Yesterday, State House Speaker Chris Donovan released his list of appointments and committee assignments for the next legislative session and State Rep. Bob Godfrey will retain his position of Deputy Speaker of the House.
via press release:
“Bob Godfrey is the ‘go-to guy’ whenever there’s a technical question about procedures or legislative precedent,” Donovan explained. “In addition to his broad grasp of the issues of the day, he has been a top notch leader, moderating debates in the House in a fair, evenhanded manner. There’s no question that he’s well respected both in his hometown of Danbury and at the State Capitol in Hartford . I thank him for accepting the role again.”
“There’s no question that our state is facing many challenges right now. My number one priorities will be to assist the legislature in passing legislation that will create new jobs in the state, maintain the ones that are currently here, and grow the economy,” Godfrey said. “I’d like to thank the Speaker for asking me to serve in this role and I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner as we meet to tackle these issues.”
To say that Godfrey has a full plate of responsibilities is an understatement. Besides being Deputy Speaker, Godfrey will also serve as a member of the Judiciary, Government Administration & Elections, and Legislative Management committees as well as the head the chairman of the Council of State Governments (CSG), a non partisan group of state officials from all 50 states.
via press release:
“The Council of State Governments is one of the top resources for law and policy makers from around the country. We can use them when we’re crafting laws, policies and regulations that are fiscally sound and produce the best results, often because another state has already tried it out,” Godfrey said. “Through thorough, comprehensive, nonpartisan research, CSG provides states and member jurisdictions with concise information.”
In this prominent role, Godfrey will help shape the direction of the organization along with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who has been selected to serve as CSG 2011 President. Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell served as president of the organization in 2008.
Godfrey remarked, “Having access to CSG puts Connecticut in the forefront of advocacy among the states. I particularly look forward to working with Governor-elect Malloy, his incoming administration and my colleagues as Connecticut upgrades its relations with our federal government. We’ll have a greater voice and be more competitive nationally.”
It was rumored that the state lawmaker for the 110th district would run for state auditor but that will not be the case.
I don’t know what was worse, the rate at which the snow came down or the fact that the wind was blowing the snow all over the place.
Today, I grabbed my camera and took a real quick trip downtown to see the carnage left by the storm. I rigged my camera to my dashboard and shot this small footage while on the road…
(footage shot at 11AM on Main, West, and White Street/Newtown Rd)
UPDATE: YouTube user viana1971usa posted this video of his/her trip around the White Street/Hospital Ave area.
On a recent edition of the local access show “Progressive Soup”, yours truly made an appearance to talk about the ongoing parade ordinance controversy…
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview City Councilman Paul Rotello and get his thoughts on Mayor Boughton’s recent decision to dissolve the ad-hoc committee that was assigned to look into the problems with the parade ordinance.
Since the issue was first debated over three and a half years ago, Councilman Rotello has been instrumental in countering misinformation with the ordinance as well as detailing the problems with the legislation.
Part 1: Thoughts on Mayor Boughton dissolving the ordinance ad-hoc committee:
Part 2: Concerns with the ordinance remain unanswered
Part 3: Moving forward
Highlights of the parade ordinance (click here to download the entire ordinance-PDF FILE)
ARTICLE II: PARADES AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES
Sec 11-15 (a):
Parade means any march, demonstration, procession, or motorcade, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination thereof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under the control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property.
[...]
Sec 11-15 (d):
Public assembly means any meeting, demonstration, picket line, rally or gathering, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, held on the streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property owned by or under the control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property.
[...]
Sec 11-22 Standards for issuance
(a): The Chief of Police shall issue a permit as provided for herin when, from a consideration of the application and from such other informaiton as may otherwise be obtained, he finds that:
(1) The conduct of the parade or public assembly will not substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of the other pedestrian or vehicular traffic contiguous to its route or location;
(2) The conduct of the parade or public assembly will not require the diversion of so great a number of City police officers to properly police the line of movement and the areas contiguous thereto as to prevent normal police protection of the City;
(3) The concentration of persons, animals, and vehicles at public assembly points of the parade or public assembly will not unduly interfere with proper fire and police protection of, or ambulance service to, areas contiguous to such public assembly areas;
(4) The conduct of the parade or public assembly is not reasonably likely to cause injury to persons or property;
(5) The parade or public assembly is scheduled to move from its point of origin to its point of termination expeditiously and without unreasonable delays en route;
(6) Adequate sanitation and other required health facilities are or will be made available in or adjacent to any public assembly areas;
(7) There are sufficient parking places near the site of the parade or public assembly to accommodate the number of vehicles reasonably expected;
(8) No parade or public assembly permit application for the same time and location has already been granted or has been received and will be granted;
(9) No parade or public assembly permit application for the same time but a different location has already been granted or has been received and will be granted, and the police resources required for that prior parade or public assembly are so great that in combination with the subsequent proposed application, the resulting deployment of police services would have an immediate and adverse effect upon the welfare and safety of persons and property; and
(10) No event is scheduled elsewhere in the City where the police resources required for that event are so great that the deployment of police services for the proposed parade or public assembly would have an immediate and adverse effect upon the welfare and safety of persons and property.
When it comes to why the parade ordinance ad-hoc committee was dissolved, how does Mark Boughton and Joe Cavo get away with quotes like this?
Council president Joe Cavo said the committee never met because there wasn’t a need.
“We haven’t received any complaints about the ordinance being too restrictive,” Cavo said. “If we had, we certainly would have revisited it.”
Mayor Mark Boughton, who disbanded the committee during last week’s council meeting, said the fears of those who were against the ordinance three years ago never panned out.
“It’s worked pretty well,” he said. “We haven’t received any complaints about the permit process, and prior to the ordinance we were receiving complaints all the time.”
I’ll make this simple…these statements are BOLDFACE LIES.
I understand that it’s been three and a half years since the parade ordinance was debated, therefore most people might not recall the problems with this piece of … let me try and explain things.
”We haven’t received any complaints about the ordinance…”.
When the Common Council debated the adoption of the parade ordinance [May 2007], opponents of the proposal voiced their concerns in public comment.
One of the chief concerns with the ordinance stems from the law’s restrictions. In layman’s terms, if you have a group of 25 or MORE people at a public place THAT interferes with vehicular and pedestrian traffic, then you have to get an application from the police department.
For instance, lets say that you schedule a school trip that focuses on the history of Danbury. Now, this trip includes students walking from the Danbury Library down Main Street towards the Historical Society. Now if you have more than 25 people in your group AND you interfere with the normal flow of pedestrian traffic (sidewalk) AND you know that there is a parade ordinance, TECHNICALLY you’re in violation of the ordinance and could be subject to a 100 dollar fine.
Sounds crazy right? Well, that was just ONE of several problems with the ordinance that was talked discussed in great detail during the ordinance debate.
Now, here’s the kicker!
During the debate when this VERY ISSUE was raised, ad-hoc committee chairperson Mary Saracino (the person who chaired the meeting that drafted the ordinance), moved that the ENTIRE ordinance be sent back to committee for revision. The council voted 10-9 to send the ordinance to committee for revision (including four Republicans) AND the mayor casted an illegal vote to block the measure.
NEXT, Minority Leader Tom Saadi proposed an amendment in which the number of people that would trigger the ordinance would be increased from 25 to 100 individuals.
Makes sense right? Well, that amendment was vote 10-9 in favor of the amendment YET Mayor Boughton casted an illegal vote to block THAT measure.
Think I’m kidding? Well, from May 2007, here’s video footage of everything I just outlined.
After Mayor Boughton casted his illegal’s votes, here’s what Council President had to say about the council’s votes…
Yeah…pretty crazy huh?
After the vote, I interviewed several council members to get their reaction to Cavo’s comment and the mayor’s illegal blockage.
Later, days later a still irritated Saadi talked to the Danbury Democratic Town Committee about what happened at the May meeting…
Need I say more?
We haven’t received any complaints about the permit process…”
Talk about parsing words Mark!
As the mayor knows, the problem with the ordinance had NOTHING to do with the permit process. Hell, there was NEVER a problem with the permit process…a process that’s been in place for as long as I remember…
As the mayor and city corporation counsel stated, the origins of this idiotic ordinance had to do with the World Cup games celebrations (and IMO the immigrant right rallies from 2005 and 2006). The other minor complaint had to do with the certain groups being pissed off that they had to pay for police services while other groups didn’t pay a dime.
Heck, the year after the ordinance was enacted, the mayor EVEN ADMITTED to problems with the ordinance.
Again, here’s yours truly questioning the mayor about the status of the ad-hoc committee back in 2008…listen carefully.
BOUGHTON: …the bad news is we probably run up about 150,000 in police charges for all the parades and things that go on in the city…those numbers, they escalate quickly, so that’s been a problem….there are other questions about the amount of people, and I think one of the things that we’ll look is for recommendations from the chief [Al Baker] is “is this working, are you turning people down”, I don’t we ever turn someone down but the good news is that people have been really good about coming in and getting a permit so we’ve been able to organize…I’ll talk to the committee chair and if there is a burning issue, I sure we can look into that…
Remember, I just highlighted a couple of problems with the ordinance…an ordinance that attempts to place restrictions your right to peacefully assemble.
Now in light of this information, which Perrefort and other reporters knew beforehand, why on Earth can Boughton/Cavo get away with their misleading statements?
Recently, I spoke with City Council Minority Leader Tom Saadi about the recent decision by Mark Boughton to dissolve the parade ordinance ad-hoc committee.
Although Mayor Boughton and Council President Joe Cavo promised in 2007 to form a committee to address the various concerns with the controversial ordinance, in the three and a half years of it’s existence, the committee never met and this month, the mayor dissolve the ad-hoc and has left the legislation in tact.
In upcoming posts, I’ll provide background information on this highly disturbing ordinance that infringes on Danbury resident’s First Amendment right to assemble.
That’s right folks…Mayor Boughton just dissolved the ad-hoc committee that was assigned to fix the numerous problems with the parade ordinance…problems that the mayor and Council President Joe Cavo insisted would be addressed back when the ordinance was rammed through the council in what many considered a rather questionable manner.
It’s been YEARS (3 and a half to be exact) since the parade ordinance was talked about so there is a GREAT deal of background that the public needs to refresh themselves with in order to truly understand the severity of Boughton’s latest move. Luckily, I was on hand with my camera at City Hall back in 07 and videotaped every meeting that had to do with this ordinance as well as did some rather extensive blogging on the topic. For now, I’ll try and keep things as simple as possible.
When the idiotic ordinance was passed, according to several people who witness the vote, Mayor Boughton and Council President Joe Cavo promised that an ad-hoc committee to fix the problems with the ordinance. Although the committee was formed, in the three and a half years of it’s existence, the committee NEVER MET to address the problems with the ordinance.
What’s the big deal you ask? Trust me, if you understood the ordinance, then you would consider this legislation a REAL BIG DEAL as it infringes on your first amendment right to assemble in public.
…okay, here’s a small background (I promise I’ll do this is MORE detail in a future post):
Back in 2007, as a result of the celebrations during the World Cup games of 2006, the city council drafted and passed a highly controversial piece of legislation which was aimed at regulating public assemblies.
The parade ordinance legislation was criticized by many who called the measure an attempt by the mayor to promote fear into groups that held rallies in opposition to the city’s anti-immigrant policies (you can view a copy of the ordinance, as well as an explanation of the origins of the legislation by corporation counsel Rick Gottschalk, by clicking here).
Critics of the legislation also stated that the bill will have no effect of the spontaneous forms of expression seen during the 2006 games (which is protected free speech) and instead will infringe on people’s right to assemble at public places. The ordinance makes it a requirement for organizers to obtain and fill out a parade ordinance application if the size of the crowd is more than 25 people AND interferes with vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Here’s part of the language:
Sec 11-15 (a):
Parade means any march, demonstration, procession, or motorcade, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination thereof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under the control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property.
In laymans’ terms, if you organize an even that has 25 or more people, AND it’s on public property AND it interferes with vehicular or pedestrian traffic…you need to go to the police station and fill out a parade ordinance application. If you don’t go to the police station and will out an application AND you know that the parade ordinance exists, the city can fine you 100.00 dollars.
What does that mean you ask? Well, if you plan an event (ANY EVENT) and it’s on public property AND it interferes with the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, you need fill out an parade ordinance application. Again, this goes WAY beyond parades and technically infringes on all forms of assembly. Think about all the forms of assembly that would fall under this ordinance…crazy huh?
Wait, it gets better!
In 2007, Boughton was questioned and put on the defensive by News-Times reporter Elizabeth Putnam about the ordinance and the origins of the legislation…and his response was laughable to say the least.
PUTNAM: Now the impetus for the parade ordinance however was impromptu celebrations, this does not really address that. Is there a way to address that?
BOUGHTON: I would disagree with that statement that it doesn’t address that. I think this ordinance could be a better tool in the tool box in looking at impromptu celebrations. That wasn’t the whole impetus, that was only part of the impetus and I’ll explain why.
If you’re talking about the parades after the World Cup game that were very controversial that happened in 2006, those are not impromptu parades. We spend a lot of time planning internally for those parades. If you know that is a World Cup game coming up on Sunday…the chief and I probably had two or three discussions/meetings about how many police officers we’re going to bring in…and what type of enforcement activity we’re going to have. So there is planning going on…
PUTNAM: …there’s planning going on with your side…
BOUGHTON: …and there’s planning going on their side as well. Those individuals know that when the game is over that they’re going to be in the streets. We would take this ordinance, in addition to writing tickets for not being properly seatbealted and all the other issues that came up during that time period, we would also cite people for not having the proper permit for not being on Main Street if they’re blocking traffic and/or holding up public safety vehicles so I think this is another tool in the toolbox to do that and I don’t’ necessarily agree with that statement that it won’t do that.
A year after the passage of the ordinance, and the creation of the ad-hoc committee that to that date DIDN’T MEET, at a public forum I questioned Mayor Boughton about the status of the ordinance and the ad-hoc committee. In this never before seen video footage, take a look at the mayor’s response.
Boughton on parade ordinance, public forum, mid 2008
BOUGHTON: …the bad news is we probably run up about 150,000 in police charges for all the parades and things that go on in the city…those numbers, they escalate quickly, so that’s been a problem….there are other questions about the amount of people, and I think one of the things that we’ll look is for recommendations from the chief [Al Baker] is “is this working, are you turning people down”, I don’t we ever turn someone down but the good news is that people have been really good about coming in and getting a permit so we’ve been able to organize…I’ll talk to the committee chair and if there is a burning issue, I sure we can look into that
Now, by the mayor’s OWN ADMISSION, the parade ordinance has costed the city of Danbury 150,000 thousands dollars…and that was back in 2008. Based on his own words, if you leap forward to 2010, that figure would be estimated at 450,000 (’08, ’09, ’10)…and that’s on the low end.
Given the cost and the other problem with the ordinance (problems that the mayor admitted to your truly back in 2008), and the fact that he and Council Presdient Cavo PROMISED members of the committee that an ad-hoc committee would be formed to fix the problems with the ordinance, the question one should ask is simple: “Why did Boughton go back on his word?”
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview City Councilman Paul Rotello and get his thoughts on Mayor Boughton’s recent decision to dissolve the ad-hoc committee that was assigned to look into the problems with the parade ordinance.
