Our Town

Computer problems prevented my December 26 column from making it onto the Greenwich Time website in the column section, so I am reproducing the column here on my blog:

Thinking back on the events of 2010, I am reminded of the prayer vigil I attended last August on the lawn in front of Stamford’s First Congregational Church.

Organized by the Interfaith Council of Southwestern Connecticut, the vigil, with more than 200 participants, was an expression of interfaith solidarity with Muslims in this part of the state who, like Muslims throughout the country, experienced increased hostility this past year.

An incident in Bridgeport was the primary impetus for the vigil. On August 6, a Friday, the Muslim holy day, before the start of Ramadan, members of “Operation Save America,” a Texas-based fundamentalist Christian group, stood outside the Majid An-Noor mosque and harassed the worshippers. One placard held by a 13-year old girl displayed these words: “Abortion is Murder. Homosexuality is a Sin. Islam is a Lie.”

The organization’s national director, the Reverend Flip Benham, wore a T-shirt saying “Jesus is the Standard.” Apparently, it is a hateful standard. His followers greeted Muslim worshippers with shouts of “Jesus hates Muslims,” calling children leaving the mosque “murderers.”

The Reverend Kate Heichler, president of the Interfaith Council and pastor at Stamford’s Episcopal Church of Christ the Healer, invoked a different Jesus as she addressed those assembled for the vigil. She said she was “simply standing with” her Muslim brothers and sisters. Heichler’s Jesus asks us to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”

Speakers representing different faiths touched on the theme of diverse peoples coming together with love and unity of purpose. The hour-long program featured readings and song from Muslim, Jewish and Christian sources and included participants from each of these religions.

The idea of isolation and otherness was prominent in the speeches, whether the way Muslims feel in the current Islamophobic climate, or the anti-Semitism Jews have experienced throughout history, or the segregation and discrimination visited upon African Americans.

“We must not fan the flames of hatred,” said Rabbi Joshua Hammerman of Stamford’s Temple Beth El. “Rather the flames of love.”

“I grew up with segregation,” said Patricia Billie Miller, an African American state representative from Stamford’s 145^th assembly district as she spoke about the feeling of otherness. “We are all God’s children,” she concluded.

When I met with the Reverend Heichler earlier this month, she said this vigil was the best example of why the Interfaith Council, and interfaith work, is needed. It “created such a holding place,” she said.

The Interfaith Council began in Stamford in 1938 as the Council of Churches and became the Council of Churches and Synagogues in 1971. In 2002 it changed its name to the Interfaith Council of Southwestern Connecticut to reflect the fact that it is inclusive of all religions.

Heichler, president of the Council since August 2009, was ordained 7 years ago and is a graduate of Yale Divinity School. She had little interfaith experience until recently, but is now deeply committed to this work.

The world is increasingly polarized, she says, and so much of this is around religion. It is important to hear one another, note the differences and foster a way of listening and learning that does honor to the people involved.

In face of the growing pull toward fundamentalism and extremism, Heichler hopes to increase the center. “We have ceded the center too much,” she says. “We need to help shape the conversation. Being quiet does not do anyone any good.”

Interfaith cooperation does not seek to reduce all religions to the lowest common denominator. In an op-ed article Heichler wrote last Christmas for the Stamford Advocate, she describes a religious tradition as meaningful to its adherents because of the beliefs, rituals and practices that distinguish it from other traditions. The goal is to honor each person’s faith as sacred for them. The gift of interfaith conversation is “to know and prize each other’s stories.”

Heichler says that her interfaith work has made her less defensive of her own religious tradition and more open to different ways of thinking and believing.

Calling itself “the place for interfaith action…the space for interfaith conversation,” the Council sponsors or participates in a variety of programs designed to promote better understanding and meet community needs.

Looking forward to the New Year, my hope is that the Council’s message of love and respect for diversity may prevail in a polarized world.

Kudos to Police Chief Ridberg for standing by his decision not to station a police officer at the Lewis Street intersection on Greenwich Avenue. Indeed, the police officers at all the intersections should be replaced with traffic lights.

This past week I was at the East Elm Street intersection when the police officer directing traffic walked away in the middle of heavy traffic. It was 5 p.m. There was chaos for a few minutes after he departed, until everyone figured out that the stop signs had replaced him. Stop signs are not enough. We need lights.

Years ago everything on Greenwich Avenue was closed after 5 p.m., on Sundays and on holidays. Today, there is a thriving night life, and stores are open on Sundays and many holidays when there are no police officers directing traffic. It is ridiculous to think that all the reasons given for having them there evaporate at 5 p.m. and don’t materialize again until 9 a.m.

This is especially true of the argument that they are a deterrent to crime. Experience has shown that they are not. And aren’t the hours between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. the more likely time frame for robberies?

If there is a crime in progress, the officers patrolling Greenwich Avenue and the adjacent streets will be dispatched, not the officers directing traffic. According to Chief Ridberg, this part of town is well covered. And this is not just Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. It is 24/7.

It is a costly waste to have police officers directing traffic on Greenwich Avenue. If they were deployed in a more appropriate manner, it could only improve public safety.

Terry Betteridge’s comments appear as arrogant. “I will spend money to make sure this happens,” he is quoted as saying in today’s Greenwich Time, referring to having a police officer restored to the Lewis Street intersection. “I will do anything it takes.”

Does he think he can buy influence? His money would be better spent improving security at his store.

Let’s hope town leadership doesn’t bend in the face of such pressure.

The BET held a public hearing tonight on the method of election to the BET. This is the first time in just over 6 years – since March 2004 – that the BET is taking up this topic. If the BET is to vote on changing the way in which its members are elected – and it is not yet certain that this vote will take place – the vote will be at the December meeting.

The purpose of tonight’s hearing was “to get information straight from the people who matter most – the voters,” said BET Chairman, Stephen Walko, as he opened the public hearing.

But there were only 5 speakers at the hearing which lasted 20 minutes. Judging from who was in the relatively small audience, I feel safe in saying that the ‘voters’ in attendance, most of whom did not speak, were almost all RTM members. Of the 5 people who did speak, all but Democratic Selectman Drew Marzullo were recognizable as active Republicans. In addition to Selectman Marzullo, First Selectman Peter Tesei also spoke. So, 2 of the 5 speakers were Selectmen and the remaining 3 speakers were members of the RTM.

Only 1 speaker had actually signed up to speak. That was Steve Warzoha, a member of the RTM from District 9 and vice chair of the Budget Overview Committee. Warzoha, in calling for “open and fair elections for all members of the BET,” linked a change in the method of election to the RTM’s recently passed Sense of the Meeting Resolution (SOMR) that called for belt tightening. Not only do residents want more say in the town’s budget, said Warzoha, but they also want more say in who represents them on the BET. Because of the heightened awareness of financial issues, now is the right time for the BET, BOS, RTM and residents to have this discussion, said Warzoha.

After Warzoha spoke, Walko asked if there were any others in the audience who would like to speak. Following a long pause, Ed Dadakis, RTM member from District 1 and a former Chairman of the Republican Town Committee, went to the podium. He referred to the number of times he has spoken on this subject in the past. He supports competitive elections with more candidates than seats and a Board that reflects a political majority-minority. While any effort to make such a change has failed in the past, Dadakis saw a “glimmer of hope” last spring when Democratic Selectman, Drew Marzullo, joined with the other members of the BOS in raising the issue of BET accountability to the electorate. Recognizing that there were two points of view, Dadakis said that all “should agree to disagree,” but that he hoped the BET would bring the issue to the electorate by “putting it on the ballot and letting the voters decide.”

Walko again asked if any others in the audience wished to speak.

The third speaker to come forward was Bob Brady, Chairman of the RTM Education Committee. He said he would be against the majority-minority Board supported by Dadakis, but suggested that the political parties could open up the process. He seemed to be suggesting that the BET adopt the Board of Education model, which maintains a bi-partisan Board while allowing the political parties to put up more candidates than there are positions, thereby giving the voters choice. He cautioned, however, that members of the BET “should tread very carefully” in making a change to a process and structure that “has served us well.” He said that under the current system “Greenwich ranks very high.” He said that the town has “very good financial controls, a balanced budget and moderate tax increases.”

No one else in the general audience wished to speak.

First Selectman Peter Tesei, an ex-officio member of the BET, was the 4th speaker. Tesei complained about the structural impediments in bringing this matter to the electorate because, by Charter, any change to the BET must be initiated by the BET itself and any Charter change initiative requires the affirmative vote of 7 BET members, which precludes the Chairman’s tie breaking vote. He referred to a failure of the state legislature to act on changes in these home rule provisions during the Bergstresser administration. Citing the critical role the BET plays in the town and its “awesome powers,” he decried the fact that its members are chosen by the political parties and said this was no substitute for competitive elections. He held out Fairfield’s 9-member Board as a possible model for Greenwich.

The final speaker was Democratic Selectman Drew Marzullo, also an ex-officio member of the BET, who said that he had never called for a change in the method of election to the BET in general elections, but rather had been talking about intra-party elections that would broaden party participation in deciding which BET candidates would represent the party in the general election. He said he just wanted to clarify his position. It would appear he was suggesting that BET candidates from each party be chosen through a primary process.

Marzullo was the final speaker. However, Paul Curtis, RTM member from District 9, appeared from out of the closet where he was working at producing the Channel 79 broadcast of the BET meeting and said that he wished to speak to the issue but couldn’t come to the podium because he had no one to relieve him of his broadcasting duties while he spoke. He asked if he could submit written comments. Walko answered in the affirmative and encouraged members of the public to contact the BET by email or other written communication.

There was a motion to close the public hearing at 6:53 p.m.

It would appear from tonight’s public hearing that changing the method of election to the BET is not exactly a burning issue.

A public hearing on the method of electing members to the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) is at the top of tonight’s (Monday November 15, 2010) BET agenda. While at the moment there is no specific proposal on the table, BET Chairman Stephen Walko thinks it is time to air this old subject once again.

Walko is reacting to statements made at a Board of Selectmen meeting last March. Members of the BOS were upset that the BET had reduced funding for the town’s coordinator of emergency services, Dan Warzoha. There was a suggestion that the BOS should have power to override the BET with regard to appropriations such as this when the BOS felt the town’s best interest was at stake. One rationale: members of the BOS are elected, while members of the BET are not.

Walko says he “cringes” when people say BET members are not elected. They are, of course, elected. However, at issue is the fact that, unless there is a third party slate, all candidates on the ballot are sure to be elected. Once nominated by his or her party, a candidate is assured of election.

According to the town charter, each party may nominate up to six candidates, while twelve are elected. The individual voter may choose up to six of the twelve candidates on the ballot. However, this voter choice doesn’t really affect the outcome except that the party with the most votes in the aggregate gets the chairmanship, vice chairmanship and a tie breaking vote. In anyone’s living memory, the chairmanship, vice chairmanship and tie breaking vote have gone to the Republican Party.

It has been more than six years since the BET last voted on a possible change in the the way it is elected. On March 15, 2004, a motion to change the method of election to the BET was defeated. Democrats favored retaining a bi-partisan Board; Republicans sought more competitive elections that would do away with a bipartisan board and allow for a majority-minority Board.

With tonight’s public hearing, Walko hopes to open up the floor once again and give citizens a forum to make the arguments for and against changing the method of election to the BET. He says he wants to “reach out to the public” to see what the thinking is.

“Why shouldn’t democracy rule the BET?” he asked me in a recent phone interview. Walko told the Greenwich Time last March, when the question of BET members not being elected came up at the meeting of the BOS, that “the Republican caucus of the BET has consistently requested that the BET elections be competitive” while the Democratic caucus has been opposed.

What Walko says is true, and his question is a good one. Why indeed ‘shouldn’t democracy rule?’ Why not more competitive elections? How can Democrats be against more voter choice?

For the arguments that have been made by the Democratic caucus, see my  March 29,2010 posting on this blog which reproduces the op-ed piece written by the Democratic caucus in 2004 giving the arguments for maintaining a bi-partisan board. At the time, I was the Democratic caucus leader.

Also, watch for my column this Sunday, November 21, which will discuss this subject further.

The hearing tonight is intended as a forum for the public. No vote will be taken. Walko expects the matter will come up for a vote, however, at the December meeting of the BET.

Because this is a charter change initiative, the tie breaking vote doesn’t come into play since the affirmative votes of seven members are required for such an initiative. Therefore, I suspect – and Walko wouldn’t be surprised if my suspicions turn out to be true – that the outcome of a December 2010 vote will be much as it was in March 2004. But, as was the case when Peter Tesei was chairman in 2004, Walko is giving a forum for discussion and showing that the BET is sensitive to assertions that its members are not really elected.

Members of both parties have the opportunity to respond seriously and sincerely to calls for voter choice. It is fitting that every so often we revisit this issue and consider the different perspectives.

On this crisp and sunny fall morning members of the Green Fingers Garden Club were busy planting daffodil bulbs in anticipation of spring. The planting of spring blooming bulbs at various locations in town is something the club, a member of the Garden Clubs of America, tries to do every year, according to club president Betsy Mulcare. However, this year’s effort, known as “TEAM 75,” is a special one because the club is celebrating its 75th anniversary. According to Barb Kaytes, the club’s Civic Improvement Chairman, members are working together in teams and have decided to plant in places where they have done work in the past.

The “TEAM 75″ planting began at 9 a.m. this morning at the William Street playground. The gardeners then moved on to the Ferry Boat Landing where they have also recently had an old and unsightly chain link fence replaced with an attractive new fence.I caught up with the group at 11 a.m. just as they began to plant 500 daffodil bulbs at Wilbur Peck Court, a Greenwich Housing Authority development where the garden club has done extensive work over the years.

Garden club members were joined in this project by a team of Wilbur Peck Court residents, mostly children who were off from school because it is Election Day. Helping the children with the planting were 3 staff members from Community Centers, Inc. of Greenwich: social workers Lauren Falconi and Pam Bell and program coordinator Ramon Lara. This community service agency, otherwise known as CCI, offers a variety of programs to persons of all ages, most of whom are residents of Housing Authority developments. CCI was instrumental in coordinating the team effort between residents and garden club members.

The children and the garden club members worked together for over an hour planting clusters of bulbs in the front areas of the housing complex and by the entrance sign where Mulcare said the daffodils would be “welcoming.”  CCI staff members Lara and Bell dug holes in which a group of children that included Amber, Alma, Jorge and Jada placed bulbs. They wanted to know how many bulbs should go in each hole.

“How many is too many?” The answer: “Eleven.” A further answer: ” Seven is nice.” The plan was to plant the bulbs in a haphazard fashion, not with exactly the same number in each cluster. “They naturalize and multiply,” a garden club member said.

Mulcare said that Wilbur Peck Court was a site where the club had done a lot of work in the past. In 2008, they planted a tree with the Greenwich Tree Conservancy and have done landscaping in the front and back of the buildings. The landscaping includes plants that came from members’ own gardens.

Just over ten years ago, in 1999 and 2000, the club undertook a major project that involved taking up all the asphalt in back of one of the buildings and replacing it with square pavers that allow grass to grow, while still keeping the area accessible to fire trucks as required. The new grassy space has become a recreational area that includes picnic tables and barbecue grills. Trish Stefani, a 20-year member of the club, was the driving force behind this renovation.

The club’s many projects reflect “our keen sense of civic pride and our commitment to the town,” according to Kaytes. The “Preview of Spring” party is the club’s main fundraiser that makes all these civic projects possible. The next “Preview of Spring,” a major flower show that takes place in late February and early March, will be in 2012.

As predicted, the RTM approved the Sense of the Meeting Resolution on budgetary restraint by a wide margin last night ( Monday October 25). The vote was 135-41-12.

It was, after all, a vote for “motherhood and apple pie.” Who could be against a vaguely-worded resolution that has no legally binding authority and calls upon town leaders to exercise fiscal restraint in a difficult economic environment? Still, 41 RTM members did vote against “motherhood and apple pie,” and 12 abstained.

Some of these dissenting votes may reflect concern that the pie’s recipe contains the ingredients for detrimental cuts in services. As one RTM member who voted against the resolution expressed it for me: “Unfortunately, motherhood and apple pie are an enticement to re-engineer government to serve fewer with less.”

John Blankley of District 10 may have spoken for the minority from another perspective when he took exception to the “sensationalized numbers” in the District 7 Report prepared by Lucia Jansen. He pointed out  that the numbers are presented “without context” and do not take into account budgetary mandates and changing demographics and that using a 40-year time frame without further refinement distorts the picture. He also pointed out, as did Chris von Keyserling of District 8, that town spending as a percentage of the Grand List has actually decreased in the 40 years between 1970 and 2010.

Von Keyserling, saying that “everyone is looking at the same figures from a different point of view,” pointed out that in 1970, the budget vs. Grand List ratio was 2.4%, while in 2010 it is 1.1%. According to von Keyserling, the ratio for a “healthy town” could be as high as 5%. Greenwich has the lowest taxes, not only in Connecticut, but also in comparison to surrounding Westchester communities. “The sky is not falling,” von Keyserling said.

Of course, proponents of the resolution point out that the phenomenal growth in our Grand List has given cover to spending increases, allowing us to keep the annual mill rate increase below the actual spending increases. The expectation is that in the new economic environment the Grand List will decline and the town’s revenues will decrease while spending pressures continue to escalate.

But none of the issues raised by proponents of the resolution are new. With longstanding bi-partisan commitment to fiscal restraint, the BET constantly grapples with all these fiscal issues and is cognizant of economic trends. Based on preliminary budget projections, the BET prepares budget guidelines designed to keep tax increases to a minimum. These guidelines inform the budget process each year.

The First Selectman presents the BET with a consolidated town budget that reflects the needs of the community, but should fall within the BET’s budget guidelines. The BOE presents the BET with a budget that reflects educational needs, but should also fall within these budget guidelines. It is the BET’s responsibility to balance the demand for services and educational excellence with the exercise of fiscal restraint and present the RTM with a budget for final approval. The RTM has final power to cut, or eliminate, anything in the budget. The BET then sets the mill rate based on the final budget as approved by the RTM.

In spite of the fact that some proponents of the SOMR seem to believe it represents a “new philosophy” and is a departure from past practice, there is nothing in this resolution that calls for anything new. As amended, it calls upon the First Selectman, the BET, the BOE, the RTM and all appointing authorities (presumably the independent boards and commissions that present their departmental budgets to the First Selectman) to exercise fiscal restraint in the 2011-12 budget and going forward. How does this differ from what we already do?

BET Chairman, Stephen Walko, calling the discussion surrounding the resolution “a healthy debate,” said that the BET recognizes “the different and difficult economic environment” and pointed out that the RTM – as well as the First Selectman, BOE and BET – is responsible for the 2012 budget. Walko, BOE Chairman Steven Anderson and First Selectman Peter Tesei all encouraged members of the RTM to speak up at every opportunity as the budget process unfolds.

However, if the SOMR signifies that the RTM wants significant budget cutting beyond the BET guidelines, then members need to take greater responsibility during the early priority setting by indicating where these cuts should be made. This is something proponents of the SOMR have so far refused to do. But if RTM members don’t take responsibility early on in the process, their only alternative is to make what may be poorly considered cuts at the end of the process.

Either way, it’s about cost cutting. This, then, is what’s new about the SOMR. It tips the scale away from a traditional commitment to balancing services and cost containment. It reflects a new climate that favors a reduced commitment to community needs.

The sense of the meeting resolution on the RTM Call for next Monday’s meeting seems to be this week’s hot topic. It has been referred to all RTM committees.It will be discussed all week in committee and district meetings. It was discussed last night (October 18) at the regular BET meeting as well as at a joint meeting of the RTM’s Land Use and Education Committees. It will be the subject of my column for this coming Sunday, October 24.

Here are some sketchy notes from the two meetings I attended last night – BET and RTM’s joint meeting of the Land Use and Education Committees. This is just a quick blog posting, not a fleshed out version of my notes.

BET Chairman, Stephen Walko, introduced the BET discussion by making 3 important points: 1) the resolution’s reference to the Board of Selectman is in error as, by Charter, the BOS is not involved in the budget process, only in the setting of fees; rather, it is the First Selectman who, by Charter, has this responsibility, 2) the RTM is noticeably absent as a budget player in the resolution although the RTM itself plays a major role, not only in final approval of the budget, but more specifically in the area of labor contracts, 3) the call for improvement in transparency ignores the major progress that has been made by the BET in this direction over the past decade, and that continues, particularly with regard to the budget guidelines, the capital improvements projects (CIP), and the openness of the budget process. Walko said that, while the BET can always make improvements in transparency and clarity, and strives to do so, he hoped that the RTM resolution would recognize this and not make such criticism part of the resolution.

Walko’s points were re-iterated by BET clerk Bob Pellegrino, who sat in for Walko as BET representative at the joint meeting of the RTM Land Use and Education Committees. Pellegrino urged RTM members to listen to the Channel 79 taping of the BET meeting and/or to read the minutes of the meeting online to get a sense of the comments made by different BET members.Proponents of the proposed RTM resolution who were the spokespeople at the joint committee meeting – Valerie Stauffer, Lucia Jansen and Bill Galvin – seemed to agree to these changes to the resolution when specifically asked at this joint meeting.

For the most part comments on the subject seemed to boil down to the view that there is nothing in the proposed RTM resolution that the BET is not already doing and that, unless the proponents of the resolution can come up with specific cuts, it is unhelpful to put the entire burden on the shoulders of the First Selectman and the BET to do something beyond what they are already doing. The resolution itself which calls for reducing the rate of increase in the budget is already in the BET’s proposed budget guidelines for the 2012 budget, which, currently in draft form, call for a 2.9% mill rate increase, a reduction from the usual 3.5% increase.

BET members high lighted the fact that the public’s demand for services is very great, and that they rarely hear the public asking for a lesser level of service in favor of reduced taxes. Proponents of the resolution, on the other hand, argue that this resolution reflected a groundswell of support for reducing taxes in a changed post-2008 economic environment.

Proponents of the resolution were repeatedly asked, both by members of the BET and by the First Selectman, to be more specific about how they might achieve their goals. What cuts would they recommend? What reduction in services? Their response was that they did not want to micro-manage. They would leave such specifics to the experts, presumably the First Selectman and the BET.

Because the resolution is so general, many seemed to feel it was like motherhood and apple pie. How could anyone vote against it?

Comments by BET members and the First Selectman also highlighted the need for a better understanding of the way in which labor contracts drive the budget, and the impact of state law regarding binding arbitration.

At both meetings, Lucia Jansen and District 7 were commended for the work done in researching the issue and developing the historical data, as well as bringing this matter to the forefront for the purposes of dialogue.

But the Land Use Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Peter Berg, has developed an impressive list of 21 written questions, and observations, that punch some holes in the historical argument that underlies the resolution. These questions, and well-researched observations, demonstrate that using population growth, or lack thereof over a 40 year period, is not the most relevant variable in examining the town’s budget growth over this period of time. There are many other factors to be considered. This list of questions and observations also suggests that an argument can be made to the effect that property taxes are actually more affordable to Greenwich median income households now than they were in 1970, the year in which Jansen’s analysis begins, and that the town has done an excellent job in keeping taxes down over this 40 year period.

In my regular Greenwich Time column yesterday (Sunday, October 17), I argued that, given the recent problems in the tax collector’s office, it might be time to take a fresh look at an old issue and replace an elected tax collector with an appointed professional. The BET has twice voted in favor of such a charter amendment – in 1996 and in 2001 – and the RTM has twice rejected the proposal. The item went down to resounding defeat by a vote of 171 to 14 at the June 10, 2002 meeting of the RTM. This was the last time the question was addressed.

The 2002 RTM vote was predictable. A lame duck BET passed the measure by a narrow 7-5 vote at Alice Melly’s last meeting in December 2001 before she went off the board after serving 10 years, the last 4 as chair. The measure passed because Melly voted with the 6 Democrats. It was essentially a party line vote.

Although the proposal came to the RTM as a BET initiative, it had no Republican support within the new BET that took office in January 2002. The 6 BET Democrats lobbied the RTM in favor of the Charter amendment; the 6 Republicans lobbied against. The proposal was doomed to failure.

After being dormant for the past 8 years, the issue is resurfacing due to last summer’s late tax billing fiasco in the tax collector’s office and the recently unaccounted for checks. It is time to move this beyond partisan politics, for the good of the town.

In yesterday’s paper there was also an article on the subject by Neil Vigdor. In the article, Tod Laudonia, the current tax collector, was quoted as saying that the position should be an elected one “because we’re a representative form of government.” He went on to say that he thinks “we should have as many elected officials as we can.”

This statement makes little sense. Would we have an elected comptroller? Budget director? Town planner? Commissioner of public works? Should as many town positions as possible be filled by elected officials? Of course not. Where jobs require a level of expertise, the town seeks to hire the applicant best qualified for that job. Qualifications for the job of tax collector should at a minimum require the applicant to be a Certified Connecticut Municipal Collector (CCMC). An elected tax collector has no such requirement.

Looking at  Laudonia’s statement that “we should have as many elected officials as we can” in the context of levels of professional expertise, let us consider the position of assessor. This was an elected position until a 1992 Charter amendment made it an appointed one. The impetus for such an amendment stemmed from a botched revaluation under an elected assessor. Today, it would be hard to imagine the town functioning without a professional assessor.It would be absurd to even suggest that this be an elected position.

Vigdor’s article also quoted Selectman David Theis as opposing a change to an appointed position. “I don’t like appointments,” he said. “I think that promotes complacency and cronyism.”

This statement, however, ignores the fact that the appointments of the comptroller and assessor by the BET every 2 years are hardly based on “complacency and cronyism.” These positions are initially filled through a competitive job search done through the Human Resources Department, as with any professional job in the town. Both the comptroller and the assessor receive yearly job performance reviews in which all BET members participate. And both are reappointed every 2 years by the BET. Reappointment isn’t a foregone conclusion.In the year 2000, for example, the BET did not reappoint the existing comptroller. Past proposals to make the tax collector an appointed professional were modeled on the positions of assessor and comptroller.

Vigdor’s article also quotes current First Selectman Peter Tesei regarding an appointed tax collector who would not necessarily be a Greenwich resident: “You wouldn’t want a collector to come in town and take a more aggressive stance and maybe board up a property.” However, this is a very old quote from after the 2002 RTM vote when Tesei was Chairman of the BET. He was not addressing the current situation, so in some ways, it may be out of context.

This quote was after the vote in which all 6 Republican BET members lobbied the RTM against the charter change, all using essentially the same arguments. One of these 6 Republicans was BET Budget Committee Chairman and future First Selectman, Jim Lash, who was a very vocal opponent of doing away with an elected tax collector, speaking at the RTM district and committee meetings. Taking the same position as Tesei and all the Republicans did at the time, he argued that voters should have a say in choosing someone who has the power to force the sale of homes. Lash has since reconsidered and now believes there are sufficient institutional safeguards for homeowners. He has become a strong proponent of doing away with an elected tax collector.

Hopefully, we can all take a fresh look at this old issue and come to a non-partisan consensus on what is best for the town.