<aside>

🔗 **HOME | OP-EDS | GUIDES | THE SHALLOT | CONTACT**

</aside>

<aside> 🗣

For elected officials, candidates for office, and select lobbyists or public-private leaders who influence policy and tax spending, criticism isn’t personal, it’s procedural. At Hudson Common Sense, we protect anonymity, prize fair standards, and only “call out” public officials who cross a clear line, repeatedly, and do not address or remedy their public transgressions. We invite debate, but we won’t ignore dysfunction cloaked in identity or ideology.

</aside>

In a small city, personalities often eclipse policies. Hudson Common Sense exists to reverse that tendency. We are not interested in rumours, ideology, or popularity contests. We are interested in responsibility. When elected officials cross a certain threshold, one of power, misconduct, and evasion, criticism is no longer optional. It becomes our editorial duty.

<aside>

This is not a casual standard. It is a high bar. We call it The Threshold Test.

</aside>

For Hudson Common Sense to initiate a focused and sustained critique of any individual, five clear conditions must be met:

1. Duty: They must either hold or seek public office, receive public funds, benefit directly from the public purse, or place themselves in a position to lobby for or influence the use of tax revenue through public‑private partnerships.
2. Misconduct: They must act against the public interest or display poor judgment and action bordering on malfeasance and falling clearly short of the “reasonable conduct”
3. Culpability: They must do so with malice, caprice, or ideological opportunism, and
4. Neglect: They must fail to engage in reasonable, fair communication with constituents
5. Damages: Residents, citizens, and taxpayers have or will suffer real harm.

Meet all five, and scrutiny becomes justified, even necessary.

Note we say scrutiny, not conviction or trial or excommunication, because we are not the elected District Attorney, judge or jury.

Some wonder why this publication is frequently critical of Mayor Kamal Johnson, Common Council President Tom DePietro, activist Claire Cousins, and Theresa Joyner of the Planning Board. All four were born in different cities, represent different generations in Hudson, and have distinct educational backgrounds, gender identities, and racial and social positions. Yet none of that matters here. It is their actions - or inactions - that drive our editorial scrutiny. Each has used public power in ways that, in our view, harm the public, sow division, and enable coercive and opaque governance. It also wastes tax payer funds. It is not who they are, but what they do, that matters.

Mr. DePietro has repeatedly sought elected office willingly, presides over a polarized and fractious Council, and reportedly tailors his constituent engagement to perceived allies. He has allowed outside ideologues to dominate local proceedings and physically assaulted a resident during a tax meeting. Mayor Johnson’s record includes conflicts of interest, incomplete financial disclosures, a workplace relationship with a subordinate, unexplained tax liens while raising taxes, and unresolved disciplinary matters with public institutions. He does not answer all FOILs. These are not personal lapses. They are failures in public duty.

By contrast, we often disagree with Council member Dominic Merante and Vicky Daskaloudi. But they communicate with professionalism, fulfill their duties diligently, and engage all constituents without malice. When public officials behave responsibly, we still hold them to account, but we do so with civility and respect, recognizing that pluralism and disagreement are the lifeblood of democratic governance. Or take Council member Lola Roberts. She is not particularly active or productive on the Council, we disagree with some of her votes, but she is a far ways away from meeting the threshold test on all 5 categories.

We are also guided by a strong ethic of privacy. We go out of our way to protect individuals’ identities and livelihoods unless they meet the threshold, often an affirmative choice, of public responsibility and unaccountability. That includes our editorial preference for calling in rather than calling out, offering correction in private before criticism in public. Unfortunately, when officials refuse to respond or engage, the “call-in” becomes futile, and public criticism becomes necessary.

Even so, our door… err, Inbox, remains open: though we disagree with the overwhelming majority of Mayor Johnson’s and President DePietro’s decisions, they are welcome, indeed encouraged, to submit a guest op-ed for publication. We will publish it unedited, so long as it does not violate our privacy standards. We invite clarity, not censorship.

So, if you are a private resident, we will go to extraordinary lengths to protect your privacy and anonymity. If you wish to publish a Guest Op-Ed about housing, sidewalks, or even blue garbage bags, but would rather your colleagues in Taconic or Tokyo not know you care this much about municipal minutiae, we will publish your thoughts under a pseudonym and take your identity to the grave. And if you are running for office, or currently hold it, please say hello. We will always try to “call in” first, ask questions, and understand how this small city works, and how it might work better. No one will should ever be surprised by our posts... unless, of course, they have crossed the Threshold Test, and ceased all contact.

We also reject what might be called the low-ambition trap;

the fatalism of measuring Hudson against places worse governed and congratulating ourselves for being slightly less dysfunctional. That is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Consider this: Mayor Johnson’s missteps, ranging from conflicts of interest, undisclosed financial entanglements, an apparent romantic relationship with a subordinate, large unexplained personal tax liens suddenly paid off, raising taxes amid these issues, and alleged disciplinary matters with local youth serving entities, are so galling, so extreme, that the true mystery is why criticism is not more widespread. Imagine for a moment how a previous mayor, say Tiffany Martin, would have been treated had she committed half as many lapses. The issue may not be our editorial lens, but some readers’ increasingly elastic expectations.

Above all, our mission is to champion common sense by asking uncommon questions.

We are not interested in retribution. We are, reluctantly, holding repeat offenders to account.

If you are in office, act wisely and fairly, and communicate with the public, you will not find yourself in our crosshairs. If you do not, do not confuse sunlight for shade.

If you think we are tough… be grateful you are not facing the wrath of the NYT, WSJ, or The Free Press.

<aside> ✍🏻

Last edited/updated: July 25th, 2025

</aside>

<aside> 📢

Disagree with us? Great! Common Sense welcomes heterogenous opinions. Convince us, argue with us, disagree with us… but submit your Guest-Op Ed HERE.

</aside>

ℹ️ **ABOUT**

✒️ **COMMON SENSE EDITORIALS**

🗣️ GUEST OP-EDS

📕 **101 BRIEFINGS**

📣 **ISSUES**

💡 **IDEAS**

👥 HUDSON CITY HALL DIRECTORY

Art work and inspiration taken directly from The Economist, we are decades long premium subscribers and we do not monetize the art work but use it honorifically. See full Disclaimers, Ts and Cs.