Performance art politics at the local level

The House of Representatives is established in the United States Constitution as part of the governing apparatus of this country.  It is expected to pass laws and approve budgets.  The structure of government created by the Constitution was produced by compromise among the founding fathers.  It has more or less functioned with compromise for most of the country’s 235 years.

You may have noticed the antics of such politicians as Margorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz and others.  They have starred in the Republican chaos that has engulfed the House for the past 16 months.

Such chaos is pretty much not seen on the local level.  As an old saying goes, “there is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning the streets.”  Most governments on the local and county level follow that dictum and just get the job done, often working some good bi-partisan compromises into the mix.

There are, however, a couple of local exceptions to that way of operating in the towns of Cheektowaga and Hamburg.

Cheektowaga last November elected Councilmember Brian Nowak as Supervisor.  He defeated his fellow Councilmember Michael Jasinski by 53 votes.  Nowak’s move to the Supervisor’s office left a vacancy on the Council and left the body divided with three Democrats and three Republicans.

Jasinski did not take his defeat well. He complained, in a Facebook quote included in a Buffalo News story that “Brian Nowak has cheated.”  He furnished no evidence but nonetheless accused Nowak of breaking “several election laws.”  He has carried his disagreements into 2024, where together with his two fellow Republican Councilmembers he has worked to gum up the operations of town government.

While Jasinski has tied up a variety of town issues the one that is most significant for town residents at the moment is the issuance of $11 million in bonds for work including:

  • $5.5 million for replacement of a deteriorated corrugated metal storm system installed in 1957
  • A full-depth reconstruction of two town-owned streets
  • $3.95 million for sanitary sewer repairs and rehabilitation at the Genesee Street pump station
  • $2.25 million for road repairs

Jasinski recently told the Buffalo News “[t]he issue I have with bonding is that it basically equates into raising taxes.”  He would support just the sewer work because the roads “really aren’t that bad.”

Jasinski and the other Town Board Republicans have repeatedly voted against the $11 million bond plan and say they will come up with their own plans for infrastructure improvements.  They claim that the town should decide on a smaller project list which they would pay for with town reserves.  But then, as Geoff Kelly for Investigative Post reports, Jasinski actually voted against his own resolution “which would have directed the town’s highway department to use $500,000 in reserve funds to pay for road repairs.”

Supervisor Nowak informs me that “the highway fund has unrestricted fund balance of approximately $6 million as of the beginning of March 2024. The Sanitary Drainage fund has roughly $4.2 million in sanitary sewer reserves as of the beginning of March 2024…  Towns and municipalities have used ARP [federal] funds to cover recurring budget expenses. Expenses grew as tax levies did not. Now we see villages, towns, and cities having to address the end of ARP funds as their expenses grew and tax levies did not. Because of this, the Town of Cheektowaga has to be very careful in regard to its cash flow and cash reserves. Our expenses grew faster than our tax levies, especially in the 2023 and 2024 budgets prepared by the previous Cheektowaga Supervisor. I have an obligation to maintain a reasonable amount of savings as part of multi-year budget planning. We need to be prepared for emergencies and unexpected cost increases.”

Meanwhile in Hamburg the recent flip of Town Board control to Republican/Conservative members has the new majority challenging the infrastructure plans of Democratic Supervisor Randall Hoak which were supported by the previously Democratic-controlled Council.  Newly elected Councilmember Frank Bogulski has been opposing a $9 million bond issue that would fund renovations of the town’s ice rink and community center.  Instead Bogulski proposes a brand-new combined ice rink and community center financed not by town bonds but by some sort of unidentified public-private arrangement.

Justin Sondel in recent Hamburg Sun editions reported on the issue.  He notes that the type of plan that Bogulski is suggesting has been reviewed previously on more than one occasion.  Sondel points out that similar developments in other towns and on Seneca Nation property have cost more than double what the proposed renovations and updates to existing facilities in Hamburg would cost.  Bogulski has not identified potential private partners who could help fund his suggestion.  He is looking for a plan that basically will cost the taxpayers nothing.  Sondel quotes Bogulski’s comments at a town Board meeting:  “We don’t have to raise taxes.  We can generate other sources of revenue.”

In the meantime, while the Hamburg Board await the alternative, the opportunity to proceed in an expeditious manner is slipping away.  Without needed renovations the ice rink could become non-functional if mechanical breakdowns occur.  Pre-scheduled events at the facility could be left holding the bag.

Perhaps when all is said and done the two sides in the two towns will come together with compromises that will move things along.  Or not.

The fiction about some magical funding arrangements that do not raise taxes but instead drain reserves and look for elusive “other sources of funds” may leave the roads and sewers in Cheektowaga and the ice rink and community center in Hamburg undone for 2024 with larger costs for the work hanging out into the future.

Playing to the crowd may seem like the way to go for some politicians.  It does not, however, serve local residents when critical public works are on the table.  Playing games with needed projects reminds me of an old car repair commercial: “the choice is yours; you can pay me now or you can pay me later.”

Political performance art on the local level does not get the extensive media coverage that the national characters get for such antics.  The end results, however, are the same: the public interest is not served.

In memoriam

Tom Gleed, who worked in Democratic politics for many years as a member of Mayor Tony Masiello’s staff and then at the Board of Elections, passed away last week.  Tom worked with many public organizations in Western New York and was an LGBTQ+ activist.  He was a well-liked and respected member of the community.  Rest in peace, Tom.

X/Twitter @kenkruly

Threads   kenkruly

Related articles

Trump has DISASTER LANDING as TRIP ENDS in TOTAL FAILURE

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald...

Seeing the National Guard on our streets is bad — but we must beware Trump’s Plan B



I saw some of my former Naval War College colleagues at the recent No Kings rally in Providence. Given that National Guard troops and protestors had clashed in Los Angeles at an earlier June rally protesting ICE raids, we wondered whether we would see National Guard troops as we marched, where they would be from, and their mission? We didn’t. That doesn’t mean, however, that there is no need for concern about the future.

The National Guard is unique to the U.S. military given it is under the authority of both state governors and the federal government and has both a domestic and federal mission. Governors can call up the National Guard when states have a crisis, either a natural disaster or a human-made one. Federal authorities can call on the National Guard for overseas deployment and to enforce federal law.

President Dwight Eisenhower used both federalized National Guard units and regular U.S. Army units to enforce desegregation laws in Arkansas in 1957. But using military troops to intimidate citizens and support partisan politics, especially by bringing National Guard units from other states has never been, and should never be, part of its mission.

But that’s what is happening now.

A host of Democratic U.S. senators, led by Dick Durbin of Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called for an inquiry into the Trump administration’s recent domestic deployment of active-duty and National Guard troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee.

In an Oct. 17 letter to the Defense Department’s Inspector General, the senators challenge the legality of the domestic troop deployment and charge that it undermines military readiness and politicizes the nation’s military.

Ostensibly, the troops have been sent to cities “overrun” with crime. Yet data shows that has not been the case. Troops have been sent to largely Democratic-run cities in Democratic-led states.

The case for political theater being the real reason behind the deployment certainly was strengthened when largely Republican Mississippi sent troops to Washington D.C., even though crime in Mississippi cities like Jackson is higher than in D.C. Additionally, there is an even more dangerous purpose to the troop presence — that of normalizing the idea of troops on the streets, a key facet of authoritarian rule.

There are fundamental differences in training and mission between military troops and civilian law enforcement, with troop presence raising the potential for escalation and excessive force, and the erosion of both civil liberties and military readiness.

Troop deployments have hit some stumbling blocks. Judges, including those appointed by President Donald Trump, have in cases like Portland impeded administration attempts to send troops. Mayors and governors, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, have pushed back as well.

While the Trump administration has shown its willingness to ignore the law, it has also shown a significant ability to come up with a “Plan B.” In this case, Plan B, used by many past dictators, is likely the utilization of private military companies (PMC).

Countries have used these mercenary organizations to advance strategic goals abroad in many instances. Though the Wagner Group, fully funded by the Kremlin, was disbanded after a rebellion against the regular Russian military in 2023, Vladimir Putin continues to use PMCs to advance strategic goals in Ukraine and other regions of the world wrapped in a cloak of plausible deniability. Nigeria has used them internally to fight Boko Haram. The United States used Blackwater in Afghanistan in the early days after 9/11. Overall, the use of PMCs abroad is highly controversial as it involves complex tradeoffs between flexibility, expertise and need with considerable risks to accountability, ethics and long-term stability.

Domestically, the use of PMCs offer leaders facing unrest the advantage of creating and operating in legal “gray zones.” Leaders not confident of the loyalty of a country’s armed forces have resorted to these kinds of private armies. Adolf Hitler relied on his paramilitary storm troopers, or “brown shirts” to create and use violence and intimidation against Jews and perceived political opponents. Similarly, Benito Mussolini’s “black shirts,” Serbian paramilitaries, and PMCs in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya served similar purposes.

President Donald Trump has said he is “open” to the idea of using PMCs to help deport undocumented immigrants. He has militarized Homeland Security agents to send to Portland, evidencing his willingness to circumvent legal challenges. And perhaps most glaringly, poorly qualified and trained masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are already terrorizing American cities.

At the No Kings rally in Providence my former colleagues and I did see a man in an unfamiliar uniform — with a gun and handcuffs — standing alone on the sidewalk along the march path. He wasn’t doing anything threatening, just watching. In the past, he might not have even been noticed.

But that day he was. Some people even waved to him. Protestors are not yet intimidated, but they are wary, and rightfully so.

Be aware, America. They have a Plan B.

  • Joan Johnson-Freese of Newport is professor emeritus of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and a Senior Fellow at Women in International Security. She earned a Ph.D. in international relations and affairs from Kent State University. She is an adjunct Government Department faculty member at Harvard Extension and Summer Schools, teaching courses on women, peace & security, grand strategy & U.S. national security and leadership. Her book, “Leadership in War & Peace: Masculine & Feminine,” was released in March 2025 from Routledge. Her website is joanjohnsonfreese.com.

Judge Gives LA U.S. Attorney the Alina Habba Treatment

Essayli Ruled Ineligible In what is now the third such ruling, a federal judge disqualified Bill Essayli as acting U.S....