VIDEO - Talking Charter with Mike Brodinsky

[gunderstone]

VIDEO - Talking Charter with Mike Brodinsky (http://bit.ly/4h9cqt)is now available to view online.

This is also being run on Channel 18 - Public Access / WPAA

I would offer that you might consider watching this video and the prior one VIDEO – Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable (http://bit.ly/1Csxwc) so that you might be able to get all the information that you need to make your decision on November 3rd.

Vote "YES" or vote "NO" on each of the items but do so with informed authority.

[Wallyworldite]

Yes, Mr. Brodinsky, let's ask the EXPERTS who sat on the Commission.

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!

[gunderstone]

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



Get the explanatory text (http://bit.ly/3saopG), take a look at the details, make up your mind and vote "YES" or vote "NO" on each of the items but do so with informed authority.


http://www.zandri.net/images/vote.jpg

[Wallyworldite]

Congratulations Mike for talking charter and helping to inform the public. They saw through the sham and voted against the backdoor takeover. No one can attribute this to anti-Obama sentiments. The questions were bad and the intent was worse...

A victory for the people of Wallingford!