Comments on: The Power of No

By: Jim Carrey

Jim Carrey — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:02:56 +0000

Farricker claims:
“New Canaan, a town very much like our own, with a similar affectation for its history and traditions, jettisoned its RTM for a Town Council. Many thought at the time that it would irreparably harm the citizen input in government and, from what I hear, they would never turn back today after just 4 years.”
Did you ever notice that the PEOPLE of Greenwich really love their form of government, and will vigorously defend it it against all manner of uninformed criticisms. Shouldn’t people have the form of government THEY want?
It is interesting that the only ones who advocate deep sixing the RTM are those whose decisions must be approved by the RTM. So we see current, former, and hope-to-be-in-the-future First Selectmen among the lonely voices trying to make it easier for them to spend our money. It’s not going to happen Farricker, as much as you think you “NO” what’s best for us.

But the most disturbing part of your vapid post is the false information you try to pawn off as support for your opinion. Can you please cite the dates that New Canaan ever had a Representative Town Meeting? I know they have not had one since 1980 when I moved to Fairfield County. This site:
http://www.newcanaan-home.com/content/article.html/7856
states that they had the old “Town Meeting” form of government (I assume you know the difference between a Town Meeting and an RTM)until 1969, when they changed to their current Town Council form of government. So just where did you come up with this fiction of New Canaan “jettisoning its RTM for a Town Council” four years ago?
Liar, liar, pants on fire!

By: John Bowman

John Bowman — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:18:35 +0000

This turned out to be a good topic. A good example of the RTM’s power is the Child Safety Zone ordinance that’s currently under consideration. That’s being rewritten by the Legislative and Rules Committee even though it was approved by the “powerful” BOS. True, a small group of members is closely involved, and many members’ voice is limited to their vote, but how different is that from the US Congress or the CT General Assembly? Small groups of powerful members control everything in those bodies. You can’t forget that most of the things that the BOS and BET pass are not opposed by the RTM because they are not so controversial, if at all, so the “rubber stamp” is not a surprise or the result of lazy RTM members. And why should Greenwich be different, that’s easy, because we’re better.

By: farricker

farricker — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:20:38 +0000

can you be more specific

By: hohum

hohum — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:17:37 +0000

It’s not the power of no, it’s the balance of power.

By: farricker

farricker — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:32:52 +0000

The problem seems to be that RTM members feel they don’t have a voice. I can’t tell you how many current members have called me today saying that they joined the RTM to have a voice, and found out very quickly that they had none. Just having 230 citizens involved doesn’t make it citizen representation if they can’t do anything that makes their life, or the lives of the rest of us, better for their participation

By: Joe Schmoe

Joe Schmoe — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:23:10 +0000

What is better representation than allowing almost anyone to be involved?

How does not showing up affect the work of the 40 most committed RTM members?

The fact is some people simply don’t like it that the average citizen has a voice. They want the chamber of commerce to control everything.

By: farricker

farricker — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:24:37 +0000

John–

It isn’t “bad” to have people involved at all, in fact it is quite good. The problem is more with the functioning of the institution. You know as well as anyone that people join the RTM because they believe they can make a real difference – pass laws, enact ordinances, have a chance to have their say. What they find out is that the powers of the RTM are limited to negative ones by charter, and that for the most part they can’t really accomplish anything. They can have a front row seat in discussing Town policy, and maybe once a year there is a really important issue that gets discussed quite heavily but, at the end of the day, what is accomplished on a personal basis?
If the RTM were shrunk, the remaining people could, and should, have much more important powers and input than the current ones. The other people create a bigger and more potent pool of volunteers for our more formidable boards and commissions.
If the argument is that the RTM serves a good purpose as a place for Greenwich people to “get involved and learn about Town Government”, then why does it have powers at all? And if the answer is that its bar for entry and participation is low, and that is good, I disagree. If people have any control at all over my life, whether it is cutting school appropriations, approving commissioners on boards that make decisions that affect my family, or anything else, I want them engaged. Clearly many, many of them are not -starting with the 20% that don;t show up, the 20% that don’t go to committee meetings. I’ve also heard too much grumbling that they aren;t really “relevant”.

My answer to you would then be have a symbolic, powerless RTM to debate policy, or a streamlined, active RTM with real powers. And also please tell me why only Greenwich feels the need to carry this kind of body, and why? 168 other towns go another way, many like Greenwich.

By: bowman

bowman — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:22:36 +0000

Frank,
I couldn’t disagree more. I’ve been on RTM and understand that a small group does most of the work, but you haven’t explained why the extra people are bad? They listen to the information provided and vote. Why is that bad? We do have the BET and the BOS. I think you need to re-work your argument and include a discussion of those boards. You might find that a large stop-gap group like the RTM isn’t such a bad thing. It cultivates members for larger roles on the BET and BOS, and provides and opportunity for a lot of participation. You missed those points. This post, not so great.