The Shadow War: Blue Dog Edition

On February 4, 2009, Chestnut Hill Community Association directors Mark Keintz and Bob Rossman delivered a new ultimatum from a CHCA board faction in the form of a "final warning" to Chestnut Hill Local editor Pete Mazzaccaro. This despite losing a 14-12 vote - in secret only days earlier - to summarily fire him for doing his job.

Even though two of the cabal that seeks to control the Local have resigned since the vote, even though the entire set of actions is in direct violation of the CHCA by-laws and, finally, without any sort of mandate, let alone a plurality of support by the true owners of the Local - the members of the community association - this group insists on forging ahead, determined to silence the one organization deliberately created as a watchdog for the community against the very sort of machinations being executed by a select group of the current board.

Preceding this were a series of exchanges among board members, notable in their not addressing problems but looking to lay the blame on staff of the Local for the troubles created by the clumsy interventions of certain board members.

A telling comment came from Walter Sullivan, Philadelphia Democratic Party honcho and newly-minted board member. Sullivan said in an e-mail to selected parties:

"I do not challenge their right to say on their blog what they feel. But those feelings and attitudes among our employees need give us deep concern. Yes, we have a problem with the attitudes of our employees. For example, just read the Alloway/Joel Hoffman/Lombardi Northwest Notebook blog at: http://chnotebook.blogspot.com. [Ed Note: You're there. Don't go looking for it.] Yes, we must find ways to address and ameliorate those concerns. I do not believe that the Bylaws are the vehicle for doing that."

Apparently not, when the executive committee plays by Calvinball rules. It's far easier to meet in secret and plan to pick off those who provide oversight on an individual basis

After a short interval, interrupted by said departures of board directors Learned and Hickey (both expressing legal liability concerns and unaware of the failure of the 'just following orders' defense), Keintz and Rossman carried out their mission like good soldiers.

But we digress. It is this foray into revisionist history (or false memory) that allows Sullivan to offer the stunning excuses to justify the process he endorses. In the missive, he writes:

At the January 22 Bylaws Committee meeting, someone said that the employees felt that they were oppressed. Yes, I then stated that while at least some and perhaps all of them may feel that they are oppressed, they are not oppressed, and that to my certain knowledge one Board member and one former Board member, if not others, had for several years been stirring up among them that feeling of oppression, alienation, and resentment. That dated back at least to the events of late 2005-2006 involving Jim Sturdivant's resignation. It was unfortunate that Jim resigned, for it would have been far better had he brought his concerns to the Board which I know would have vindicated his editorial control. The three people (all employees who naturally enough saw his proposed editorial before publication) and who then counseled him to revise it may have or have not erred, but as co-employees their recommendations scarcely comprised an infringement of editorial control. There was a suspicion that Maxine as President was somehow behind this. Were that true, that would have been such an intolerable infringement. She insisted that she was not, and I have no reason to disbelieve her. That at least, if not before, was where this feeling of oppression, alienation, and resentment among some or all of the employees began."

This comes from some who started his epistle with "Nobody in CHCA but a fool could not be a Friend of the Local, the publication of which is among the most important of our functions if not arguably the most important. As to myself, a lifelong left liberal and supporter of labor (i.e., employees), that goes without saying."

This is a friend of Labor? This is someone who, when contending with labor issues in his own domain, apparently resorts to the old muscle tactics of 19th century industrialists. This man sits as a member of a Democratic Party committee? Can you say Blue Dog? There are surely some Progressives who could better represent working interests. As Democrats, we need to consider our options. Walter Sullivan is no longer an option for the Democratic Party.

Scott Alloway
Registered Democrat