VIDEO - Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable

[gunderstone]

There is now a video available for viewing online - Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable (http://bit.ly/1Csxwc)

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

[Wallyworldite]

Just like Mike to have two proponents of Charter Revision, and one opponent to Charter Revision for his "fair and balanced" presentation. Seems like the Charter Revision Commission selection process all over again...

There is no reason to change our Charter, unless of course you are a Democrat and want to reduce the mayor's power...

See this thread for just some of the reasons why this coup should be stopped:

http://forums.ctrecord.com/showthread.php?t=4158

Get informed and then VOTE NO for all seven questions!

[TRUTHANDTOOTH]

Maybe all the commission members were invited and the only Republican who showed up was Cervoni? He's a candidate so getting on Channel 18 is not a bad thing for him. He's a lawyer and can hold his own. He did a good job. I watched the video. It was well done and it was balanced. Actually, pretty interesting, too. Until you watch it, you have no grounds to comment.

[flatrat]

Get informed and then VOTE NO for all seven questions!

Explain to us why we should vote no on all seven. Why dont you just tell us to stay home and not vote, like you guys did on the Wooding-Caplan Dinatale condo fiasco?

I will be voting no on some and yes on others. Make up your own minds. I dont see anything particularly partisan in any of the questions.

For example. The Fire Marshall job is highly technical. Would would anyone choose the town council over a Fire Chief to hire a FM ? Who do you think is more qualified to do a job interview?

And why would you oppose a board of ethics?

1. “Shall the Charter be revised to provide for an override of a mayoral veto by six votes of the Town Council where it now provides for seven votes?”

2. “Shall the Charter be revised to provide for the appointment of a Town Clerk by the Mayor in accordance with the classified service system where it is now an appointment by the Town Council for a two-year term?”

3. “Shall the Charter be revised to reorganize the Chapter on the Board of Ethics in order to provide for: (a) the creation of a Board with two appointments by the Mayor, two by the Town Council and one member appointed by the Board; (b) specific qualifications of the members; (c) refinements to the complaint procedure?”

4. “Shall the Charter be revised to provide for a three-year term for Board of Education members where it is now a two-year term?”

5. “Shall the Charter be revised to provide for a veto by the Town Council of any action of the Public Utilities Commission by six votes where it now provides for seven votes?”

6. “Shall the Charter be revised to provide for the passage of a referendum or ordinance by initiative by a majority vote of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the electors entitled to vote where it now requires twenty percent (20%)?”

7. “Shall the Charter be revised to incorporate all additional revisions made by the Charter Revision Commission, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) updated and gender neutral language; (b) a revised method of appointment and removal of board/commission members by the Mayor and Town Council; (c) revisions to the Purchasing, Personnel and Land Use sections including making the Town Planner a position under the Charter and making the appointment of the Environmental Planner by the Mayor where it is now done by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission; (d) make the appointment and supervision of the Fire Marshal by the Fire Chief where it is now done by the Town Council; (e) increase the membership of the Public Utilities Commission from three to five members; (f) provide that a member of the Public Utilities Commission may not serve on land use boards or the Economic Development Commission; (g) extend the time within which the Town Council may veto an action by the Public Utilities Commission from fifteen to twenty-one days; (h) permit budgeting certain appropriations in annual installments; and (i) require a mandatory review of the Charter at least every ten years?”

[Bustopher Jones]

There is no reason to change our Charter
In order for cities and towns to meet the challenges of the coming years, they must be organized according to a rational structure that promotes responsiveness and accountability. To maintain and enhance this structure, all municipalities should revisit their Charters periodically. The National Civic League recognizes that evolving times present new challenges and new opporutnities; it is for this reason that they constantly monitor new trends and developments, and periodically update the Model City Charter (currently in its 8th edition) based on innovative political concepts and reforms. Failure to periodically review the document that establishes and controls our form of government results in stagnation, inefficiency, and lost opportunities. A vibrant, dynamic, and modernized Charter is an imperative to improve and optimize the structure and procedures of local government and to increase its effectiveness; thus, periodic review and updating is essential. I, for one, do not endorse stagnation; our community deserves better.

And while I am not (as TRUTHANDTOOTH will attest) a fan of Chairman Brodinsky, he deserves credit for creating a venue that informs the electorate with respect to the issues, rather than advocating an "all or nothing" approach to the decision-making process.

[flatrat]

And of course our US constitution is perfect, that's why we have 26 amendments.

[Wallyworldite]

For example. The Fire Marshall job is highly technical. Would would anyone choose the town council over a Fire Chief to hire a FM ? Who do you think is more qualified to do a job interview?

And why would you oppose a board of ethics?



There is NO question that deals solely with the fire marshal issue. Unfortunately for our democracy, the Democrats chose to tuck that into a question that has alot of other things with it, some of which are objectionable. If this were by itself, I would probably support it. This tactic by the Democrats is just like the pork barrel projects that they push in Congress. "Vote for this", and there's all that other stuff in there.

As to the Board of Ethics, I am not against having a Board of Ethics. In fact, we already have one. I oppose the changes that the democrats are proposing to make to the board. Remember that it was the Democratic majority of the Commission that passed this and it is the Democratic majority of the Town Council that is trying to ram these changes down our throats. It is time to get rid of the Democratic majority!

Please VOTE NO on all the charter questions!

[flatrat]

This tactic by the Democrats is just like the pork barrel projects that they push in Congress. "Vote for this", and there's all that other stuff in there.

Remember that it was the Democratic majority of the Commission that passed this and it is the Democratic majority of the Town Council that is trying to ram these changes down our throats. It is time to get rid of the Democratic majority!

Please VOTE NO on all the charter questions!

Thanks for explaining to me that its only congressional Democrats who "push" pork barrel projects. That must mean Sen. Steven (R-AK, felon) Bridge to Nowhere project wasnt pork. We all know there is no such thing as Republican pork.

And one can infer by your rhetoric, that while Republicans "pass" legislation, Democrats "ram" legislation down our throats.

Thanks for pointing all that out to me.

Your blind partisanship interferes with any rational arguments you have yet to produce as to why we should vote no on all seven.

I'm tempted to vote yes on all seven. But I'll decide for myself based on facts and merits, not blind party loyalty.

I can still remember the referendum on the rec department move, sticking it way up in the North farms industrial park, within safe walking or bicycling distance to no child. There was a vote. The move was soundly defeated. The project went ahead anyway because they didnt get 20% turnout of the registered voters . Heck, you'll be luck to get 20% this November. So much for the will of the people and democracy. Did Dinatale own the building?

I still see nothing in the charter revisions which are partisan.

What are Republicans afraid of? There must be something more to this.

[gunderstone]

What are Republicans afraid of? There must be something more to this.

The only thing they want to save is the way things are being done around town which probably have some level of self serving purpose to them.

I wrote an entire article on this http://bit.ly/msLiN

Steve Knight offered his rebuttal http://bit.ly/4FHQMt

Mike Brodinsky, Chairman Wallingford Town Council followed up with a letter to the editor that appeared Wednesday October 21, 2009 and I cross posted it here - http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=348

Mike challenged Steve Knight to a debate; I was told this evening that he declined which is his prerogative.

By the way, the Save our Charter PAC was funded as follows:

Michael Glidden $200
Laurie Manke $200
William Wadsworth $250
William Dickinson $250

Just so you know who is twisting your arms...