish a point with the City Manager: you work for me not the council. That is what “I have 5 votes” is meant to convey.
To achieve that she pressured Kathleen for weeks to remove the Israeli flag, insisting it happen without public discussion, all based on a private discussion (an illegal quorum) of council Democrats which pointedly excluded Al Tarantino, the sole Republican. The first he heard of the plot is Yadira’s first email to the City Manager on January 16 raising the specter of removing the flag.
Al is not fighting over the Israeli flag or even transparency but fighting to preserve his relevance on council by protecting his rights as a council member as a minority of one, the sole Republican. This is precisely what Robert’s Rules of Order, the rules governing city council meetings, is intended to do — a body operates under majority rule but still respects minority opinion.
Robert’s Rules: The application of parliamentary law is the best method yet devised to enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member’s opinion, to arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time and under all kinds of internal climate ranging from total harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion.
Yadira is not interested in minority opinion. She is not interested in parliamentary laws that govern the meetings she chairs. She is not interested in the council-manager form of government. She wants to rule New Rochelle as a strong Mayor. Her predecessor tried that too. How did that go?
Yadira created a scenario that pushed Al into a corner and guaranteed Al would come out fighting. Matt and Shane both complained that their being exposed for their backroom dealings “inflamed” a sensitive subject. The only people who inflamed anything were the six Democrats on council who foolishly tried to do the public’s business behind closed doors. It is not that the situation was inflamed but they were embarrassed by the disinfectant of sunlight.
Al said that looking back he still does not know the true intention of removing the flag. He said he heard there were complaints but very few.
NOTE: I was told 2 or 3 but I have since made a FOIL for all complaints so we shall see.
Al said there was no discussion by council, none in a public forum and so there were issues of transparency, violations of the Open Meeting Law and the need to be inclusive of everyone on council, and in the community. He said he was disturbed by the way the backroom dealing was done, that it was a “little underhanded, to say the least”. He said he was not brought into the loop. He said he hoped that his response — the public discussion — sets a precedent so this never happens again. In other words, you want to whack the wasp’s nest expect to get stung.
Looking forward, he said, council needed to consider what kind of policies are used in other communities and what policies New Rochelle should put in place to avoid problems in the future.
David asked Al if there was similar dialog in raising the Israeli flag. A revealing question because Yadira sent David a PDF attachment of Noam’s 10/10 email proposing to raise the flag. David did not bother to read the emails he was sent by Yadira. As Al read, David looked over at the printed email in front of Al with wonder.
David then complained that the way Al characterized his behavior and that of other Democrats in excluding Al as unhelpful, that saying it was underhanded was not fair. Al replied dismissively, “that’s your opinion”.
David says he supports Al calling for a flag policy then adds wrongly that there was no policy before. There was a policy that worked for over 70 years; the City Manager made all of the decisions.
Matt Stern says Noam Bramson made a “small mistake” in his 10/10 email when he said the flag should go up temporarily but not articulating specifically when it would come down. This is untrue. Noam knew the flag would come down on October 28 when the Italian flag was scheduled to be raised for Italian-American Heritage Day so temporarily would be 16 days. It was Kathleen who ordered the Israeli flag back up on November 1.
Matt complained that having a public discussion about the Israeli flag inflames passions around an international conflict “that we have very little control over.”
More like none, right?
Shane Osinloye blames me for inflaming the issue and endangering the lives of council members by reporting on what he did in secret:
OSINLOYE: Sometimes executive decisions are necessary to be made in more executive level conversations so we’re not painting a larger target on the backs of the people we care about through our community whatever those communities might be. This has now created an issue which has been inflamed by bloggers in which people from various cities would now like to participate in our discussions. And I think that the direction that it went and created more of a danger than was necessary to the people that we literally sit next to and work with so I would just like to start there.
Shane then posited a truly ludicrous conspiracy theory:
OSINLOYE: I have concerns about how specific, we received a FOIL request and the FOIL request was particularly specific about my concerns or about or about security of our emails ‘cause either someone disclosed them and if that’s that case it’s legal and fine then if not someone’s been inside of our emails. I have received quite a bit of spam in our city email it presents an additional concern.
I submitted the FOIL he referenced on February 1st:
This is a public records request.
I would like to obtain the following records:
Emails between City Council members, including the Mayor, and City officials regarding the Israeli flag in front of City Hall.
This is not “particularly specific” about Shane’s concerns, it is not even generally about Shane’s concerns, in fact, it is not about Shane or his concerns at all. It is a standard request of the sort I make routinely when I hear something is up at City Hall that may interest my readers. Put simply, it’s what I do.
I just submitted another FOIL request after he tied his absurd claim that “someone’s been inside of our email” (Russian hackers?) to a claim that he has “received quite a bit of spam” as if maybe his two wing-nut theories are related.
He seems to believe that a discussion among city officials and council members is exempt from FOIL as if it was an executive session. If so, the discussions about the flag or the police overtime budget do not qualify for executive session. Obviously, the corporation counsel agrees because I was provided the emails.
Shane seems to imagine that a public discussion on removing the Israeli flag puts Jews in danger but does not explain how. This sounds like a bad excuse for violating the Open Meeting Law and more like he did not want to be accountable for seeking to remove the flag.
Yadira clearly did not want any public discussion at all — she said so multiple times in January. During the meeting she kept trying to cut of discussion saying “we can’t look back” and “we can’t go back in time” and “I would like to keep us united and moving forward”. Her insisted on not looking back is purely self-serving because what she was caught doing was a bad look. She cut off Al from responding to Shane by filibustering — talking very fast like she does — but when Al held his ground and insisted on his right to respond to Shane she said “I would us all to remember to keep us united and forward looking”. Al gave her a look like “I will say what I want to say” then said he is entitled to respond and did so.
Yadira said she was on council for four and a half years. Actually, she has been on council 4.1 years. She will have been on council 4.5 years in July.
Yadira asks Kathleen to consider whether the flag policy will require a simple vote or a majority vote. A simple vote is more than half. A majority vote is more than half. A simple vote and majority are the same thing.
Yadira brought up plans for a Jewish American Day celebration in May. That will be interesting because to be consistent with the African-American Advisory Committee or the Sister City Committee, the City Manager will need to appoint a Jewish-American Advisory Committee which will create an event and select a flag to raise at City Hall.
Any guess which flag a Jewish-American Advisory Committee will want to raise?
At the end of the discussion, David repeatedly indicated he is impatient to put a policy in place even though by February 13 there is no longer any urgent need to do so given that the Israeli flag will be replaced by the Black History flag in about two weeks and no new flags are scheduled to be raised until the Pride flag on June 1.
He said he does not want the flag policy to constantly be open, he said inartfully that City Hall is the “house that belongs to so many” and so he wants to minimize ongoing dialog and debates. So, not a big fan of democracy. He appears to have forgotten that he opened up the Israeli flag can of worms in the first place.
David says all this about rushing to put a policy in place having already agreed that staff will draft a policy then share that with a subcommittee of Matt and Al who will then work on the policy and make recommendations to the council.
The next council meeting is February 20 so it would not happen by then. The next COW meeting is March 12 where a draft policy could be discussed. On March 19 there is an RLM meeting where a final policy could be adopted. Under the most optimistic schedule, the new flag policy might be in place in 5 weeks but he wants it immediately and cannot understand why no one shares his urgency.
He then makes an odd and revealing statement, that his concern is that “this house that belongs to the City of New Rochelle is not occupied in ways in which it is not helpful to any of us.
Occupied?
He does not say that the council will be occupied with developing a flag policy but that building will be occupied “in ways in which it is not helpful”. As David speaks in code it is often difficult to be sure what he means but the use of the term occupied sounds a lot like how his supporters talk about “Palestine” being occupied by Israel.
Other Notes:
Five or Six
On January 22, Yadira sent an email to Kathleen asking that the Israeli flag be removed and a discussion item reluctantly requested by Yadira after requests for discussion by Al, David and Shane also be removed. It was in this email that the “5 votes” confusion began. Yadira said five Council Members supported her request. Each of the five followed up with an “agreed” email: Shane, David, Sara, Matt and Martha. That is six “votes” not five, including Yadira. Despite this everyone involved used the number 5 not 6.
Matt Thinks “Everyone Agrees” Israel Flag Should Have Been Raised
Matt said “everyone agrees Israeli flag should have gone up”.
This is obviously not true.
And it is one of many example of new members of council making absurd, sweeping, grandiose claims that “everyone agrees” with what they think or, especially David Peters, using “we” to describe himself or Democrats or Black people or the “royal we” but more like the multiple-personality disorder “we” as if there a crowd of people who agree with him living in his head.
Matt either forgot or did not read Shane’s emails or listened to his constant harping on § 141 where he repeatedly opposed the display of any foreign flag. This is odd because he was sitting next to Shane the entire time.
I doubt David agrees either.
Sara Kaye Fabricates Flag Protocols
On February 5, Sara Kaye responded to an email from a constituent displeased with her role in the Mayor’s effort to remove the Israeli flag from a flagpole in front of City Hall.
Kaye wrote:
…ordinarily symbolic/ceremonial flags are flown for a period of 1 month to 100 days. We've already surpassed that period and the intention was never to fly it indefinitely.
Where she got this idea I cannot imagine but it is a total fabrication. No ceremonial flag has ever flown for more than 30 days let alone 100 days. The issue before council has not been symbolic/ceremonial flags but national flags of foreign countries.
The Israeli flag is not a symbolic/ceremonial flag, it is the national flag of the State of Israel. As one of two Jewish members of council she might be expected to know that.
The Israeli flag was first displayed on October 12, 2023 then taken down on October 30 and replaced by the Italian flag. The Italian flag is not a symbolic/ceremonial flag, it is the national flag of the Italian Republic.
The Italian flag was taken down on November 1, 2023 and replaced by the Israeli flag. When Yadira first raised removing the Israel flag on January 16, 2024 it has been displayed continuously for 96 days.
The Ukrainian flag was raised on March 3, 2022 and replaced by the Pride flag on June 1, 2022, a total of 91 days. The Ukrainian flag is not a symbolic/ceremonial flag, it is the national flag of Ukraine.
The French flag is raised as part of a ceremony on Bastille Day (July 14) and stays up for the weekend. The French flag is not a symbolic/ceremonial flag, it is the national flag of the French Republic.
The United Nations flag was raised for the 75th anniversary of the UN at the request of the by UN Association-USA Westchester Chapter. It was raised on October 22, 2020 for UN Day (October 25) and was displayed for 8 days, until October 30, 2020. The United Nations flag is not a symbolic/ceremonial flag, it is the flag of the United Nations.
The Pride flag is relatively new, it is raised for the month of June, from June 1 to June 30, or 30 days.
The Juneteenth flag was raised first time in 2020. In 2023 it was raised on June 19 and stayed up till the end of the month. It is raised under the Pride flag on June 19.
The Black History flag may or may not be a symbolic/ceremonial flag. No flag has been chosen but the date to raise the flag will be February 29.
I have requested further details for the City of New Rochelle flag, the POW-MIA flag, the 325th Anniversary of New Rochelle flag and any other flags displayed in recent memory. I suggested staff prepare a spreadsheet with the details for each flag going back five or ten years and add it as a supplemental to the meeting agenda.
Matt Stern Lies About Me
Matt Stern wrote on Facebook:
…after reading those blog posts (my article on the secret emails), I can see why someone would get a wrong impression about the truth here, since they mischaracterize what happened.
No. They do not.
I contacted Matt to share my concern that he is publicly accusing me of not telling the truth in my articles by mischaracterizing what happened regarding the Israeli flag issue. I made clear I do not appreciate his impugning my personal integrity nor my professionalism as a journalist. It is the sort of thing that compels a public response so here is that response.
I have all of the relevant emails — and more coming under additional FOIL requests and media inquiries.
It is actually Matt who has mischaracterized the issue as follows:
Months after the flag was rightfully put up after October 7th, it came to the Council and Mayor's attention that we had no flag policy in the city about the length of time a flag is raised. We sought information about past precedent and considered how to proceed on such a sensitive issue without inflaming debate.
Based on the emails now in my possession, Yadira contacted the City Manager at 8:30 am on the day of the 1/16/24 RLM. She did not say anything about a concern there was no policy on how long a flag is displayed.
Yadira raised the issue in the context of “calls” received by “a few of us” asking “we take down the Israeli flag”. Complaints.
Those were literally the first on-the-record words out of her mouth on the Israeli flag — ever — because the only other time the Israeli flag was “discussed” by council was October 10, 2023 when Noam asked all members of council whether they had concerns about his asking Kathleen to display the Israeli flag. Yadira was silent on 10/10/23 as she was silent on November 1, 2023 when the Israeli flag was raised a second time.
I have asked every council member about such complaints, calls to remove the flag or anything else along those lines. In her email to Kathleen, Yadira said “A few of us have received calls. I know your office has also received the calls”. Kathleen said one guy made repeated calls, Martha said the same thing, one guy called, likely the same guy; Matt and Al said they received no complaints. So that sounds like one guy called to complain, hardly the basis for an all-hands meeting of the Democrats on council. Also, there was one complaint posted on Instagram.
In his email to Kathleen, Shane said “I have also received complaints regarding our city's raising of the Israeli flag, interestingly enough, from my constituents who identify as Jewish.”
In retrospect, I believe he was referring to some of the speakers at CBTH on Tuesday who said Israel was committing genocide, ethnic cleansing and enacting the final solution in Gaza but for now I cannot be certain because he, David, Yadira, and Sara did not reply to my inquiry about complaints. To sort this as best I can I made a new FOIL for all complaints.
In her 8:30 am email, Yadira continued, “There (sic) a couple of questions that have come up that we believe we can benefit (sic) from your guidance. Note, when she says “we” that does not include Al who is only hearing about any of this for the first time.
Q1: does § 141 apply to New Rochelle displaying the Israeli flag?
Q2: how long was the Ukrainian flag displayed?
She ended with “I think the applicability of the statute (or any other relevant statute) as well as the duration of time for which we had the Ukrainian flag hung will be helpful in deciding next steps for the Israeli flag.”
We now know the answers: Q1 “no” Q2 “91 days”.
Yadira did not ask about “past precedent” but only the Ukrainian flag — not flags such as French, Italian, or United Nations flags. She did not ask about any other ceremonial flags such as Pride or Juneteenth. One flag is not “past precedent”. And even if it were the precedent, it was — and is still — being followed, the flag is up until the next schedule flag replaces it.
There is no mention at all of “how to proceed on such a sensitive issue without inflaming debate.” The issue is inherently inflammatory, more so because of the way Yadira and other Democrats including Matt went about it.
Matt also said, “I wish this hadn't been politicized.”
This is crocodile tears as the issue was politicized by his party, including him..
Unlike Noam on 10/10/23, Yadira only consulted with Democrats prior to sending her 8:30 am email on 1/16/24. Further, despite repeated requests by Al to put the issue on as a discussion item, Yadira repeatedly rejected his requests. Yes, the issue was politicized but by Yadira and Matt and his fellow Democrats who supported her in that.
There is also Yadira’s “five members support” email (actually 6 as Yadira did not count herself). Matt and his Democrat colleagues all followed her up with “agreed” emails, again without consulting Al or acting on his request for a discussion item.
If Yadira Were Smart…
New Rochelle has had and continues to have a policy. The City Manager decides on whether and when to raise and lower flags. She is the Chief Executive. The policy includes that a flag remains displayed until the next flag is scheduled.
The next scheduled flag is the Black History Month. Deciding the exact flag which will be raised and when has been delegated to the African-American Advisory Committee chaired by Angela Farrish and Mark McLean with members Nate Adams, Dale Burnett, Dierdra Clark, Kwamain Dixon, Leslie Gaskin, and Linda Tarrant-Reid.
I was told they were scheduled to meet this week and sort out which flag to raise and when. Word is end of February but no exact date yet. I inquired multiple times. I was told Friday afternoon there were still no details.
Yadira knows everyone on the AAAC.
A smart politician looking to remove the Israeli flag by January 31 without any fingerprints — precisely what she sought to accomplish with secret emails and resisting efforts by Al, Shane and David to put the flag up for public discussion (which also happened anyway) — would have never mentioned the Israeli flag at all.
If Yadira was smart she could have achieved her stated objective without “inflaming” anything.
She needed only to ask the AAAC to move up their meeting to mid-January, pick a flag and convince the City Manager to set the flag raising for the Black History Month flag on on the first day of Black History Month, February 1. Who would say no to that? The Israeli flag would come down on January 31, just as she asked, consistent with past practice, without controversy.
No one has ever accused Yadira Ramos-Herbert of being politically savvy: getting on stage at a Nation of Islam event, serving on a discussion panel organized by the fiscal sponsor of a pro-HAMAS group, volunteering to protect pro-HAMAS protestors at a rally at Columbia University, refusing to intervene when pro-HAMAS protestors disrupted Columbia Law School for hours and, most recently giving a “raise those Israeli flags” speech at the scene of an antisemitic incident while secretly pushing to remove the Israeli flag at City Hall.
Based on a tiny handful of complaints, Yadira spent her first weeks as Mayor in an underhanded effort to remove the Israeli flag from City Hall in secret. She has spent the last few weeks responding to the fallout of my exposing those efforts.
Had she done nothing at all she would be right where is now without the political damage she and her fellow Democrats have suffered — with the Israeli flag still up. It will not come down until the end of February when it is replaced by a TBD Black History flag, on a TBD date, possibly February 29.
It is such an obvious move that it seems possible that she or other Democrats on council were actually looking to create controversy over the Israeli flag and bring the war in Gaza into City Hall.
Given the scientific principle of Occam's Razor — “all thing’s being equal the simplest explanation tends to be the right one” — it appears most likely that Yadira is so politically inept that the simplest explanation is she could not think of a way to accomplish her ends by any other means than a (failed) attempt at subterfuge and skullduggery. She plowed ahead like a bull in a china shop, excluding and alienating the most senior member of council which if not her original goal is the only outcome she achieved.
Remaining Notes
Sara and Martha remained silent and immobile for the entire flag discussion item.
Al and Matt were appointed to the New Rochelle City Council Sub-Committee on Flag Policy and Manner of Display Protocol for National Flags Exclusive of Symbolic or Ceremonial Flags for the City of New Rochelle.
David and Shane made it out that because they received a handful of complaints (2 or 3 or 11 complaints) they had to act in secret to remove the Israeli flag. I have no doubt that it would be quite easy to find 2, 3, or 11 people to complain about any flag, including the American flag. Is that the new standard? If less than a dozen people complain about something the City must heed those complaints and reverse course? That is not democracy but a tyranny of the minority.
Fatimah Gilliam, speaking at CTBH, noted that the Israeli Flag and Ukrainian Flag were both raised in front of City Hall and those were both places that are White, the implication being that the decision to raise those foreign flags was racist. She left out the Italian flag and French flag. All four foreign flags raised over the past 4 years were from what Gilliam would apparently consider White places. And the people in charge were 6 Democrats including Noam Bramson. Are they all racist, even Yadira?
David Peters, Matt Stern and Shane Osinloye repeatedly directed their statements about the raising of the Israeli flag in October at Al Tarantino like it’s his job to be council historian. Consider that then as now Al was the sole Republican on council and as such had the least ability to make anyone do anything. It was Noam’s idea to raise the Israeli flag not Al’s idea. When asked on October 10, Al made no comment and took no position on the flag. Same on November 1. Al was then excluded from all discussions in January among his colleagues about removing the flag until after Yadira first raised the issue to Kathleen on January 16. Al has not taken a position on the flag since then either, merely insisting on a public discussion about Yadira’s demand, supported by her 5 Democrat colleagues, the flag be removed. Now consider that Yadira did not object to raising the Israeli flag on October 12 or again on November 1. Consider that Yadira had a 6-1 majority on council with all six in agreement on removing the flag. Yadira raised the issue on January 16 but refused to put the flag issue up for discussion that night where she could have called a vote. Yadira, David, Matt and Shane — the vocal proponents of removing the flag — could have all voted then, later or even this past Tuesday to remove the flag with immediate effect and the flag would have been removed the next day. Four current members of council were on council in October 2023 not just one but David, Matt and Shane never address any questions about the legislative history of the initial flag raising to Yadira, Martha or Sara — only Al, the one member least able to impose a decision on city council. Once you process this you realize that what took place Tuesday was a fit of pique by Yadira, David, Matt and Shane who were angry that their little coup — that they were conspiring in an illegal quorum to remove the flag — was exposed and thwarted by Al and so kept going at Al as if he put the flag up, as if he kept them from voting to remove the flag, as if they could not have voted on the spot Tuesday to direct the City Manager to remove the flag immediately. They were angry because none of the Democrats wanted anyone to know they were secretly “voting” to remove the flag. The proof is that given multiple opportunities to cast those votes on the record in a public meeting none of them did so. Basically, Al showed them as cowards and they did not like it.
David bristled when Al said the taking of a decision to direct the City Manager to remove the Israeli flag in a series of emails was a violation of the Open Meetings Law. Shane preposterously justified the Democrats using an illegal quorum to make a secret “executive decision” because a public discussion of the Israeli flag would endanger the lives of himself, other council members, Jews and those opposed to the Israeli flag. Other Democrats seem annoyed as well with Al. All this despite both Al and Kathleen repeatedly stating in the January emails that the subject needs to be put on the agenda for public discussion; by contrast Yadira repeatedly demanded violating OML saying there should be no public discussion. This is not complicated: city council is a public body, four or more members gathered to conduct public business constitutes a quorum, any such gathering must be open to the public, it is an illegal quorum if the gathering is not open to the public whether synchronous (via video conference or an online chat group or face-to-face in a booth at a diner) or asynchronous (via a series of phone calls, emails or text messages over the course of several days). This is Open Government 101 yet seems to be a mystery to the Democrats on council — or perhaps they just do not care if they violate OML. The legislative declaration of the Open Meetings Law, §100, states in part that: “It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy.” This also means any WhatsApp group set up by Democrats on council that discusses public business is an illegal quorum. Hint! Hint! The Open Meetings Law is intended to provide the public with the right to observe the performance of public officials in their deliberations. That intent cannot be realized if members of a public body conduct public business as a body or vote or “express consensus” by phone, by mail, or by e-mail. A series of communications between individual members whether emails, telephone calls or text messages among the members which results in a collective decision is inconsistent with the law. The New York State Committee on Open Government had issued numerous Advisory Opinions on this subject over the past 25 years: 3257, 3447, 3787, 3928, 4534, 5577.