Democrats
who voted to oust José Cruz as minority leader of the County Legislature hoped
his demotion would grant them freedom. That is, freedom from the influence
Democrats at the city and state levels were exerting on their caucus. Instead,
the uproar from that vote may have freed them from the opportunity to advance
their political careers this year.
Cruz’s critics complained that he
didn’t communicate enough with Democrats inside the caucus — and that he
communicated too much with Democrats outside the caucus.
“The change in leadership was also
an expression of the caucus’s desire to operate as a free and independent body,
not one beholden to any particular faction within the Democratic Party,” new
Minority Leader Stephanie Aldersley wrote in a July 11 op-ed piece in the Democrat and Chronicle. “In recent
months, it has been clear that some party officials were attempting to exert an
influence within the caucus that the majority of us were simply not comfortable
with.”
In an interview, Aldersley said some
caucus members were particularly uncomfortable with heavy-handed lobbying on
behalf of Cruz before he was elected minority leader last November. “I had
three different [caucus] members tell me they have been told by outsiders that
if they didn’t support José, their political careers would be ended — they
would be, quote-unquote, ‘crushed,'” she said.
Aldersley said she values
collaboration among Democrats serving in different levels of government. But
when it comes to making leadership decisions within each level, she said, those
choices should be free of outside influence. “What if I decide, ‘Gosh, I have a
good friend on City Council,'” she said. “As minority leader, to come to City
Council and say, ‘That person should be head of City Council,’ that would be
improper.”
“Intergovernmental communication is
important, and even intergovernmental influence,” Aldersley said. “When it
becomes less effective is in the use of cronyism. That ultimately leads to
decision-making being concentrated in a small circle of close friends. You
don’t get the breadth of wisdom you need to make good decisions. To say to
individuals, ‘You vote for my friend or I’ll see to it that you’re ruined,’ that
is not appropriate political action.”
In a scathing June 26 letter
to Aldersley and the “conspirators” who voted Cruz out, Mayor Bill Johnson took
his fellow Democrats to task. What happens in the Democratic caucus “is my
business,” Johnson wrote. He cited his fundraising and political work on their
behalf and said: “I made a personal investment in most of you, and asked for
only one thing in return: that you act with integrity and intelligence. You did
not act with integrity when you blind sided José Cruz.”
“It is my business that you know how
to ask for money,” Johnson wrote, “but not for guidance and advice before doing
something that was so incredibly stupid that it defies logic.”
In her D&C piece, Aldersley cites Johnson’s letter as “proof” of
Johnson’s “desire for control” of the caucus. But in the interview with City Newspaper, she said she wasn’t
aware of any lobbying the mayor did himself. Rather, she mentioned Johnson’s
friend and political supporter, Ken Warner, and Democratic Assemblyman Joe
Morelle of Irondequoit as pro-Cruz lobbyists.
Johnson did not return calls seeking
comment. Morelle says he did advocate for Cruz’s leadership in conversations
with caucus members, but he denies ever using threatening language. “I don’t
have the ability to ‘crush’ anybody,” he says. “I don’t use that language.”
Offering advice, however, “is part of my responsibility as an elected official
and a concerned Democrat.”
Warner, a Democratic operative who
works for the Rochester Building Trades Council, also agrees that he advocated
for Cruz among caucus members. But he denies making political threats and
downplays any influence he may have. “Do I try to help José? Yes,” he says.
“Have I walked the streets for him and gone door-to-door handing out his literature?
Yes. Does he listen to my every word? No.”
Concerning some County Legislators’
discomfort with intra-party advocacy, Warner says: “Special interests are only
bad when they’re not your interests. Cooperation and working together are
called ‘influence’ when it’s not on your side.”
Morelle and Aldersley seem to find
themselves on different sides these days, but neither politician professes to
know why. Both mention a falling out last summer, when Morelle quit as manager
of Aldersley’s legislative campaign after the two disagreed about — of all
things — the proper size of a campaign postcard.
“He told me ordering a postcard he
didn’t like was evidence I would not do as he said,” Aldersley says. “Because
he wanted us to be friends, he said he thought it better that he not run my
campaign. But I don’t know what had happened, really.”
Morelle didn’t
elaborate on the postcard tiff. But he did say he suspects that Aldersley is unhappy with
leadership advice he gave her — at her request — after she won re-election
last November. Morelle says he advised her not to seek the minority leadership
post because her re-election victory was too narrow (she won by 66 votes), and
thus she had no mandate to lead the caucus. He says he suggested an assistant
leadership post, instead.
Of course, when Aldersley announced
last spring that she was considering challenging Morelle in a primary for his
Assembly seat, it’s safe to assume he was less than thrilled.
Instead, Aldersley has decided to
run for Congress against Republican James Walsh of Syracuse. Aldersley may have
hoped that becoming minority leader would help her Congressional bid more than
angering Morelle would hurt it. But the flack that’s erupted over Cruz’s
removal has cast a cloud over that race, as well.
A June 30 D&C article quoted Johnson declaring that he would “not waste a penny” on Aldersley’s
challenge to Walsh, a campaign Johnson called a
“hopeless political race.” In his letter to Aldersley, he wrote: “I do
not know how you can expect anyone outside of your small circle to support you
and your colleagues ever again.”
“The mayor has a very important
political role to play in the entire region,” Aldersley says. “In terms of my
own Congressional race, would I be delighted if the mayor and I make amends and
move forward? Of course I would.” All the same, she noted that the newly drawn
district she hopes to represent does not include the City of Rochester.
Another fall election campaign will
involve portions of the city, however: the race for the 56th district state
Senate seat. Democratic County Legislator Christopher Wilmot — who also voted
to oust Cruz — considered running for that seat, but decided not to.
Aldersley says the falling out with the mayor “played a role” in Wilmot’s
decision. Wilmot wouldn’t go so far as to call it “a factor,” but did concede
that it “wouldn’t have helped.” Wilmot is now considering running for Rochester
mayor in 2005. (Johnson has said he won’t run for re-election.)
“Relationships are always two-way
streets,” says Morelle, whose Assembly district overlaps with the state Senate
district Wilmot was considering representing. “If someone wants support for a
role in the state Senate after going through a very secretive process that
upended someone important to the party, you take a second look at that.”
“If there’s maybe one good lesson”
that came out of the whole affair, says Wilmot, it’s this: “It’s best that we
all try to stay out of each other’s business as much as possible.”
Commenting on the effect the
Democratic spat might have after this year’s political season, Aldersley says,
“Unfortunately, but sometimes fortunately, we politicians have short memories.”
This article appears in Jul 10-16, 2002.
