Politics is applesauce.
You almost need to be a lawyer to figure out what’s going on with the District 1 City Council race. As near as we can figure out the major issue regarding Alan Gerson’s spot on the ballot is that Board of Elections submissions -- which involve the lists of signatures needed in order to be placed on the ballot – are a big deal. There really can’t be any wiggle room. All of the information has to be in a specific form, the “cover sheet” has to be correct, and the verifications, which attest to the correctness of the signature submissions, must conform and be signed off by one person. When details go astray, so goes the logic, many more sub Rosa problems may lie beneath. Almost no one thinks that Alan Gerson has supplied false documents.
The dilemma, which the Gerson campaign currently is dealing with, is the fact that a series of errors – not seemingly egregious to the layman – has placed his submission of signatures in jeopardy. The courts are likely to rule in Gerson’s favor due to the fact that he is an incumbent and, popular or not, the mistakes do not appear to be critical. The whole process was sloppy and it was compounded by mistake after mistake.
Both Margaret Chin and Pete Gleason have understandably made an issue of the sloppiness – which, if you are trying to make a political point – underscores a certain inattention to detail at the very least.
Pete Gleason has come out swinging on this issue because he himself has been held up to a high standard of professionalism and this issue has proven his issue with Gerson’s candidacy. His criticism of Gerson has, among other things, pointed to a lack of detail, clarity, interest consistency and follow through – in representing District 1.
That’s political speak for Gerson having let down SoHo.