Some City Council People Need to Go

[EastSideres]

There are some members of the City Council that really have to go. Some have been there so long ,so entrenched that they have no forward thinking ideas. Their big egos and arrogance just exasperate the problems this City is facing. Some talk to you others just nod their heads and not listening and some just talk down to you just because they are on the Council and think THEIR way is the best way. I would like to name the few the arrogant and the egotistical but that could be violating this sites rules and regulations

[wallyworld resident]

I assume you mean Meriden because you refer to the City Council. If you include Town Council or State government or government in general just about anyone who reads this would probably agree with you.
The sad part is that they seem to find a way to get re-elected. You have no monopoly in your frustration.

[gunderstone]

I can't speak for Meriden but with respect to Wallingford the reason you cannot run the current council out during any given election is due to the fact that the two political parties seem unable to find enough candidates to run or are unwilling to run more than the bare minimum slate of six each.

In Wallingford up to nine people can be on any party's slate for town council and if both parties ran a full slate of 9 each for a total of 18 the townspeople, in theory, could overturn the full council in one election.

With respect to the facts, it is very unlikely that would ever happen in general but it cannot ever have a chance to happen if the political parties never run a full slate.

Is this a strategy or is it due to the inability to field good solid candidates to run?

If its a "strategy" its a HUGE disservice to the public as it limits their choice


In a previous post http://forums.ctrecord.com/showthread.php?p=93#post93

I indicated the following (in part):

If you feel like you're getting the representation you expect from officials you're electing then I suppose you're all set - you can put the same ones back in.

However, if you feel you're not you really NEED to contact the political party you belong to and tell them - run me a full slate of candidates so I have real choice.

Overturning a maximum of three town council seats per election is not effecting voter choice - it’s limiting the voter's options.

I suppose you could argue that over three elections (six years) this could be done but by the time someone is in office this amount of time it's entirely possible for them to become part of the problem you're trying to resolve by turning over the guard.

In my opinion the only way to do that is one clean sweep but Wallingford voters never get that chance.

If the majority of the town of Wallingford thought it was time to turn the entire town council over it cannot be done in a single election UNLESS both parties ran 9 candidates or a mix of mostly full slates come with unaffiliated candidates. With 18 people running (or more if unaffiliated candidates run), the old nine could be voted out and a new nine could be voted in.

I feel the political parties in town REALLY need to provide this option by each finding 9 candidates that want to run for town council. They should be responsible to provide the voting public this choice (or at the minimum at least offer an explanation why this could not be done)

If the opinion is, voters are content then neither party should have anything to fear - they can run full ballots and the voters will keep their favorites on the council and then nothing changes and then there's no shadow of a doubt.

If the choice is not available then that is limiting the voter's options and if it's being done intentionally it the wrong thing for the people of Wallingford.

Enough of this strategy - it sounds like people saying "you can vote by staying home because staying home is like a "NO" vote"

That's bull - if you want to vote "NO" go out and vote "NO"

If you want to put the same people back in office year after year then good for you but if it’s the result of not having enough available choice then that's really an ugly thing in my opinion.

[Man in the Middle]

There are some members of the City Council that really have to go. Some have been there so long ,so entrenched that they have no forward thinking ideas. Their big egos and arrogance just exasperate the problems this City is facing. Some talk to you others just nod their heads and not listening and some just talk down to you just because they are on the Council and think THEIR way is the best way. I would like to name the few the arrogant and the egotistical but that could be violating this sites rules and regulations

Why not name them, they're public officials, they can take the heat. If you're not brave enough to do that, then, who would you LIKE to see on the City Council? And why?

[EastSideres]

Why not name them, they're public officials, they can take the heat. If you're not brave enough to do that, then, who would you LIKE to see on the City Council? And why?


Keith Gordon