Posts Tagged ‘revision’

Letter to the Editor: Charter – by JAMES BROSNAN, WALLINGFORD

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

As published in the Record Journal Sunday November 1, 2009

Editor: On July31st the Town Attorney provided the Council with an explanatory text explain­ing the proposed revisions to the Charter. If adopted by the council it would have been made available to the public for review.

At the August 11th Town Council meeting four Republican councilors voted no to making it available in an effort to prevent voters from understanding the questions.

A similar mes­sage ‘ just vote no’ is now being promoted by the PAC ‘Save Our Charter’ to which the mayor is a major contributor. Say ‘NO’ to their message and cast your vote on each in­dividual question.

JAMES BROSNAN, WALLINGFORD



FROM WALLINGFORD A serious, non-partisan effort – By Michael Brodinsky

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

What would be happening now if the ques­tion concerning the Wallingford Town Coun­cil’s power to override a mayoral veto was not on the ballot?

The issue of charter revision would be a big yawn. There would be no PAC instructing folks to “Save our Charter.” Political opera­tives would not be telling voters to just vote “No.” It would be a duller election and Steve Knight wouldn’t be giving much of a hoot about this.

The anti-charter revision forces, however, anxious about preserving the Mayor’s power, have decided that the first ballot question should be the poison pill to kill all of charter revision. It’s easier to tell voters to vote “no” on every­thing, than to tell them: “Think about each ques­tion; learn about the complexities of Walling­ford’s gov­ernment ; read the ex­planatory text . . . bla bla bla.”

Woe is me. I am in the bla, bla, bla crowd.

Nine members of the Charter Revision Commission met September 2008 through June 2009 to discuss, debate, and, yes, com­promise their differences in an honest effort to recommend to voters where the Town charter needed to be changed. They were not puppets on a string. Five Democrats and four Republicans, all strong and independent thinkers, worked together for the good of the Town.

After all was said and done, after all the is­sues were examined and debated, there was only one party-line vote that approved of a change that will end up on your ballot. This was a remarkable achievement that reflected non-partisan Democracy and Wallingford governance at its best.

Each question on your ballot reflects a fa­vorable recommendation by the Charter Re­vision Commission.

Let’s see how the mem­bers voted:

 

Question One: Should the council be able to over-ride a mayoral veto by six votes in­stead of seven? 5-4 party-line vote.

Question Two: Should the Town Clerk be hired and su­pervised by the Mayor instead of appointed, every two years, by the Town Council? 7-0, unanimous vote.

Question Three (Part A) Should the Mayor appoint two members of the Board of Ethics; the council appoint two; and those four appoint a fifth? 5-3 bi-partisan plurality.

Question Three (Part B): Should the charter contain specific provisions (see ex­planatory text) intended to diminish the po­tential effect of political influences on Board of Ethics decisions? 8-0 unanimous vote.

Question Three (Part C) Should the Board of Ethics complaint procedures be strength­ened? 6-3 bi-partisan vote. (2 Democrats and 4 Republicans voting in favor.)

Question Four: Should the term of Board of Education members be increased from two years to three? 7-1 vote.

Question Five: Should the Council be able to veto actions by the PUC by 6 votes instead of seven? 7-1 vote.

Question Six: Should the required the voter turnout needed at a special election on an ordinance, by initiative or referendum, be decreased from 20 percent to 15 percent? 7-1 vote.

Ques­tion Seven: This question includes all the other changes recommended by the Charter Revision Commission, most by unanimous vote.

 

The explanatory text prepared by the Town Attorney, available at the Town Clerk’s office or at www.town.wallingford.ct.us, de­scribes just 9 of these changes. Five of the nine were approved by unanimous vote. Two changes were approved 7-1. One vote was 6-2. Another vote was 5-4, but it was not along party lines, as the four Republicans split evenly on that question.

Such a serious, non-partisan effort should not be cast aside as a sham.


FROM WALLINGFORD Wolf in sheep’s clothing by Stephen Knight

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

In 1774, John Adams popularized the phrase “Ours is a nation of laws, not of men.” The foundational documents underpinning govern­ments at all levels were written with this prem­ise in mind and the best and most effective con­stitutions and charters essentially live up to that ideal.

Certainly a thorough reading of the Walling­ford Town Charter in its current form gives the reader a clear sense that the people who wrote it understood the sacred trust placed in them to design a system protecting the structure of gov­ernment from being manipulated for political purposes by those who hold office.

The set of revisions Wallingford voters will have in front of them this Tuesday do not meet that standard. On the contrary, the revision drive was conceived by the mayor’s political opponents, and the commission was designed to produce a specific political outcome. The re­vision commission was virtually handed a set of recommendations that addressed “prob­lems” that did not exist. Because of the makeup of the commission, another engineering project of the mayor’s opponents, the output of the commission was predetermined.

If we are going to make major changes in the town’s basic governmental structure, there has to be some reason for doing so. There has been no evidence presented that warrants a Yes vote on these seven questions.

Override a mayoral veto by only six rather than seven councilors? Has this power been abused? Should we shift power away from the only full-time elected official to nine part-time councilors?

Reshuffle the Board of Ethics? Right now, the mayor appoints and the council approves. Is it an improvement to separate the appointments with no counter-approval from the other body? Does that not inject politics in appointments where none has previously existed?

Board of Ed members run every three years? So we want them to have to sometimes run campaigns during presidential election years? Will their voices possibly then be heard? Did anyone ask BOE members for their opinion?

Public Utilities decisions overridden by a vote of six councilors rather than seven? Has the independence of the PUC posed a problem? Do we want to inject politics into the decisions regarding the business enterprises they over­see?

Reduce the percentage required to pass a ref­erendum? Towns shifted away from town meet­ings to a representative form of government because the town meeting form was becoming government by interest group. Do we want to head back that way?

Change the number of PUC commissioners to five? Has the commission not functioned ad­mirably with three? Do we really want to infuse politics into that body and jeopardize the qual­ity of the services we receive?

And exactly why can’t a PUC Commissioner serve on the Economic Development Commis­sion? Just what is the conflict here? Would this little gem be aimed specifi­cally at one person now serving on the PUC? Is this the kind of personal, get­ even- with ­him politics the voters of Wallingford should sup­port?

Contrary to the mythology being put out to the contrary, the Save The Charter— Vote NO committee is depending on the voters being in­formed about these seven questions. The more voters examine the background of this revision effort and see why these particular changes found their way on to the ballot, the more they will come to realize that it is imperative that they vote NO.

This effort has been the classic “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and it is the proponents — not the opponents — that hope the voters don’t have the time in their busy lives to become in­formed, where they would quickly recognize the real damage inherent in the adoption of these Charter revisions.


Wallingford Charter Revision – Get the facts and VOTE

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

Local elections impact you more than any other election you could participate in. All the voters are from Wallingford, there is no other election that you could have a greater impact on by just voting.

In a Presidential election you are cast­ing your important vote among millions of others; in Wallingford it is one vote of about 12,000 or so because of the total number of all registered voters this is about the total number that show up.

Your locally elected officials directly af­fect everything from what you are charged in taxes by way of the budget and what allocations get handed off to support the schools that your children are attend­ing and so on. They provide the platform and funding for or removing it from all the local services you may use.

There are many changes offered to the voters in the 2009 election from the in­cumbents that are running for office again to all the newcomers throwing their hats into the ring.

There are changes being proposed to the Town Charter. This document dic­tates the guidelines of how elected offi­cials are to discharge their duties in serv­ice to you and the town and it is the first time any changes are being offered in 18 years.

You as a voter directly get your say as you get the opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” to each of the proposed changes.

Democracy at its best— all you need to do is show up.

vote  ad



Wallingford Charter Revision – By Jeffrey Knickerbocker

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

As published in the Record Journal – Saturday October 24, 2009


J­effrey K­nickerbocker w­as t­he c­hairperson o­f t­he Wallingford Charter R­evision C­ommission t­hat p­roposed t­he r­evisions t­hat wi­ll b­e o­n t­he ballot t­his N­ovember.

On November 3, Wallingford voters will cast ballots on seven questions that deal with Charter Revision. The questions deal with

1) changing the number of votes from seven to six to override a mayoral veto;

2) giving the Mayor the power to hire the Town Clerk on the basis of merit;

3) changes intended to reduce the influ­ence of insider politics on the Board of Ethics;

4) lengthening the term for the Board of Education so Board members do not have to campaign every other year;

5) allowing the Council to reverse actions of the Public Utilities Commission by six votes instead of seven;

6) reducing the size of voter turnout needed on referen­dums from 20 percent to 15 percent;

7) other changes, many of which update and better organize the Charter.

Space does not permit a discussion of all of the changes. So, I will mention just some. The second ballot question deals with the selection of a Town Clerk. Cur­rently, the Town Clerk is a patronage po­sition that depends on the party that cap­tures the majority of the Town Council. The revision would require the Town to advertise the position and hire a Town Clerk based upon a competitive process. The most qualified person would get the job. The Mayor would do the hiring. In addition, because the new Town Clerk will be selected in accordance with classi­fied service system, the Town Clerk will not change each time the mayor or the majority of the town council changes. Un­der this revision, the Town Clerk could only be removed for cause, not because of a political change. It is time to make this a professional position. The Charter Revi­sion Commission approved this measure by a unanimous, non-partisan vote. The third question on the ballot would change the charter so that two members of the Board of Ethics are appointed by the Council and two by the Mayor. A fifth would be appointed by those four. Other changes are intended to remove political influence from the Board of Ethics.

The sixth question on the ballot would change the minimum number of voters required for a referendum. The current charter requires 20 percent of the voters to turnout in order for the vote to be bind­ing. The change would require a 15 per­cent turnout. The required threshold should not be impossible, but it should be challenging. Statistics from the Connecti­cut Conference of Municipalities indicate that average turnout for a referendum is about 10 percent of the voters and 25 per­cent has probably never happened any­where. A 15 percent turnout is fair and de­serves consideration.

The seventh ballot question includes measures that insure board and commis­sion vacancies are promptly filled. An­other change would expand the Public Utilities Commission to five members, like most of our other Boards and Com­missions. Currently, the PUC has only three members and the existing charter makes no provision for alternates. What would happen if there was a sudden va­cancy or an absence from a meeting?

The seventh question also includes some changes recommended by the Town ad­ministration to update obsolete language regarding the law department, purchasing agent, building inspector, fire marshal, health department and sections on per­sonnel and pensions. Other proposed changes provide for removal of board or commission members who do not do their jobs or for excessive absenteeism.

A more complete description of all the recommended changes is available at the Town Clerk’s office, and town website, www.town.wallingford.ct.us.

Read your ballot carefully. Do your own thinking. Make an informed vote.

Technorati Tags: ,,

FROM WALLINGFORD Conservatism and the charter

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Published online at MyRecordJournal.com for print publication on Sunday October 25, 2009

FROM WALLINGFORD – Conservatism and the charter

Jason Zandri Jason From Wallingford

Charter revision certainly has sparked a lot of conversation over the past few weeks. I wrote my last piece about it and Steve Knight followed up last week and there were letters to the editor from both sides.

In my final piece before the election I’ve decided to respond to some of the comments.

The definition of “conservative” – reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.

Conservatism is prudent to an extent in this economy especially. At the same time, it is not all-encompassing and without faults either.

Over 3,000 people signed the charter revision petition. They wanted to see the charter reviewed and to vote on what the commission came up for suggested changes. On November 4th I don’t care if it all stays the way it was as long as the people have a chance to have their say.

As far as the how the composition of the commission was engineered by leaving the mayor without any appointees, there is nothing stated anywhere that this is a requirement or a right. It has always been up to the council to extend it as a courtesy or not. This council decided, along party lines, “not.”

I suppose it is fair to opine that the formation of the committee was “pure, unadulterated politics for the purpose of controlling the output of that commission.” History has shown in parallel instances that it would not be beneath either party to do this.

Comments were also made in letters to the editor that there is a small group of people pushing for the changes. I suppose that is not an incorrect statement with some clarification.

Let’s face some facts – someone has to be the catalyst or nothing gets done in this town. Don’t want a cell tower in your neighborhood? Getting your neighbors together is easy – getting the rest of the people who would be equally concerned with it if it were in their back year on board is hard. After all, at that time it’s not in their back yard. A residential Dog Kennel bothering you? Good luck getting anyone out of earshot interested in it.

The last revision to the charter was in 1989 and I was barely able to vote on it and certainly didn’t have all the information on the changes. The same is true for 1993 when the changes were declined by the voters.

In the last 16 years a lot of people have come and gone on the voting rolls. For the first time voters actually have easy access to the proposed changes in the form of documentation on the Town’s website. Yes, it was always available from Town Hall if you remembered to call for it and have it mailed to you. Today you can set the newspaper down and go look it up right from your desk immediately, while it’s in the front of your mind.

Back to the definition of “conservative.” Too much of anything is never good. It’s one thing to be reluctant to accept change and it’s another to completely resist it in totality. It’s smart to be fiscally responsible, to review any new expenditures and their necessity. It is another to continue to do things the same way without looking at new ways that might cost more at the onset but over the lifetime of the investment save the town millions of dollars.

General Motors ignored change and stuck with what worked – big honking American cars just the way we always liked them. They never realized the consumers’ tastes changed until it was basically too late.

Other companies have fallen to this fate too. Their sense of arrogance or their unwillingness to accept change and embrace what that could do for them did them in.

I’ll be darned if I let it happen to Wallingford by inertia alone.

Wallingford Charter Revision and the upcoming local election – All the details I can offer

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

I am a big proponent of people getting involved and having their voice heard.

It’s your town. 
You live here.
You pay your taxes.
You consume the services.
You might work here.
Your kids may go to school here.

Get informed – get involved.

I will often speak my thoughts and opinions on things and try to listen to other people’s stance on a given topic; when it’s all said and done I’ll make up my mind on where I stand on the subject.

I urge everyone to do the same with respect to the proposed changes to your Wallingford Charter.

Get the facts from reliable sources. If you feel like you need more on the subject then ask to speak with people that know a lot about the subject. I would first suggest the original members of the Charter Revision Commission – they debated everything; if there’s any opinions as to why these 7 specific changes, I would suggest they are the experts.

Once you do all of this I suggest you decide where you fall on each topic and vote on November 3rd.

Vote yes or no on some or all – but VOTE.

Here are some links to recent posts on my blogs regarding the Wallingford Charter Revision and voting in general for your review. The dates are when I got around to getting them online and as new ones go up between now and the election I’ll be sure to put the updates online.

September 27th, 2009 FROM WALLINGFORD – Hey kids, it’s time to show up

October 9th, 2009 FROM WALLINGFORD – ‘Save our Charter’ from whom?

October 17th, 2009 EXPLANATORY TEXT OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE WALLINGFORD TOWN CHARTER

October 20th, 2009 VIDEO – Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable

October 21st, 2009 Letter to the Editor: Charter Challenge by Mike Brodinsky, Chairman Wallingford Town Council

October 23rd, 2009 Brodinsky challenges Knight over charter revision proposals

October 23rd, 2009 FROM WALLINGFORD Conservatism and the charter

October 24th, 2009 Wallingford Charter Revision – By Jeffrey Knickerbocker

October 31st, 2009 VIDEO – Talking Charter with Mike Brodinsky

November 1st, 2009 Wallingford Charter Revision – Get the facts and VOTE

November 1st, 2009 FROM WALLINGFORD Wolf in sheep’s clothing by Stephen Knight

November 1st, 2009 FROM WALLINGFORD A serious, non-partisan effort – By Michael Brodinsky

November 1st, 2009 Letter to the Editor: Charter – by JAMES BROSNAN, WALLINGFORD

 

Brodinsky challenges Knight over charter revision proposals

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

As published in the Record Journal – Friday October 23, 2009

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

WALLINGFORD — Sup­porters and opponents of an attempt to revise the Town Charter are ramping up the heat as the Nov. 3 referendum nears.

Incensed at what he termed “misrepresentation” of the charter referendum, Michael Brodinsky, Democratic chair­man of the Town Council, challenged Stephen Knight, a former Republican councilor, to a debate to be aired live on the town’s Community Access TV station next Monday.

Knight, who writes a bi­weekly column for the Record ­Journal about Wallingford is­sues, declined by e-mail earlier this week, arguing that since neither he nor Brodinsky are running for public office this year their debate would over­shadow the candidates.

“I am no longer an elected official, nor am I even an offi­cer in the Republican Town Committee. I am just an indi­vidual who has had the privi­lege of writing a column in the Record-Journal,” Knight wrote. “Neither you nor I are running for political office, and a de­bate between us would be a disservice to those who are candidates and are working hard to attract voter support for the election on November 3rd.”

Brodinsky, who has served four non-consecutive terms on the council, said he intends to show up at the station’s 128 Center St. studio at 7 p.m. Monday anyway to “give the other side of the story” in re­sponse to Knight’s position that charter revision is an ef­fort to diminish the power of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.

“I’m going to talk about his article and highlight how he’s wrong and talk about the changes proposed to the char­ter and how they (would) ben­efit the people of Wallingford,” Brodinsky said, noting that there are proposed revisions that don’t affect the mayor’s powers and some that increase them.

Dickinson, the town’s cur­rent Republican mayor, has held office since 1984. Knight served seven consecutive terms on the council before choosing not to seek re-elec­tion in 2007.

Brodinsky also serves as the moderator of a roundtable dis­cussion on the proposed revi­sions produced by Robert Gross, who is running for a seat on the council as a Demo­crat this year and was involved in forming a charter revision commission.

Gross said his intention was to reassemble the entire nine­ member Charter Revision Commission for a dialogue on the proposed revisions, but that only Democrats Deborah Gross (his wife) and Jeffrey Knickerbocker and Republican Vincent Cervoni were able to attend the Oct. 12 taping. He said several members of the commission declined his invi­tation, while others simply couldn’t fit it into their sched­ules.

“I was going to do it whether there was a vote no or vote yes campaign,” Gross said. “The idea was there were seven unique questions on the ballot and if people wanted to learn what these seven questions were about, who better (to an­swer) than the people who came up with them.”

The one-hour-and-17-minute program will air at least once daily on Channel 18 for Com­cast Cable subscribers through Election Day and is available online at http://www.blip.tv/file/2742094/.

Wallingford resident Wesley Lubee recently filed a com­plaint with the state Election Enforcement Commission al­leging that the “Save Our Charter” political action com­mittee formed by Christopher Diorio, a member of the Re­publican Town Committee, vi­olated the state’s election laws because it spent money to in­fluence the outcome of an election before filing the nec­essary paperwork to legally es­tablish the committee.

Diorio said that Lubee’s complaint was another exam­ple of how “politically parti­san” the revision process has become.

Lubee recently changed his voter registration status to De­mocrat. Prior to that, Lubee was a registered Republican for many years.

Adopted in 1961, the charter has been revised four times since, the last in 1989. An at­tempted revision was voted down by residents in 1993.



Letter to the Editor: Charter Challenge by Mike Brodinsky, Chairman Wallingford Town Council

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

As published in the Record Journal – Wednesday October 21, 2009

Charter Challenge

Editor: “Save The Charter” is an example of PAC politics at its worst.

Founder Chris Diorio promotes lawn signs that say “Vote No” on charter revi­sion. He said (R-J, Oct. 6 letters) that his goal was to inform citizens about the pro­posed changes to the charter. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Steve Knight’s bunk-filled column pub­lished in the R-J on 10/18/09 shows he is in league with Diorio. His tactic is misrep­resentation. His mission is to encourage ignorance and create fear. He wildly char­acterizes all of charter revision as a Dem­ocratic conspiracy to undermine the mayor. He’s not telling the truth. Steve doesn’t disclose the recommended char­ter changes that either enhance the mayor’s powers or have nothing to do with the mayor. In addition, he insults the hardworking Charter Revision Commis­sion members of both parties.

I, therefore, challenge Steve Knight to a debate. Let’s see if he can back up his out­rageous comments. The subject of the de­bate will be the issues and assertions in his commentary printed on Oct. 18.

If we cannot agree on another mutually agreeable time, place, date, and format, I will be ready to debate Knight at the stu­dio of Channel 18 on Center Street on Monday, October 26 at 7:00 p.m. We’ll de­bate with a live feed. My suggestion is that we should have a time-keeper with the power to intervene if ground rules are violated. We’ll do an opening and closing statement lasting 7 minutes. A coin flip will determine who goes first with a com­ment or question. We will alternate. He and I may make 7 points relevant to his article, limited to 5 minutes each. The other side has up to 5 minutes for a reply.

I ask Steve to please RSVP.

Mike Brodinsky, Chairman Wallingford Town Council



Technorati Tags: ,,

VIDEO – Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

There is now a video available for viewing online – Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable

Mike Brodinsky moderates a discussion of the seven charter revision questions on the November 3 ballot.

Charter revision Chairman Jeffrey Knickerbocker is joined by commission members Vincent Cervoni and Debbie Gross


Technorati Tags: ,,,,