Discussion about the Atlantic City Mayoral situation has significantly dimmed in volume. I would like to take this opportunity to re-visit the Atlantic City Democratic Committee meeting of 17 October.
In discussing the possible ways that Judge Valerie Armstrong can rule, a lot hinges on her view of the 17 October Democratic Committee meeting’s proceedings. Was the process of motions and voting legally acceptable?
I wonder why the Barsky contingent acted the way that they did. Assuming that the people who voted Scott Evans, Dominic Cappella, and Barbara Hudgins had previously agreed on those names, and further agreed on what words Evans would end his opening statements, so that Dr. Barsky would perfectly time his motion and no one else would have time to make a motion, why was the whole tactic performed so harshly? The leader of the meeting is in on the plan – again I am only thinking hypothetical – the Sargent-at-arms is in on the plan, Toni Dixon is ready with a motion to adjourn, once things work out, along with another person to second the motion, yet the band of 23 was not smooth while in-control of the A.C. Dems. Committee meeting. What else was going on?
I posit a few points:
Scott Evans overestimated his ability to deal with Marty Small, the 75 guests, and the media.
The votes were mis-counted ahead of time.
There were 41 people whom arrived, one 15 minutes late, another 30 minutes late. The final vote was 23 for the Barsky/Evans clan, 18 opposing.
I believe that the Barsky/Evans clan counted less than 21 that night. I would put the number around 19.
Further I estimate that they counted 16 SOLID votes against their motion. That puts four votes in question, but leaning against the Barsky motion.
Put your self in the counter(s)’s place: if all four uncertain votes swing to the opposition then you lose by one. Whew . . . one more of your votes comes in, now it can at worst be a tie. But if you lose the tie, that will be the worst case scenario. After all of the planning some other plan squeaks by on a tie-breaking motion, by a vote or two. That scenario is out of the question.
Whew, whew . . . another vote in favor arrives. Now it is time to vote. All the votes swing against the sloppy plan, due in main to Marty Small’s rant against the proceedings. All of your votes come through and the motion passes and is upheld against Small’s motion to reverse the first motion.
Both motions are decided 23 for Barsky’s motion and 18 for Small’s.
Maybe you enjoy my analysis, or are at least amused with the imagination. I invite you to create your own scenario of what happened behind the scenes leading up to and during that meeting in the UAW Hall. Leave your synopsis in the comments.
Here is – by request – the roll call from the meeting:
Dr. Howard Barsky
Bernice “Sandy” Couch
Arthur or William Seward
(54 people were called at the meeting. I am under the impression that there are only 52 members on the committee. There might have been substitutions due to the fact that some members were indicted. I am still looking in to this puzzle.)