Wallingford Charter Revision and the upcoming local election

[gunderstone]

This is a cross post from my blog From the Mind of Jason Zandri (http://zandri.net/Blog)

I will be updating the information on this post with anything new pertaining to the upcoming election and the charter revision vote.

As of 10/24/2009 here is how the post reads and the links to other stories as available:



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 the subject; 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 (http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=321)

October 9th, 2009 FROM WALLINGFORD – ‘Save our Charter’ from whom? (http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=333)

October 17th, 2009 EXPLANATORY TEXT OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE WALLINGFORD TOWN CHARTER (http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=336)

October 20th, 2009 VIDEO – Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable (http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=342)

October 21st, 2009 Letter to the Editor: Charter Challenge by Mike Brodinsky, Chairman Wallingford Town Council (http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=348)

October 23rd, 2009 Brodinsky challenges Knight over charter revision proposals (http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=357)

October 23rd, 2009 FROM WALLINGFORD Conservatism and the charter (http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=365)

October 24th, 2009 Wallingford Charter Revision – By Jeffrey Knickerbocker (http://zandri.net/Blog/?p=371)

[Wallyworldite]

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.

Yes, gunderstone let's ask the EXPERTS.

Ask them why a sitting mayor for the first time in our town's history was not afforded a representative on the Commission.

Ask them why the revisions make for better government (rather than more control for the Democrats)

In your selective listing of links relative to this issue, it appears that you left our THIS article:

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=20216577&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=594803&rfi=8

in which Commission member Kate Wall says, not that reducing the number of votes to override a mayoral veto will make for BETTER government, but rather because of what THIS mayor has done (or not):


"I've gone back and forth on this issue quite a bit. I really have struggled with this whole idea very much," Wall, a former town clerk, said before the vote. "I think the fiscal responsibility (in town) should be shared, and it should be where the mayor should have to talk to the council, and the council should have to talk to the mayor. And I'm not always seeing that. You have to be able to have both branches work together, so I'm going to support the 6-3 because I think we have been held back on many things that could have gone forward because the mayor has decided not to go ahead on something that the council brought forward."

Face it, there may have been some good faith reasons to look at tyhe charter but, once the Democrats let Bob Gross and Geno Zandri hijack the system it was quite apparent what (and is) going on.

Its funny that the Democratic members of the Council claim that "some independent citizens" got the petition signatures, and now the two main proponents of charter revision are now on their council ticket. That is what I hate about politics. Although it may make for strange bedfellows, it was quite apparent from the beginning who was orchestrating this mess.

Yes, get informed. We have one of the best towns around. There is no reason to so drastically alter our form of government just becasue the Democrats can't beat the mayor in the voting booth.

I have said the same for quite a while now. Here is a previous post where I briefly outlined some of the reasons why I will be (as an informed citizen) voting NO! on November 3.


At the outset, the Charter Revision process itself was significantly flawed. EVERY other Charter Revision Commission before this one, allowed the mayor appointees to the Commission. The fact of the matter is that the Commission recommended a reduction of power in the executive branch, yet the executive branch had no appointees to the Commission. As soon as the Democrats took control of the council they started to talk about this Charter Revision. It is quite telling that two of the signature collectors who CLAIMED to be independents (Zandri and Gross) are now running for the Town Council on the Democratic ticket!


Nonetheless, the following are my comments:

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?”
Why should an override be able to be achieved just because it is political? Our charter allows for no more than six councilors from a party to be on the council. Making the requirement seven REQUIRES at least one from another party to override the veto. WE have checks and balances... this gets rid of the checks and balances.


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?”
In my opinion, the Town Clerk should be an elected position and that should be for 4 year terms.


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?”
Part of this "revision" calls for the fact that if you have donated money to the mayor or any member of the Town Council within the last three years, that you cannot sit on the Ethics Commission. That is ridiculous, and restricts a resident's free speech rights.

Do you know what the actual "specific qualifications" are? There are pages and pages of changes to the ethics rules, and are unnecessary.



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?”
Why? No member of the Board of Education, past, present or future has spoken in favor of this "revision" The fact of the matter is that with every other cycle, the Board of Ed will be running on the Presidetial ballot. There will be NO attention given to the BOE candidates. This revision is just a smokescreen to try and hide the Democrat's agenda of reducing the power of the Republican mayor.


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?”
Why? The mayor gets to appoint the members. ASs with the above, if an override can occur just because it is political, then why (or how? ) does this make for BETTER government? [Hint: It doesn't]


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%)?”
Why? A referendum should reflect what our citizens want..., NOT what a particular small group wants. In my opinion, the amount necessary should INCREASE.


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?”
If the Democratically controlled Charter Revision Commission had curtailed themselves to the gender and tense changes in this final question, then perhaps I would support it. Unfortunately, they are trying to waste our tax dollars with this "revision" Please notice that (in section i) they are mandating a review of the Charter AT LEAST every ten years. The fact of the matter is that THIS Charter Revision scam will cost the taxpayers approximately $20,000.00. Our state statutes allow for a procedure for the revision of the charter. There is no reason to mandate our town to expend funds. It is quite apparent what the Democrats will do with our tax dollars when given the chance.

This has nothing to do with education. It seems to me that the opponents of the Wooding Caplan project had signs that said, "Vote Yes" to repeal, yet they didn't educate the public as to why... Now they complain? Sounds like hypocrisy to me... But, then again I am not surprised when you look at who the complainers are...

__________________


And I say it, once again, VOTE NO on every question!

[flatrat]

Yes, get informed. We have one of the best towns around. There is no reason to so drastically alter our form of government just becasue the Democrats can't beat the mayor in the voting booth.

And I say it, once again, VOTE NO on every question!


Republicans, they same party that clings to the illusion that we have the best health care system in the world.

Sounds like our local government should have checks and balances, and not be an oligarchy, or as Glenn Beck calls it, an OLIGARHY.

And I'm sure that when King Dick the First retires, and the Dems take power, all of a sudden the Repubs will be screaming for checks and balances in local government.

Dont vote no on all, dont vote yes on all. Vote what makes sense to you, the individual voter.

[Bustopher Jones]

Dont vote no on all, dont vote yes on all. Vote what makes sense to you, the individual voter.
I couldn't have said it better, so I won't try. :)

[TRUTHANDTOOTH]

The mayor didn't get to pick any members to the Charter Revision Commission because the law say that it is the Council that makes the choices. It's clear. It is expected that the majority on a charter revision commission reflects the majority on the council. That has always been the case in Wallingford.

The past two Charter Revision Commissions had 11 members. The Democrats held six Council seats, and they made six appointments. The three Republicans councilors made three appointments. Back then, because the political balance on charter revision commission wouldn't change if the Mayor was given two picks, he got two picks. Giving the Mayor two picks was as illegal then as it would be now, but no one cared as the majority on the commission would not change because of it. The Democrats still held a majority. Wally wants to use an illegal practice now, to change the balance of power on the Charter Revision Commission.

I do not like that any more than I like military coups. The rules were made by the State Legislature and they are neutral. Follow them.

[Bustopher Jones]

The mayor didn't get to pick any members to the Charter Revision Commission because the law say that it is the Council that makes the choices.
You are mixing metaphors. It is true that I support Charter revision. And while I realize that you are a newcomer to the forum, it is also true that those who know me know that I am even less of a fan of Mayor Dickinson that I am of Chariman Brodinsky. With that said, yes, you are correct that the Council as a body chooses the members of the Commission; but that does NOT mean that the Commission is limited to one appointee per member of the Council. Historically, the Council has extended to the Mayor the common courtesy of allowing the Mayor to also recommend members of the Commission. In this current case, however, allowing the Mayor the traditional two appointments would have swung the political majority on the Commission from Democratic to Republican, something that the Democrats would (understandably) not allow. But let me pose this hypothetical question: If the Mayor had been accorded the courtesy of one appointment to the Commission, yielding an evenly balanced political representation, what might have been the outcome, and the consequent perception and support of the work of this Commission?

And before anyone criticizes this idea on the basis that politically-motivated proposals would result in a tie vote that would deadlock the Commission, my answer would be "SO WHAT?!?" The existence of a politically-balanced Charter Revision Commission would ensure that any idea put forth would have to have sufficient merit to garner bi-partisan support, rather than being to the exclusive benefit of one political faction or another. Certainly, one can view the potential for objective, non-partisan concepts and ideas in the input of former Councilman Hank Toman, a Republican appointee to the Commission; Mr. Toman (with whom I have had political disagreements in the past, but for whom I have immense personal respect) was open-minded and willing to entertain truly radical and creative approaches to amending the form and structure of government in Wallingford. It is sad that this entire effort degenerated into another Democrats-versus-Republicans episode, when so much could have been achieved...

[Wallyworldite]

Giving the Mayor two picks was as illegal then as it would be now, but no one cared as the majority on the commission would not change because of it. The Democrats still held a majority. Wally wants to use an illegal practice now, to change the balance of power on the Charter Revision Commission.

The Home Act Rule has not been modified in any major way since passed by the legislature in 1958. It dictates how the Commission members are selected, but does NOT say that the mayor is not allowed appointees. It was pointed out to the Council that basically the Home Act Rule states that the Council determines how the selections are made. For the VERY FIRST TIME in the history of our town the Council determined that the mayor would not get appointees to the Commission. What I propose is nothing illegal as you are so quick to accuse, but rather, that the selection process be UNPOLITICAL. Unfortunately the Democratically controlled Council can't stop making decisions for poitical power rather than for the benefit of our residents.

VOTE NO for all the Charter questions! Don't let the Democrats' backdoor coup succeed!

[flatrat]

The Home Act Rule has not been modified in any major way since passed by the legislature in 1958. It dictates how the Commission members are selected, but does NOT say that the mayor is not allowed appointees. It was pointed out to the Council that basically the Home Act Rule states that the Council determines how the selections are made. For the VERY FIRST TIME in the history of our town the Council determined that the mayor would not get appointees to the Commission. What I propose is nothing illegal as you are so quick to accuse, but rather, that the selection process be UNPOLITICAL. Unfortunately the Democratically controlled Council can't stop making decisions for poitical power rather than for the benefit of our residents.

VOTE NO for all the Charter questions! Don't let the Democrats' backdoor coup succeed!

So the democrats are political, and the republicans are unpolitical...

I see....

Vote your brain. Don't let someone else tell you how to vote.