Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

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.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

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.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

A candidate forum is being held tonight in the Town Hall Meeting Room. The forum, which begins at 6 p.m., will feature candidates for the 149th and 151st state assembly districts. All four candidates – Republicans Livvy Floren and Fred Camillo and Democrats Howard Richman and Claude Johnson – have been invited to participate in what was originally intended as a debate to take the place of a League of Women Voters debate that was cancelled due to the weather and not rescheduled.

However, the Republican candidates have declined to participate. This is unfortunate as the voters deserve every opportunity to become informed about the candidates’ positions on the serious issues that face our state. What started out as a Democratic initiative to promote a cooperative effort between the two parties in providing Greenwich voters with the opportunity to hear the candidates debate the issues has become a purely Democratic effort due to lack of Republican participation.

That the event has now become a partisan candidate forum sponsored by local Democrats does not negate its service to the voters. Howard Richman, Democratic candidate for the 149th assembly district, and Claude Johnson, Democratic candidate for the 151st assembly district will give voters an opportunity to ask questions in an open forum. Voters will have the opportunity to hear about the candidates’ proposed legislative initiatives. Voters will also have an opportunity to express their views and share their concerns in discussion with the candidates.

Greenwich voters, regardless of party, should take advantage of this opportunity to get to know the Democratic candidates. This can lead to a more informed choice.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

In my first Greenwich Time column (October 3), I wrote about the importance of voter choice in a democracy and the fact that this year Greenwich voters have a choice of candidates for the state legislature in all but one of our state legislative districts. This choice is not a given. The Democratic candidates, running against seemingly insurmountable odds, must never be taken for granted.

My column didn’t deal with the other side of the equation – the need for an informed electorate. In order to make meaningful choices, the voters must have the opportunity to get to know something about the candidates and what they stand for. One important vehicle for informing the electorate is the live debate, with a portion of the questions coming from the audience. This is the best way for voters to hear from the candidates first hand. It allows voters to exercise judgment that is not based on campaign rhetoric.

Such debates have traditionally been sponsored by the League of Women Voters, an organization known for its voter service, with considerable expertise in running debates. Unfortunately, the debate sponsored by the Greenwich League scheduled for September 30 was cancelled due to a storm threat that turned the Town Hall Meeting Room, where the debate was to be held, into the town’s Emergency Operations Center.

The debate would have been between Republican Livvy Floren and Democrat Howard Richman, both candidates for the 149th state assembly district, and between Republican Fred Camillo and Democrat Claude Johnson, candidates for the 151st assembly district. Citing difficulties in finding a suitable venue and coordinating schedules, the League decided not to reschedule the debate. This decision is unfortunate as it deprives the voters of an important opportunity to become more informed. One wonders if a greater effort could have been made to find a suitable time and place over the course of the then three and a half weeks before the election. Be that as it may, the League debate will not take place.

Given this reality, local Democrats took the initiative in trying to coordinate with local Republicans in organizing an alternative debate, using the same format and rules as would have been used by the League. The Greenwich Time also offered to sponsor a debate in an effort to ensure an opportunity for voters to hear from the candidates on substantive issues.

But Republicans scoffed at the idea.

Granted that there have been other debates between the candidates for the state assembly in the course of this campaign season in other venues, and other candidate forums, and that a GCTV televised debate will be broadcast repeatedly on Channel 79 in the remaining days leading up to the election, the League debate has always been the big debate that draws the greatest audience and that allows the audience to interact with the candidates in a live forum on a wide range of issues.

And granted also that no other organization – especially not a political town committee, or committees – will ever be able to duplicate the League debate, it is disappointing to see such Republican resistance to the very idea of trying to schedule a debate.

It appears as the arrogance of power. How else to interpret a statement like: “If the shoe was on the other foot, they would laugh at us.”

This quote is attributed to Fred Camillo in reference to the Democratic effort to organize a debate. According to newspaper accounts, Fred doubts that the Democrats would be eager to debate if they were the incumbents. In other words, we the Republican incumbents are laughing at you Democrats for trying to schedule another debate. Why should we bother to cooperate with you, or debate with you who are not incumbents.

The Republicans can afford to be smug. No Democrat has been elected to the state assembly from Greenwich for nearly 100 years, not since 1912.

Likewise, Republican Town Committee Chairman, Jim Campbell, can put down the whole effort with the snide comment that the Democrats are only interested in a debate because their candidates are “not well known.”

Well, yes. That’s the point. The candidates are not well known. Does this mean the voters should be deprived of an opportunity to get to know them better?

Unfortunately, this whole debate over the debate has deteriorated into unhelpful partisan sniping, and will likely culminate with a Democratic event scheduled for Wednesday evening, October 13, in the Town Hall Meeting Room. Although the scheduling conflicts with a Stamford 149th district candidate forum, Democrats plan to go ahead with this event, intended as a debate, to which the Republican assembly candidates have been invited.

It is doubtful any Republican candidates will be present in what has become a purely partisan venue, or that any additional debate will ever take place. But for voters interested in learning more about the Democratic candidates, Claude Johnson and Howard Richman, it should be an event well worth attending.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

In all my blog postings I strive for accuracy. But if I make a mistake, I will do my best to correct it. And if an apology is in order, it will be forthcoming. I am told by Planning and Zoning Commissioner Frank Farricker that in my Sunday blog posting – Possible Law Suit Over Bank Denial : Confusion Over Legal Protections for Town Officers - I have made an assumption that is not true.

In that posting, I wrote:

In the aftermath of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s stunning 3-2 vote to deny  Chase’s application to put a bank in Cos Cob where the Bella Nona restaurant is now located, Commission members, faced with a possible law suit, convened in executive session for a briefing from the town’s law department. The idea that Commission members – and by implication all town officers – are personally liable for legal fees and for any award should the town lose a suit came from a Commission member who was present during that executive session and provided certain information to the press.

The Commission member referred to was Frank Farricker, who did provide information to the press regarding the potential for personal liability when town officers and their boards or commissions are sued. However, in my blog posting I made the assumption that Frank provided this information subsequent to the executive session, in which case he would have been violating the confidentiality of the executive session. I made this assumption based on the news reports about the possible law suit. In a phone conversation late this afternoon, Frank assures me that he made his statements to the press before the executive session took place and that he has never spoken to the press about what went on during the executive session.

I therefore stand corrected, and offer an apology to Frank.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Over the past week, inaccurate information reported in the media began to approach the status of “fact.” It was accepted that volunteers who serve on our town boards and commissions are somehow personally liable and not protected by the town when their decisions lead to law suits, although this is not true.

A statement in Bob Horton’s most recent column, for example, reinforces the inaccuracy, as do recent letters to the editor. Horton writes: The town should have a clearly stated policy of defending all decisions reached by its boards and commissions. The alternative is chaos. But this assertion ignores the fact that the town does defend the decisions reached by its boards and commissions, and also defends individual board and commission members if they are sued separately. The town has always assumed the costs in law suits involving decisions by town boards and commissions as well the costs of defending individual members. Moreover, this is not just a matter of policy. The town is required to do so by state statute. All this assumes, of course, that board and commission members act in good faith, and not in a reckless or capricious manner.

And this caveat may be an important clue in understanding how the erroneous idea gained currency in the first place.

In the aftermath of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s stunning 3-2 vote to deny  Chase’s application to put a bank in Cos Cob where the Bella Nona restaurant is now located, Commission members, faced with a possible law suit, convened in executive session for a briefing from the town’s law department. The idea that Commission members – and by implication all town officers – are personally liable for legal fees and for any award should the town lose a suit came from a Commission member who was present during that executive session and provided certain information to the press.

There is no doubt that something was said in executive session that led Commission members to believe they may be personally liable for their board’s decision on the Chase application. And this, in itself, is revealing. It provides a clue as to what may have been discussed in executive session. Reading between the lines, one might infer that the town is in a weak position to defend the Chase decision and that the personal liability of Commission members would come into play if the court determined their vote was not based on legitimate zoning concerns, but rather constituted discrimination against banks, something that is not legal.

Of course this is all pure speculation on my part. I have no inside information. But the very fact that I have any information at all upon which to base my speculation is disturbing, since the purpose of executive sessions is to keep sensitive information confidential when disclosure would be harmful.

Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) serves the public in important ways by ensuring that meetings at all levels of government are always open to the public, that all votes are taken in public session, that the public has access to government records and that notices of meetings, agendas and minutes are posted properly and in timely fashion.

However, FOIA allows a public agency to close portions of a meeting, i.e. to go into executive session, but only for very specific reasons.These permissible reasons are limited to: discussion of a specific employee, unless the employee requests the discussion be held in public; strategy and negotiations regarding pending claims and litigation; security matters; real estate acquisition if openness might increase the price; and any matter that would result in the disclosure of a public record exempted from the disclosure requirements for public records.

To make public “strategy and negotiations regarding pending claims and litigation” could seriously undermine the town’s position. Let’s hope that in this particular case, the only harm done is confusion regarding the extent to which the town provides legal protection for members of its volunteer boards and commissions.

Comments(1)

|

E-mail

|

Print

Starting on October 3, I will be writing a weekly Sunday column for the Greenwich Time, with a focus on Greenwich issues. My blog, Our Town, will, for the most part, tie in with this new column. I will no longer be posting articles in the format I have been doing since starting this blog last November. My postings will be shorter, less polished and, hopefully, more frequent. I envision blog postings that will be short comments on the local news of the day, or else include information relevant to the content of my column that is not incorporated into what actually appears in the print version. Reader’s comments will help shape future columns. My first column will be on voter choice and the races for the state legislature in Greenwich – why we shouldn’t take the Democratic candidates for granted.

So here goes with my new blog format – my thoughts on today’s news in the Greenwich Time —-

Headline – Board may face suit over rejection of bank branch. Big surprise. “The town will have a law suit on its hands” is what I said to my husband the moment I started reading Frank MacEachern’s article on Wednesday, September 15. MacEachern referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission’s 3-2 decision denying the proposal to build a Chase Bank at 371 East Putnam Avenue in Cos Cob as a “stunning move.”  Indeed, it was more like a shocking move. Much as we all seem dismayed about the proliferation of banks in our town – and I wrote about this extensively in my blog posting “What to do about the banks” – the idea that a bank will generate more traffic than a restaurant is hard to grasp. Or that concerns about eliminating a barrier between Bella Nona and Dunkin Donuts couldn’t have been addressed in a mutually agreeable way in the course of nearly three years? It seems unconscionable to string a property owner along for 31 months without regard to costs incurred and personal hardship and then deny the owner a reasonable use of property on flimsy grounds. Whether or not we want a bank at that location is not the issue. The issue is one of due process.

Headline – Sex offender ban fails. For the third time the RTM has postponed a vote on a proposed ban of registered sex offenders at schools, parks, playgrounds and beaches. It is time to table this bad idea indefinitely. The RTM’s health and human services committee is right that this will not provide any additional protection for children, but will be an additional burden for the police. It is also a clear violation of civil liberties.

Editorial – Voters must demand more. This is right on. As it is voters know very little about what McMahon’s positions are on most issues. It is unacceptable that a candidate for the U.S. Senate refuses to discuss her specific positions on such important issues as Medicare and Social Security.

Comments(2)

|

E-mail

|

Print

If the 2010 November election is destined to be bad news for the nation’s Democrats, there was no such indication at yesterday afternoon’s (Sunday September 12) Annual Greenwich Democratic Picnic where the mood was decidedly upbeat. The event, held in the Garden Education Center at the Montgomery Pinetum in Cos Cob, was well attended. Although the weather was dreary, the political outlook was bright.A sense of excitement permeated the room. With the November election just 51 days away, Greenwich Democrats were anticipating Democratic victories as they listened to the candidates speak. The emcee, Democratic Town Committee Chair Frank Farricker, presided over an energized crowd.

Congressman Jim Himes spoke, proud to stand on his voting record and on the accomplishments of the Obama Administration, particularly in the areas of  health care reform and the economic stimulus package. So much has been accomplished in just 21 months, he said, particularly given the mess inherited from 8 years of the Bush Administration. This was a sentiment echoed by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Malloy, who plans to turn the state around after nearly 2 decades of decline under Republican governors. Cynthia Blumenthal, speaking in place of her husband, Senate candidate Dick Blumenthal who had to be at other events yesterday afternoon, praised the entire Connecticut Democratic ticket as one of the best she’s seen.

It is indeed an excellent ticket and most likely a winning one that will buck the nation’s projected trend. The national forecast for Democrats this November is bleak. But unlike many of the states in our nation, Connecticut seems still to be a blue state. FiveThirtyEight: Nate Silver’s Political Calculus, a blog that is produced by statistician Nate Silver in conjunction with The New York Times, gives Democrats only a 33% chance of retaining control of the House of Representatives. In other words, there is a 2/3 chance that the Republicans will retake control after this November’s election. But the picture for Connecticut is very different.

Statistician Nate Silver, age 32, was named by Time magazine in April 2009 as one of the world’s 100 most influential people. He gained ascendency during the November 2008 presidential election when his statistical model accurately predicted the results in 49 of the 50 states.He has just teamed up with The New York Times, working with the Times’ graphic and interactive journalists, as well as with a team of political editors, correspondents and polling experts, to develop the forecasts on the FiveThirtyEight blog.

While Silver’s forecast for the nation in November’s election is most unfavorable to Democrats, his predictions for Connecticut favor the Democratic candidates. He gives Democrat Dan Malloy an 81% chance of victory over Republican Tom Foley in the gubernatorial race. And he forecasts a win for all 5 incumbent Connecticut Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives. This includes Greenwich resident Jim Himes, our Congressman from Connecticut’s 4th Congressional District, for whom Silver predicts a victory with 52% of the vote and an overall 81.8% chance for a Democratic victory in this race.

While so many people are wringing their hands out of concern for Dick Blumenthal’s Senate campaign which seems to be invisible – his campaign or lack thereof is talked about everywhere – Silver’s model has Blumenthal winning nonetheless with 53.8% of the vote and with a 93.1% chance of winning as compared to a 6.9% chance of winning for his opponent, Linda McMahon. This is very good news.

Richard Blumenthal is a good man, a long time elected official with a sterling record of public service that spans a lifetime. Linda McMahon has no record of public service whatsoever, has never held elected office and has a  record in private business that raises many serious questions. That Blumenthal’s campaign seems invisible relative to hers stems largely from the fortune that she is spending on her campaign, almost all coming from her World Wrestling Entertainment earnings, an enormously successful business with questionable practices.  She has so far spent $23 million and plans to spend $50 million of her own money on this campaign. Blumenthal has only an infinitesimal fraction of that amount available to his campaign.

If Silver’s forecast is correct and Dick Blumenthal wins the race for U.S. Senate, in spite of being enormously outspent by his opponent, that will be a victory not just for Dick Blumenthal, but for the whole election process. It will show that elective offices are not up for sale to be had by those who have the most money to spend on their own campaigns. It will show that discriminating voters can see through such attempts to buy an election.

But nothing can be taken for granted. Much can happen in 51 days. Democrats left the picnic with their work cut out got them.

While it looks good for Democratic victories at the top of the ticket in Connecticut, Silver has no predictions for those running for the Connecticut state legislature. But if he did, using his predictive model, the forecast would undoubtedly be very grim for the Greenwich candidates.

There hasn’t been a Democrat from Greenwich elected to the state house for 98 years, not since 1912. And the last Democrat from Greenwich elected to the state senate was Allen Barton, elected 80 years ago in 1930, the grandfather of the current Democratic state senate candidate, Nancy Barton. Although Barton and Democratic state house candidates, Claude Johnson and Howard Richman, are good candidates, their chances of winning are next to nothing. Still, they are upbeat about their campaigns, and we owe them our enormous gratitude for running and believing in themselves and  giving Greenwich voters a choice. They give us a a very valuable gift, at considerable expense to themselves.

They are already winners regardless of the election’s outcome.