Posts Tagged ‘election’

Tomorrow, Tuesday November 8, 2011 is Election Day

Monday, November 7th, 2011

It’s not often that you get your chance to have your say, really have the opportunity to voice your mind and thoughts.

You do get an optimum chance on Election Day more so than any other time of the year.

There is no body of government that can affect you as much and that you have as much effect on as your municipal government.

Your municipal leaders regulate your ordinances, set the local budget for the town and the schools, as well as maintain and manage the tax base of the town.

If you voted in the federal election in 2008 you were one voice in 169 million registered. (About 133 million showed up to cast a vote).

86 million democrat – 55 million republican – 28 million others registered.

Of those voters there were 132,645,504 total voters out of an eligible voting age population of 212,702,354, which gives you a 62.4% participation rate.

For the elections held at the state level here in Connecticut as of 2010 the total number of registered voters is a hair over 2 million.

The largest group of registered voters in Connecticut is unaffiliated, accounting for 831,962 voters. There are 743,580 registered Democrats and 413,854 registered Republicans.

So when 73 percent of the state voters turnout, your voice is one in 1.46 million.

You as the voter in Wallingford during a municipal election are one of about 25,000 registered. During our last municipal election only 35.6 percent of the registered voters turned out.

Your voice there is one of about 8,900.

Where do you think your voice is the loudest?

Where do you think your voice is best heard among all the noise?

Wallingford is your town – get informed, get involved and VOTE on Tuesday November 8th

FROM WALLINGFORD – November 2 is Election Day

Sunday, October 24th, 2010

As published in the Record Journal on Sunday October 24, 2010

Jason Zandri

image

Faithful readers have come to know that my big slant every election season is to get people out to vote. They know that the times in between I push the message “get informed, get involved.”

Is it enough to at least go out and “just vote”? Some might say that the mostly or totally uninformed should just stay home with those that are unwilling to vote as they cause more harm than good.

While I would much rather have an informed electorate, at the minimum I want an involved and interactive one. If the most you can do is go into the booth and “pull” your party line at least you’ve taken some action for yourself.

Get over the notion that your vote doesn’t matter.

Everything you do matters and that includes casting your vote on Election Day. It’s unfortunate that most of the people running for office for this election have leveraged heavily on the negative advertising tactics. While I cannot say I have seen all the ads, I can say I’ve seen many. I have only seen one to date that was straightforward and spoke of skill, ability, plan and direction and that didn’t tear down the other people running for that office.

I think that is something that most of our candidates misunderstand and it’s a lost opportunity to connect with their constituents.

Especially in times like these, where the economy is still in rough shape and the recovery is slow to take hold across all sectors, an opportunity presents itself to the candidates who wish to serve to reconnect with “Joe the Plummer” and offer some hope and positive direction.

Why did we as children look up to the likes of Superman and Joe DiMaggio? Because they were all we could hope to be and they were positive influences. In many cases they were all that we could never be but they were positive influences all the same.

Why do we as adults fixate on Hollywood and the rich and famous more so than on our neighbors down the street? Some of it is because of the allure of what we can’t have and for the most part could never hope to obtain (but we dream we could anyway). The rest of the reason why is because the rich and famous have prosperity and that is another of those positive things.

It’s true that folks enjoy nothing more than when some famous person of the day is caught up in a divorce, scandal or some other downfall because that makes them as human and every day as everyone else.

Much of what draws us to them in the first place is the potential of being successful and “having it good,” something sorely lacking with the current state of things for most everyday people.

When it comes time for us everyday people to consider our choices of who will govern for us for the next term it’s unfortunate that most of what is presented to us is negative information on the other candidate.

I am foolishly hoping that perhaps next year will be a better year for campaigns and that people running for office would focus their efforts on the positive side of things, things they believe they could accomplish in office rather than deciding how to showcase how their opponent is lacking the ability to do something.

Running for office is like applying for a job; if any of these folks went in to an employer “selling” themselves by saying what the other people for the position cannot do I doubt any of the lot would be hired.

Nothing important is easy and voting is important — we are going to have to wade through all the negative information and try to make informed choices.

We owe it to ourselves and to our families.

Get informed, get involved and vote on Election Day.

FROM WALLINGFORD – People had other things to do

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

As Published in the Record Journal – Sunday August 15, 2010

Jason Zandri

100_1606_crop2

So the Primary race has ended. All the money that was spent by candidates seems to have been wasted on an electorate that basically had other things to do than show up and vote.

In Thursday’s Record Journal there was a cartoon depicting an excited TV viewer watching American Idol while clicking away on a phone (presumably to vote for a contestant). The next panel showed the same viewer snoozing in front of the television that was illustrating election information.

Unofficial voter statistics published showed that 2,969 voters came out and cast their vote for the office of Governor in Wallingford. That is the combined totals for the Republicans and the Democrats. The numbers were even lower for other races.

As of 2008, there were nearly 26,000 registered voters in Wallingford. If that number is still correct (or at least close) then the 2,969 voters represent an 11.4 percent turnout.

To be fair, a 26,000 registered voter total includes unaffiliated voters who cannot vote in the primary but despite that fact, the turnout is what I perceive to be unacceptably low for a free democracy. In other countries where the threat of physical harm up to and including death is often realized upon the electorate, the numbers of those that turn out are higher there than what we see here in America on a regular basis.

The primary on Tuesday was to select which people, from those that were nominated and from those that had enough support to force the primary, would be on the ballot for this upcoming November election.

Wallingford’s turnout was very low but they had plenty of company; most towns were in the same area percentagewise.

Secretary of the State Bysiewicz reported an average statewide turnout of about 20 percent around 5 pm on primary day as reported in the Hartford Courant.

Many will give myriad reasons why they “couldn’t” vote. Often it has to do with not having the spare time. These are the same people that leave the line in the coffee shop and head out to go wait an hour in line for fast food. They’ll complain about how bad the economy is too but you’ll see them daily in line buying food and coffee that could be prepared at home for much cheaper. But I digress.
Some will give you the argument of “there was no one running that I liked or cared for enough to be bothered to go.”

Who would you have then? Name me someone you think should have been running and then let’s you and me go and have a conversation with them and see if we can encourage them to run at some future date.

Someone has to run the town/state/country — if not these candidates then who?

If you are not going to help choose them by showing up to vote then the same minority of people that ARE turning out will keep putting THEIR favorites into office.

You don’t get to pick your boss (in most cases) and that person directly affects your ability to make a living. You can’t choose your family either (and that may be a plus or a minus).

What you do have the ability to do is vote your choices for who you want to govern you.

Why the majority chooses not to, year after year, election after election is a mystery to me.

I wonder: if the privilege to vote were to be forever revoked for three occurrences of non participation if it would change attitudes and the apparent lack of participation?

Unfortunately, you can’t claim to be a free society and attempt to compel citizens to vote.

Still, it’s a shame that the will of the electorate from the majority standpoint always seems to be one of non participation and no confidence.

If this were the attitude in 1776 we’d still be an English Colony today.

Today is Primary Day – Polls are open until 8PM

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

Make sure you take the time to get out there and cast your votes for who you want on the ballot come election day in November

Wallingford Democrat Ballot as provided in the Record Journal

image

Wallingford Republican Ballot as provided in the Record Journal

image

FROM WALLINGFORD – It’s your town

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

As originally published online at MyRecordJournal.com and in the Sunday Record Journal print edition on January 3, 2010.

JASON ZANDRI

Jason From WallingfordThere was a lot of activity in Wallingford over the course of 2009.

Updating the town website in compliance with House Bill No. 6502, parking issues on Center and Main streets and downtown in general, dredging project at Mackenzie Reservoir, to name just a few – there was a lot on Wallingford’s plate at the beginning of the year.

The 2009 budget came along with work on the Reskin Drive bridge (which is still not completed, much to the chagrin of the residents in the area).

There was the cease-and-desist order given regarding the publishing to the web of the Government TV-produced-programs in April which included Town Council and other public meetings, despite the purchase of brand new remote-controlled cameras in the Town Council Chambers.

Charter Revision hearings were held and the finished topics were given some input from the council and the people. The final questions were delivered to the electorate where they were effectively summarily dismissed by the voters that turned out.

While it was one of the lowest voter turnouts in recent history for a local election, the ones that did come out spoke loudly – "steady as she goes on the charter; we are content with the governing playbook for the town."

Regardless of whether it was low turnout, charter revision questions, lack of a Democrat candidate for mayor or the fact that it was partly cloudy – voters changed the makeup of both the Town Council and the Board of Education for the next two years.

So, where are we headed for 2010?

Unfinished issues, such as the Choate proposal to build the Environmental Center and asking for the closure of Old Durham Road, will likely resurface.

Issues with downtown are still open for discussion and action – from the parking situation which hasn’t gotten any better to the new overlay district being proposed.

There is the issue with the Police Department’s needs for expansion. This will not occur this year; it needs further discussion because actions need to take place ahead of any proposed work.

Is the Wooding-Caplan property to be used for this cause, or another piece of property elsewhere?

If another property is chosen, you still have to address "what do we do with Wooding-Caplan"?

Budget season will be on us a lot faster than most would like, and with the education portion of the budget greater than 60 percent of the entire budget, it is going to be a difficult pill to swallow.

Wallingford will have to deal with local taxes in conjunction with less available state funding for prior programs.

How the upcoming revaluation will affect the mill rate and whether it impacts homeowners or businesses equally or throws one out of the current alignment with the other remains to be seen.

Wallingford has famously worked to budget to a certain degree the expected spend for the year and tries to hold that line, sometimes cutting back or out something to keep from going into the red.

The taxes need to be collected in order for spend to occur; this is going to be a big challenge this upcoming year, unlike anything Wallingford has seen in recent memory.

There are a lot of other things that are going to be coming up over the course of the year that I don’t have the space to present.

Your say of what is to happen with your town didn’t end at the voting booth this past November – it was just the start.

Make sure you stay informed and engaged all year. Make it a point to have your voice heard either to your representatives or through them. Have them base decisions which are representative of what you want. Do not have them make the decisions for you.

It’s your town – get informed, get involved.

Mike Brodinsky’s got places to go and people to see – that is, he’s got a lot of livin’ to do – and he’s not planning to do it at Town Hall

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Sunday December 20, 2009

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

Fast Facts

Michael Brodinsky Age: 65 Four Town Council terms (2000-03 and 2006-09).

Occupation: Retired attorney.

Education: Bachelor’s in government, Colby College; law degree, University of Connecticut.

Nov. 2, 1999: Elected to first term on Town Council as a Democrat.

Oct. 9, 2002: Declares his intention to challenge Wallingford’s longtime Republican mayor, William W. Dickinson Jr., nearly 13 months before the election.

Nov. 4, 2003: Despite raising more than $51,000 in campaign funds, Dickinson wins 6,991 to 5,308.

Nov. 8, 2005: Elected to third council term

Jan. 7, 2008: Sworn in as council chairman to start his fourth term.

June 18, 2009: Informs Democratic Town Committee that he won’t seek re-election.

Dec. 15, 2009: Chairs his final council meeting.

WALLINGFORD — Michael Brodinsky’s term as chairman of the Wallingford Town Council technically wraps up when a new council is sworn in on Jan. 4, but his duties and obligation to the town effectively ended after last Tues­day’s council meeting, the last of the year.

Brodinsky, a Democrat who has served four non-consecutive terms, ended this phase of his political ca­reer much as he has spent a large portion of it: in vocal opposition to and open criticism of a course of action proposed by William W. Dickinson Jr., the town’s veteran Republican chief executive.

Brodinsky, a licensed attorney, argued that if the council voted to accept a $200,000 state grant to­ward the construction of a loop to connect the town’s Senior Center to the Quinnipiac River Linear Trail, it would be required to fund a project that would need an additional $756,000 in the coming fiscal year.

Dickinson, who is also a trained attorney, disputed this, and the council voted 6-3 to accept the grant over Brodinsky’s protests.

If there was one role that Brodin­sky filled for much of his four terms on the council and as its chairman, it was as the Democrats’ strongest, loudest and most salient counter­balance to Dickinson’s agenda. His departure leaves the party, which reverts to a 6-3 minority next month, without a clear opposi­tional leader to the Republicans, who will control the council, school board and mayor’s office.

Although Brodinsky has been tight-lipped about why he’s divorc­ing himself from politics, he gave two reasons in an interview at his home last week: he feels he has served long enough and he wants to explore other oppor­tunities and avenues in life outside of municipal politics.

When asked, Brodinsky, 65, said he does not foresee a return to town politics in his fu­ture, unlike in 2004, when he recaptured a seat on the coun­cil after losing a mayoral con­test to Dickinson the previous year.

“I don’t foresee myself com­ing back,” Brodinsky said. “I’m sympathetic to the concept of term limits. Whether it’s imposed by law or self-imposed, I think it’s good for the organi­zation and good for the indi­vidual.”

This view contrasts with Dickinson, who won his 14th consecutive term last month.

“I don’t want to be on the Town Council for 20 years,” Brodinsky continued. “There’s other things that I want to do and I’ve decided, in conjunc­tion with my wife, that now’s the time to do some of those things.”

But an underlying frustra­tion with the council’s limited authority, which he freely ad­mits, may have contributed to his decision to step aside.

“The council doesn’t have a lot of power, by charter,” Brodinsky said. “There are very few things that we can do. Our authority over the budget is minimal — it’s perceived to be greater than it is. The one area that we can call the shots on is open space (and) real es­tate deals; everything else is controlled or directed practi­cally, or as a matter of charter law, by the mayor.”

It was frustration with Dick­inson and his policies that first led Brodinsky to pursue local politics.

Brodinsky and Dickinson

In the late 1990s, just as he was preparing to abandon his 25-year career at Kemper In­surance to pursue private practice (and a more relaxed work­load), Brodinsky sat through a City Council meeting and was amazed to hear Dickinson tell the council that not only did Wallingford not have a surplus account, but that the mayor was unfamiliar with the term “surplus” altogether.

Brodinsky said he was even more amazed that no one on the council pressed Dickinson harder for amore thorough ex­planation of what the town does with its excess money, which totaled more than $20 million at the end of the last fiscal year, including more than $11 million that was undesignated.

“I thought maybe the Town Council, and the town, could benefit from my presence up there,” Brodinsky said of his decision to run for the council in 1999. He self-funded his ini­tial campaign with $26,000.

What followed was an in­creasingly contentious rela­tionship, over municipal mat­ters at least, with Dickinson.

“I think what Mike did is he gave you his view as to what he thought should be going on in the town,” said Vincent Avallone, chairman of the Demo­cratic Town Committee. “He wasn’t there just to attack the mayor; he was doing his duty as a councilor and thinking in terms of the best interests of the town. When the mayor was right, he agreed with him; when the mayor was wrong, he opposed him.”

Brodinsky and Dickinson had their fair share of political clashes over the years, from the disagreement over the trail funding to Brodinsky’s 13­month campaign for mayor in 2002 and 2003, in which he raised more than $51,000 in campaign contributions— still believed to be a town record, and more than double Dickin­son’s war chest for that election — but lost by nearly 1,700 votes. That was the closest the Democrats had come since Pe­ter Gouveia lost to Dickinson by 31 votes in 1989, or have come since.

Brodinsky has also squared off against the town in court.

The town, under Dickin­son’s direction, in 2003 sought to survey 150 acres of Walter and Joyce Werbiski’s farmland near North Farms Road for a possible industrial park, but the couple fought back in court, hiring Brodinsky as their attorney.

The town ultimately pre­vailed in the state Supreme Court, but not before a por­tion of the debate spilled over into council proceed­ings when Brodinsky recused himself from the discussion and proceeded to grill Dick­inson and the council from the audience about their in­tentions.

Both Dickinson and Brodin­sky, however, tend to dispute the assertion that they are con­stantly at political loggerheads with one another, both noting that if that were the case, very little would get accomplished at council meetings.

“Cleary, we had disagree­ments on a variety of issues, but it wasn’t a situation where we couldn’t talk to one another or had heated arguments all the time that got nowhere,” Dickinson said.

And Brodinsky pointed out the numerous times during his four terms that he voted in fa­vor of items put forth by Dickinson, and said the media tended to “spice up” the times when they disagreed.

Avallone said he believes the Democrats will still have a vocal presence on the council when Brodinsky leaves and the Republicans take over, but noted that Brodinsky’s exami­nation skills as an attorney and knowledge of state law will be missed.

“I think we have three peo­ple who are capable of putting forth the issues and making sure they are discussed openly and honestly,” said Avallone, who is also a licensed attorney. “Mike had some abilities and experience in the legal profes­sion that benefited him quite well, there’s no question about that, but it’s hard to compare one councilor to another.”

Vincent Testa, the Democratic council vice chairman who will remain on the coun­cil next month, agreed with Avallone.

“I’m sure I can speak for my two Democratic colleagues when I say we will be heard from and we will make every effort possible to make sure that our positions are heard,” Testa said, referring to incum­bent Nick Economopoulos and newcomer John Sullivan.

Brodinsky and Choate

Brodinsky also clashed with Edward Shanahan, headmaster of prestigious private second­ary school Choate Rosemary Hall, when he came in June to ask the council to close a half mile portion of Old Durham road to allow the construction of an environmental center in the area.

Over the next four months, a contentious back and forth be­tween the two men played out in a series of meetings — both public and private— letters, e­mail exchanges and, at times, even on the editorial pages of the Record-Journal.
Choate withdrew its request for the road in October — although it has hinted that the idea might return when the Re­publicans take control next month — but Shanahan remains openly critical of Brodin­sky’s handling of the matter.

“I thought that he, for one reason or another, didn’t en­able the conversation to move forward to some kind of a resolution in a timely way. There were times that I got the im­pression that, for whatever reason, he just wanted to drag it out,” Shanahan said last week, adding that he felt Brodinsky himself was not particularly hospitable to him or the school during the pro­ceedings. “At times I felt like I was being cross-examined in a court of law.”

Testa disagreed with Shana­han’s characterization, maintaining that it was the school’s obligation to devise a compen­sation package for the road that was acceptable to the council, not the other way around.

“I don’t fault in any way the way Mike handled that,” Testa said. “A lot of that was in Choate’s hands, and I think, unfortunately, a lot of people misinterpreted his approach to handing the discussion to mean that he was against it. If anything, he was very careful about making sure we didn’t violate any (Freedom of Infor­mation Act) laws regarding how the council could discuss the request.”

Brodinsky said Choate ex­pected a “sweetheart deal” in exchange for the road, and that he felt it was his obligation to residents to come to an agree­ment that was of actual benefit to the town.

“I’m not hostile to Choate — I’m hostile to sweetheart deals with private entities,” Brodin­sky said. “And if it takes a little persistence to sort of push back against forces that want a sweetheart deal, it was, in my opinion, my duty to do it. Not everybody was happy with that, but that’s the way it had to be.”

Dickinson openly endorsed the school’s proposal.

Accentuating the positive

Testa said integrity and transparency in government have always been Brodinsky’s basic operating principles dur­ing his time on the council.

“He’s a man of incredible integrity,” Testa said. “There was always a driving force in everything that he’s done, and that was in making sure that it was above board. That’s something that Mike’s been consistent with since he first got involved in the town. He’s not one to look at something and wink and nod and just let it go.”

Even Robert Parisi, a long­time Republican councilor who is expected to reassume the chairmanship in January, echoed much of Testa’s praise.

“I have a lot of respect for Mike; I always did have,” Parisi said. “He’s very hard working, he’s creative and very precise. He’s a good councilman and he’s served the town well over the years.”

When asked about his legacy as a councilor, Brodin­sky grimaced — the one thing it should not be, he asserted, was as Dickinson’s “primary political opponent.”

He then pointed out the Wallingford Energy Conserva­tion Commission, an initiative that he helped spearhead last year to explore ways the town can reduce its energy consumption. The commission re­cently worked with the school system and other town depart­ments on an energy audit of the town’s schools, which found $500,000 in potential savings annually if the town spends $1.3 million for retro­fits.

“The mission statement is to try and save the town money by reducing energy costs and reducing the carbon foot­print,” Brodinsky said, lauding the group’s progress over a short period of time.

When pressed, Brodinsky did not entirely rule out a re­turn to town politics, however, and said his decision not to seek re-election this year, which he informed the Demo­cratic Town Committee of on June 18, literally came down to the wire.

“Being on the council, and especially as chairman, is very time consuming, and it’s just time to take a break,” he said. “The decision was a very close one and I was waiting till the last minute because it was so close.

There was a possibility that I could have flipped the other way and said, ‘ OK, another term or two,’ but I decided, all things considered, this was a good time to start doing some of the other things that we’ve wanted to do.”

Whether the town ends up needing to appropriate $756,000 for the trail project will be decided during the budget process this spring, but it should be far from Brodinsky’s mind; he has intention­ally planned a vacation in Hawaii in May, just as the council will vote on Dickin­son’s budget proposal.

FROM WALLINGFORD – Two election themes

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

By Stephen Knight

V-Knight_S Well, local elections are over, and it is tempting to spend this entire column speculating as to why they concluded as they did. My counterpart, Jason Zandri, wrote about the low turnout as a factor, and perhaps it was. But not running a can­didate for mayor and not articulating a single reason that the seven politically motivated Charter Revision questions should receive a yes vote were far larger factors. Add to that a general discontent in the state and nation over how govern­ment is performing under the Democrats and you have a “perfect storm” that led to the lopsided results.

Instead of dissecting the results of this election, let’s look at two basic themes spelled out by both parties and virtually every candidate. If you put aside the Charter Revision questions, there were really no huge issues separating the par­ties, but every candidate did campaign on two basic premises: 1) they would govern the town with fiscal prudence by applying their expertise and experience; and 2) they think Wallingford is a wonderful place to live and they want to do their part to keep it that way.

Theme one— fiscal prudence: This touchstone of local government is part of Wallingford’s political DNA, and candidates for public office here know it, be they Democrat or Republican. The theme for this election was no different from others in that regard. Our town is, frankly, an oasis of municipal fiscal sanity in a sea of irresponsible government spending. Our voters’ wish list is very short: provide basic services efficiently, govern honestly and fairly, and keep taxes reasonable.

Wallingford voters are skeptical of, and will not elect, politicians promising all kinds of expanded town services. There have been attempts to influence by one group or another with promises to build this facility or offer that service, but those efforts have not borne fruit at the ballot box. In this election, the only promise made — and made by every single candi­date— was to continue the legacy of care­ful, almost parsimonious oversight of our tax dollars. Part of that was the economy speaking, no doubt, but most of it came from knowing what Wallingford voters expect to hear.

Theme two — Wallingford as a great town to live in: Now I know that it is boilerplate politic speak for people running for office to refer to their town as a great place to live. Fair enough. But as I listened to the thirty candidates for local office at the League of Women Voters Forum held in October, I was struck by their statements of genuine affection for the town in which they live and the good fortune they felt in living here. They weren’t talking about the gov­ernment; they were speaking of the town and, by extension, the people in it. A part of the Wallingford voters’ evaluation of a candidate is based on how well that per­son understands the special sense of com­munity that residents here so value and what that candidate will do to protect it. All thirty of them, in one way or the other, sought to assure the electorate that “they get it.”

Every election has its own unique sig­nature, because the people and the issues are constantly evolving. This one was unique in several respects as was dis­cussed at the beginning of this column. However, these two themes are the threads that knit all Wallingford elections together. The people carrying out the du­ties of elected officials will change. I am confident that these two building blocks of our town government will long remain.

Technorati Tags: ,,

FROM WALLINGFORD – Voter Apathy

Sunday, November 8th, 2009


As published in the Record Journal Sunday November 8, 2009

JASON ZANDRI

Jason From Wallingford

With the election over, I have been reflecting on the outcome. Some of the people that I supported for Town Council made it, others didn’t and the same was true for Board of Education. I didn’t support all of the suggested changes for the charter; having said that, none of the proposals made it through.

I am actually not deeply concerned with all of this, really, because I always look at it as “the people have spoken” and that is the entire point of any election. Those that have been elected to various offices are going to be the ones to carry the charge for the operation and execution of the business of running the town for the next two years.

I’ll praise them for the things they get right and I’ll challenge them when I think they may not be going forward in the best or most efficient manner for the betterment of Wallingford.

My biggest concern is with how few voters showed up.

I am sure not having an opponent to Mayor Dickinson was part of the cause, but Wallingford was not unique in low voter turnout.

Farmington had 36 percent of their registered voters turning out (6,013 out of 16,707 registered) and Guilford had 37.7 percent turning out (5,910 out of 15,660 registered).

Plenty of other towns came close to or eclipsed 50 percent turnout and for a local election – that is pretty good. Those towns were under 10,000 registered voters, reflecting a smaller population than Wallingford.

So what makes 64.4 percent of the registered voters stay home on local Election Day in larger towns like Wallingford?

It can’t be the amount of time it takes to vote; I was in an out of Dag in less than 10 minutes, and that included time I spent talking with someone and buying baked goods that a group was selling as a fundraiser. I spent more time at the drive-thru getting my breakfast this morning.

It can’t be the lack of available information regarding candidates or the issues; there were forums, website, blogs, newspaper articles – you name it – teeming with more available information than the average person could consume.

I guess only 35.6 percent of the registered voters feel that their vote matters locally.

I hate to say it, but they are wrong. The town council and the office of mayor control many things that directly affect your day-to-day life in the town we all call home.

From the school budgets to taxes collected, from services that are offered to ones not, to the ordinances that are passed and if/how they are enforced – ALL are the result of the work of those who get put into office.

The voices of 8,850 people have set the stage for the next two years for 44,859.

Obviously, many of the total number of residents of Wallingford are children that are unable to register to vote, but it completely blows my mind that 16,020 of the 24,870 that are eligible to vote let 8,850 speak for them.

I spoke with a resident this morning after I dropped my daughter off at the Recreation Department; they were complaining about a neighbor of theirs that was blowing leaves into the road rather than bagging them. This resident knew that Wallingford does not have a vacuum service for the leaves and that the leaves must be bagged. They said “someone should bring this up to someone that could do something about it – this happens every year.”

I responded, “you have the issue, why don’t you make the call to get something done?”

They replied, “I’d like to know why I need to – I would think our elected officials would be on top of something like this.”

I asked, “did you vote yesterday?”

They replied, “no.”

I said nothing, and walked away.

For Wallingford Dems it was the morning after

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Party takes stock after big reversal

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

WALLINGFORD — A day after a resounding Republican victory in the local election, Democrats were left to won­der what went so wrong.

In addition to voters knock­ing down by large margins all seven proposed amendments to the Town Charter, which Republicans had vocally op­posed, the GOP also seized control of the Town Council and the Board of Education, while William W. Dickinson Jr., the unopposed Republican mayor, won election to a 14th consecutive term.

But Democrats Wednesday seemed divided on the ulti­mate cause of their defeat, with some placing the blame on low voter turnout or the lack of a headlining mayoral candidate, while others attrib­uted the results to a sense of dissatisfaction with the Demo­cratic Party on a national level or a local backlash against the attempted charter revision.

“I think a couple of things happened,” said Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Aval­lone. “Obviously, we didn’t have a mayoral candidate, which I think hurt us; and, sec­ond, charter revision. I don’t believe in what the Republi­cans did, but they were suc­cessful in turning (the revision attempt) into an attack on the mayor, and that energized the mayor’s base.”

The revision attempt had been a thorny issue through­out, and Republicans continu­ally portrayed it as a veiled at­tempt to whittle away at Dickinson’s powers. Dickinson even made it a campaign issue, repeatedly voicing his opposi­tion to the proposed amend­ments during speeches and in his campaign literature.

Low voter turnout and the absence of a candidate for mayor also appear to have fig­ured prominently in the De­mocrats’ defeat. The only other time the De­mocrats did not field a chal­lenger to Dickinson was in 2001, when the mayor’s sole opponent was Pasquale Melillo, who ran as an inde­pendent. That year, Republi­cans seized a 6-3 majority on both the council and the Board of Education, polling 56 per­cent of all votes cast.

Tuesday’s election will lead to a 6-3 Republican majority on the council and a 5-4 advan­tage on the school board when the new members are sworn in Jan. 4. Party breakdowns for this year’s election were not available Wednesday, but only 8,850 of the town’s 24,870 reg­istered voters, 35.6 percent, turned out to cast ballots. Just over 41 percent of the elec­torate turned out for the 2001 election.

“I’d start at the top of the ticket and look down,” said John Sullivan, a local media personality and one of only three Democrats elected to the council Tuesday. “If we had a mayoral candidate, I think we would have gotten more voters out.”

A bumper crop of eight can­didates for six spots on the council and seven for six avail­able school board posts may also have adversely affected the election’s overall outcome, but many were split on the precise impact.

Because the charter states that no party can occupy more than six seats on the council or the school board, both parties have established an unwritten rule in recent years to run no more than six candidates for either panel. But the Democ­rats successfully broke with that rule in 2007, when Nick Economopoulos petitioned his way onto the ticket as a sev­enth candidate and helped the Democrats secure a 5-4 coun­cil majority.

This year, both parties nom­inated seven candidates for seats on the council and the Board of Education, while Geno Zandri, a former five­ term councilor and the Demo­cratic candidate for mayor in 1999, petitioned his way onto the Democratic ticket after the party held its nominating cau­cus over the summer.

But Robert Gross, who was unsuccessful in his council bid as a Democrat this year, did not attribute his party’s loss to an overcrowded ballot.

“Definitely not,” Gross said. “The Republicans ran seven and they won six of them, they almost won seven if the rules would have allowed it, so I don’t think that was a factor.”

Economopoulos and Vin­cent Testa, the council’s vice chairman, were the only two incumbent Democrats to win. Economopoulos described his party’s poor showing as a “compound fracture.”

He attributed the results to an unfavorable perception of Democrats on the national level, but noted that not having a candidate for mayor and run­ning too many strong candi­dates for council in the same year did not help the party with local voters.

“I already talked to them about that last night,” Economopoulos said. “I told them if they want to do any­thing in two years, we need to start planning now. We need to strengthen our Town Commit­tee. It’s not like there was a weakness here or a weakness there; I think it was just a prob­lem of our whole philosophy.”

Low Voter turnout in Wallingford

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

I have the current numbers on voter turnout – it was lower than I expected.

 

2001
Town of Wallingford total number of names on official check list: 25,635
Town of Wallingford total number of names checked as having voted: 11,036
Town of Wallingford turnout percentage: 43.1%

 

2003
Town of Wallingford total number of names on official check list: 24,825
Town of Wallingford total number of names checked as having voted: 12,389
Town of Wallingford turnout percentage: 49.9%

 

2005
Town of Wallingford total number of names on official check list: 26,718
Town of Wallingford total number of names checked as having voted: 12,719
Town of Wallingford turnout percentage: 47.6%

 

2007
Town of Wallingford total number of names on official check list: 25,461
Town of Wallingford total number of names checked as having voted: 11,624
Town of Wallingford turnout percentage: 45.7%

 

2009
Town of Wallingford total number of names on official check list: 24,870
Town of Wallingford total number of names checked as having voted: 8,850
Town of Wallingford turnout percentage: 35.6%

Technorati Tags: ,,