By CRAIG FREILICH

POTSDAM – Several prominent village Democrats say a better system of picking candidates is needed following the recent selection of two political novices over incumbent Trustee Eleanor Hopke to run for village board seats this November.

At the recent village Democratic caucus, Hopke received 12 votes, compared to 17 for Nicholas Sheehan, a manager at J.E. Sheehan Contracting of Potsdam, and 16 for Michael LaSala, who works at the state Department of Labor’s Ogdensburg office.

“There were 25 people there, and 12 voted for me,” said Hopke, who now plans to run as an independent. “So 25 out of 900 registered Democrats chose the candidates.” Not all of the 25 attending cast two votes for the three candidates.

The dissatisfaction with the caucus method arises from the usually low number of participants and what seems to be a haphazard way of picking a party’s standard-bearers.

Potsdam Village Democratic Committee Chair and Village Trustee Steve Warr agrees a caucus seems to be a sort of hit-or-miss way to pick candidates, he said.

“It’s a crying shame that in the village you can’t just petition to get yourself on the ballot,” Warr said.

Hopke, first elected four years ago, says she was “blindsided” by the caucus results. A second board seat is up for grabs in November since Trustee Reinhold Tischler, the former mayor, opted to run for mayor again since Steven Yurgartis will not be seeking reelection.

Popularity Contest?

Warr said that what transpired did not surprise him. “I’m not ever surprised at a caucus,” he said.

But, he said, “everyone knows if you want a shot at it, you have to bring people to support you. Caucus night is a popularity contest.

“When Eleanor was nominated four years ago she brought lots of people to support her.”

He said he chaired the caucus but played no part in bringing out supporters for any potential candidate.

“I called five or six people and asked them to come to support whoever they wanted, but they were all out of town, so they couldn’t come.”

He said he was approached as chairman by LaSala and Sheehan to see if they might run. “I explained the ins and outs, and the commitment levels that are expected” of a trustee.

“I told them it’s a popularity contest, and if you get enough people, you win. If it works out for you, good. If not, you can try again in two years when more seats are up for election.”

Meanwhile Judy Rich, a Democrat on the Potsdam Town Council and a village resident, was at the caucus and was disappointed when Hopke didn’t win a spot on the ballot outright.

“I thought she was a shoo-in. There were 25 people there. Most people didn’t know there was a caucus. Most people didn’t even know what happens in a caucus. It’s a joke.”

Better System in Town?

Rich says she much prefers the system the party’s town members use, where prospective candidates go out and talk to people, get people to sign a petition for them, and if they qualify, they are in a party primary in September. That offers people a chance to get to know the candidates a bit more, especially at something like a “meet the candidates” night before a primary. “People show up for something like that” and participate, Rich said.

But Warr said that under state election law, village party candidates have to go through the caucus process first, and St. Lawrence County Democratic Election Commissioner Jennie Bacon confirmed that. “According to NYS Election law villages must caucus for all recognized parties,” she said in an email message.

“I’m disappointed more people don’t show up for caucuses, but that’s been the norm. That’s the process. That’s been my experience with turnout,” said Warr. “But you can’t expect people to show up to support the process when we don’t like the process.

“I think the way to go is for people to be able to petition to get themselves on the ballot. One vote, one election.”

But, Warr said, “A primary’s not the answer either. Somebody has to pay for a primary election” with ballots, machines, and inspectors.

New Blood vs. Experience

Meanwhile, Warr is torn between the desire for “new blood on the board” expressed by caucus members and the need for experienced board members.

As for Hopke in particular, while not specifically endorsing her independent candidacy, Warr said “Eleanor is very good for our board. She’s well thought of.”

And while Warr admits to being prone to impulsive decision-making, “she prevents knee-jerk decisions.

“The fact that she’s not on the ticket leads us to a position of possibly having two young first-term trustees who will need time to learn what to do and how things work.

“I’m thrilled to death the younger guys want to get involved.

“That said, it takes a full term to get up to speed and begin formulating ideas. The second term is when you really get productive,” Warr said.

At the same time, Warr said, “Eleanor has talked about term limits. But I’m not sure two terms is right, one to learn, and a second to be more productive,” Warr said, suggesting that maybe three or more terms might be a good limit.

Hopke said shortly after the caucus that she felt that “it was very clear that a majority wanted the good old boys back in control.” She said it seemed like a popularity contest.

Undeterred after the caucus, she gathered enough signatures on a petition to get her name on the ballot as an independent candidate and submitted it to the county Board of Elections. The board acknowledges receiving it but as of late last week had not passed judgment yet on its validity.