Drew Marzullo is frustrated that the BET can cut funds from Greenwich’s budget even though he and the other Selectmen want them appropriated. (See Neil Vigdor’s excellent article on this here.) Join the club, pal. Forget the $20,000 you’re annoyed about, what about the hundreds of things citizens want that never make the budget because the Board of Selectman, or, say, the Parks & Rec. dept., don’t want them? Where’s the recourse for us? I don’t think we need to discuss changing the whole Greenwich system of government just because a selectman, or even all the selectman, are unhappy about a decision.
I’ve testified before the BET, oddly arguing for something to be deleted from the budget. Not confident that my public meeting speech would work, I organized a protest. Made all the papers, interviewed on WGCH, the whole bit. I didn’t get enough people out, not even those directly affected. Lin Lavery didn’t stop by, even though she was supportive. Peter Tesei didn’t come by (as far as I know) even though he was certainly aware of the protest and discussed it with me at length. (I’m not suggesting either should have been there.) I’ll tell you who did stop by, without being asked, BET Chair Steve Walko. We chatted for a while, he was supportive. I knew I didn’t have a crowd gathered that would (or should) make a difference. But I had my shot, and Steve was there. I’m fairly confident that if there was a big enough crowd, it, would have made a difference.
So despite losing, I’m a big supporter of our system. Mostly. In the same article, Steve Walko rightly pointed out the big problem with our BET: the ridiculous mandated 50/50 split between Republicans and Democrats. It’s time to change that. My suggestion is we make the BET, like the RTM, a non-partisan board. Let people run for that like they run for RTM, no party affiliation. And whichever 12 get the most votes win. I would also be happy if both parties nominated 12 candidates, but I think the RTM tradition is one worth mirroring – it has served us well.
I’ve served on RTM and my father is still on RTM. The commitment there was too much for me so I dropped out. BET is a lot more time consuming and , for that matter, Board of Selectmen is a huge commitment. Attacks on any of these groups should never sound like Drew Marzullo’s obnoxious remarks in the Greenwich Time, “major policy decisions shouldn’t be left to a board whose members are picked by the two political parties.” Everyone should be as proud of the BET members as they are of the Board of Selectman, all of whom have better, more productive, things to do with their time but choose to serve the public. This rhetoric is disgraceful. If you want the system changed, put your money where our mouth is and support open BET elections. Otherwise my suggestion is take your lumps and don’t make comments alluding to incompetent or otherwise inappropriate people serving on the BET.
Drew: no siempre ganas
Drew Marzullo está frustrado porque la Junta de Estimación y Fiscalidad (BET por sus siglas en inglés) puede recortar los fondos del presupuesto de Greenwich aunque él y otros miembros lo quieran consignado. (Lean el excelente artículo de Neil Vidgor en este asunto aquí). Únase al club, amigo. Olvide los $20,000 que le molestan, y los cientos de cosas que los ciudadanos quieren que no llegan al presupuesto porque la Junta de los elegidos, o, digamos, el Departamento de Parques y Recreación no quieren? Dónde están los recursos para nosotros? No creo que tengamos que discutir que cambiemos todo el sistema de gobiernos de Greenwich sólo porque un elegido, o hasta todos, estén infelices sobre una decisión.
Yo he testificado ante la BET, argumentando que algo sea eliminado del presupuesto. No seguro de que mi discurso en la reunión pública funcionara, organicé una propuesta. Llegué a todos los periódicos, me entrevisté en el WGCH, todo. No llegué a movilizar suficientes personas, ni siquiera aquellos afectados. Lin Lavery no pasó, aunque ella fue un gran apoyo. Peter Tesei no pasó (hasta donde tengo entendido)aunque él estaba claramente al tanto de la propuesta y la discutió conmigo a profundidad. (No estoy sugiriendo que alguno debió haber estado allí). Les diré quien asistió sin haber digo preguntado, el Presidente de BET, Steve Walko. Charlamos por un momento, él fue de apoyo. Sé que no tenía un grupo reunido que haría (o debió haber hecho) alguna diferencia. Pero hice el intento, y Steve estuvo allí. Estoy seguro de que si hubiese habido un grupo lo suficientemente grande, hubiese hecho la diferencia.
Así pues, a pesar de haber perdido, apoyo mucho nuestro sistema. En su mayoría. En el mismo artículo, Steve Walko acertadamente resultó el gran problema con la BET: el mandato ridículo de dividir 50/50 entre los Republicanos y los Demócratas. Es hora de cambiarlo. Mi sugerencia es que hagamos la BET como la RTM, una junto no-partidista. Dejen que las personas sean elegidas como la RTM, sin afiliación a un partido. Y los 12 que reciban más votos ganan. Sería feliz también si ambos partidos nominan 12 candidatos, pero pienso que la tradición de la RTM es una que vale la pena imitar- nos ha servido bien.
Yo he servido en la RTM y mi padre todavía lo está. El compromiso que había era demasiado para mi así que lo abandoné. BET toma mucho tiempo y, para el caso, Board of Selectmen es un gran compromiso. Ataques a cualquiera de estos grupos no debe nunca sonar como el odioso comentario de Drew Marzullo al Greenwich Time, “las decisiones de política mayores no deben ser dejados a una junta cuyos miembros son elegidos por los dos partidos políticos”. Todos deben estar tan orgullosos de la BET como están de la Board of Selectmen, quienes tienen mejores y más productivas cosas que hacer con su tiempo que elegir servir al público. Esa retórica es vergonzosa. Si quieren el sistema cambiado, pongan su dinero donde está su boca y apoyen las elecciones abiertas de la BET. De lo contrario, mi sugerencia es tomar sus grumos y no hagan comentarios aludiendo a personas incompetentes o personas inapropiadas sirviendo en la BET.
John I think you are wrong. The Selectmen are the elected representatives of our town, not just a rubber stamp. You are right the BET is time consuming and we should be appreciative of the time that they spend of this job, however, when the Selectmen make their voice known(voice of the people) the BET should listen. It seems the BET members have been listening to other petty individuals who have their own self serving agenda. Cutting the Emergency Manager funds was NOT in the best interests of the Town and that is the crux of the problem.
Comment by Townie — March 29th, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
Townie, thanks for your comment. It brings me to a couple of points I’d like to make. First, I agree that the BoS are elected representatives but not THE elected representatives. BET members are elected, it’s just a somewhat limiting election process, but anyone can run. Note also that BoS members that run are also hand-picked by the RTC and DTC. So just because there’s some choice at the poll, that choice is limited to candidates selected by the parties – just like the BET. RTM members are also elected, and arguably the most representative municipal legislative body in the country (being the largest). For what it’s worth, I am in favor of reinstating the Emergency Manager funds you support – I’m just not in favor of giving the BoS override power over the BET. To do that would, effectively, eliminate the BET entirely as the BoS would have complete power over the budget – and then what would we say if the BoS eliminated something people didn’t like? Seems to me that having the BET and BoS is a good idea, it just needs some tweaking so the BET elections are more competitive. I don’t see where you have challenged that argument in your comment, so I’m guessing that you would support changes that made the BET also a “voice of the people.”
Comment by John Bowman — March 29th, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
A couple of observations, if I may. As a retired town employee no longer residing in Greenwich I tend to see some issues from a slightly different perspective. First, I worked for the town for decades and have more than a passing familiarity with its inner workings. Secondly, I now see things from the outside looking in and that really gives one a more honest viewpoint of these family squabbles.
In the article in question, a passing comment was made about Mr. Marzullo’s proposal to allow the RTM to second controversial cuts made by the BET. THAT seems like a fair compromise to this question and yet there was nothing further on this point. I wonder if Mr. Vigdor even pursued additional questions about it to Mr. Marzullo.
As a modification to Mr. Marzullo’s idea, may I suggest perhaps before such a seconding motion ever makes it to the RTM a requirement that ALL members of the Board of Selectman agree to have the motion made. That should avoid the claim of politics since at least one member of that Board is from the minority party.
As to Mr. Walko’s various comments I have some questions – he claims that giving the Board of Selectman veto power “…violates the essence of our form of government.” Why, then, wouldn’t changing the makeup of the BET have the same affect? Could it be that because of the historic makeup of party registration in Greenwich Mr. Walko’s party is almost assured of control? Wouldn’t that also violate that essence he is so concerned about? And I ask these questions as a Republican.
And Mr. Walko’s remarks about how Mr. Marzullo came into office with something less than a mandate is just a bit too smarmy and he should have thought better about it. Evidently Greenwich voters wanted Mr. Marzullo and their choice should be respected.
Comment by Retiree — March 30th, 2010 @ 9:33 am
Thanks Retiree for a very good comment. I’ve said before in a letter to the editor that I don’t think you can point to any signficant number of local Greenwich issues that were decided, or even debated, along party lines. I have yet to be corrected on that. That’s one reason why I don’t think it would matter if the BET were made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Another reason is that even with 6 & 6, the chair gets a tie-breaking vote and the chair is always a Republican, so it doesn’t matter. I also don’t see the mandated 50/50 split between parties on the BET as something to be protected as much as protecting the BoS/BET/RTM division of power in Town. Maybe some of these override ideas might make sense, but first I’d like to see competitive elections for the BET as a start. And as I said, I’d prefer that the BET go to a non-party system like the RTM.
And I won’t speak for Steve Walko’s motives, but as a reader, I thought they were tame compared to Mr. Marzullo’s. And it would appear that Mr. Marzullo “started it.”
Comment by John Bowman — March 30th, 2010 @ 11:20 am
The problem rests in the fact that the BET members have not, for a very long time, been truly elected. Collusion creates the membership. A conversion to one-man-one vote – as done years ago with the six-member Board of Finance in Stamford – would work, after an unsettling transition.
Comment by Veritas — April 5th, 2010 @ 3:24 pm