Only in Waterbury

This morning as I was getting ready for work, I took a quick look at the Republican-American and saw this on the front page:

Dads in school questioned

News last week that fathers were volunteer patrols at a city middle school has some Board of Education members questioning the safety of the program.

Having read, and supported, the concepts listed in the original article, I was quite curious and concerned as to whom on the Board of Education could possibly object to increased parental involvement?

During the seven years I taught at Wilby, getting parents to show up for events such as football games, parent-teacher conferences, and school plays was a constant struggle. There were a myriad of reasons why the parents couldn't make it, some of them disappointing (the few parents that didn't place a priority on education), but most of them quite understandable (the parents working late to support the family). Whatever the reasons were, the fact remained, we always had to work to get the parents to show up.

Now we have a program at West Side that seems to be working. Three fathers who are taking the time to provide the school with an extra set of eyes and the ability to keep the hallways clear. How could anyone find a problem with this? Isn't this one of the four main goals of the Waterbury Public Schools? With these questions spinning in my head, I turned to the local section to see who had raised the alarm.

Once I got to the article itself, I found a drastically different story then the one presented on the front page. In the article, four of the ten members of the Board of Education are mentioned by name. Commissioner Flaherty-Merritt is mentioned as reminding the Board that the program in question was discussed at an earlier workshop, and Commissioner Stango commented that programs like this are endorsed by Parent Teacher Organizations throughout the US.

The only members of the Board of Education to mention safety concerns in the article were Commissioners D'Angelo and Theriault. Both Commissioners suggested that people who wish to volunteer in a school setting should be fingerprinted, and put through a background check. Neither Commissioner has anything negative to say about the program at West Side, and expressed a desire to err on the side of caution.

When one considers that these protocols are in place for all teachers, substitutes, and mentors, it seems like a logical step to include volunteers.

As unusual as it may sound, after I finished reading the article, I was more upset then when I started. Once again the editors of the newspaper felt the need to sensationalize a story just to grab the readers attention. Furthermore, they felt the need to do so at the public schools expense.

Mr. Puffer seems to have written an article that addresses both the benefits and concerns of the program at West Side, and does so without overtly editorializing. So why do the editors feel the need to present the story on the front page in a manner that would cause most parents to keep their children at home? Why take a veiled shot at the public schools when the administration at West Side is doing something right? It is the latest version of a question that I have been asking myself for years, and I don't know if there's a satisfactory answer.

However, if Waterbury is ever going to recover from its problem of perception, there needs to be a change of attitude in the local media. Those that run the Republican American need to stop portraying the city as a decrepit hulk of shame and disgrace. They need to start admitting that there are things being done to improve the City of Waterbury, and they need to give these accomplishments the credit they deserve. Until that is done, Waterbury will always have an uphill struggle.

Governor M. Jodi Rell

Now that Governor Rell has announced that she will be stepping away from the spotlight of elected office, politicians and pundits from across the state have begun reflecting on her tenure as our Chief Executive.

Most will focus on the accomplishments of her administration, along with her lengthy career in the State House and as Lieutenant Governor. All will treat the Governor with the respect she has earned after 25 years in public service.

For myself, I feel the most fitting way for me to honor the Governor is by sharing a story that is (in my opinion) the epitome of the class and grace that was the hallmark of Governor Rell.

In 2004 some of my fellow young guns attempted to start a "Waterbury Young Republicans" group. As with any new group, there were a few dedicated members at every meeting while the rest waited to see if our endeavour would take flight. While I was waiting (with a few of these dedicated individuals) for our May meeting to begin, I began to talk to my friends about our need to recruit more members. I was building up a good head of steam on my rant, when in walked then Lt. Gov. Rell. Out of respect for her I quickly put the brakes on my speech and yielded the floor. To my complete surprise, Lt. Gov. Rell asked me to continue with the discussion I had started.

This may not sound like much, but when a Lieutenant Governor walks into a room and is willing to listen to some 26 year old upstart she doesn't know as he rants about recruitment issues, it shows an amazing amount of dignity. I was humbled, and a little embarrassed that she actually wanted to hear what I had to say.

I imagine that most politicians would have instead made the rest of the meeting about them. Governor Rell was willing to listen, and I have never forgotten the respect she showed my friends and I that night.

Whatever you say about Governor Rell's accomplishments or her views, I think the political arena could use a few more people like her.

Thank you for your years of service Governor Rell, and thank you for reminding this impudent upstart what is important in politics.

Falling Numbers

Now that the dust has settled from Tuesday's election, and I've had some time to reflect, there is something I would like to discuss about the results.

I realize that I'm not the first person to bring this up (h/t to Raechel Guest), but I was extremely disappointed to see the low turnout for Tuesday's election.

What makes the turnout on Tuesday so disappointing is that this level of voter apathy is not common for the City of Waterbury. For example, in 2001 the city of Waterbury had a turnout of 50.3%. That means that there were 24,000 votes cast from 48,000 registered voters. since then, the turnout has dropped precipitously, falling all the way to 24.00% this week.

I know that there are some out there that would like to consider this situation isolated to a few districts or groups. Unfortunately the loss of interested voters has occurred city wide. To illustrate my point, I have included the turnout figures for each polling location during the past three elections.

District	2005	2007	2009
City Wide	40.59%	32.37%	24.00%
71-1	58.53%	49.64%	39.51%
71-2	51.32%	41.80%	32.75%
71-3	53.38%	44.95%	33.22%
72-1	23.66%	19.19%	13.33%
72-2	26.52%	17.98%	12.98%
72-3	30.56%	20.88%	14.44%
72-4	41.85%	32.19%	23.10%
72-5	32.20%	24.44%	17.05%
73-1	53.55%	44.98%	34.32%
73-2	55.96%	44.84%	32.61%
73-3	41.21%	31.94%	23.42%
73-4	44.25%	35.95%	26.98%
73-5	55.28%	44.23%	37.60%
73-6	40.29%	34.21%	24.92%
74-1	48.06%	38.75%	28.29%
74-2	39.63%	31.71%	23.41%
74-3,4	50.05%	40.37%	32.21%
75-1	15.76%	12.30%	08.13%
75-2	39.33%	30.64%	23.13%
75-3	18.54%	12.11%	08.34%
75-4	23.82%	16.70%	08.53%
75-5	20.86%	15.64%	09.64%

As you can see, every district in the city has had a drastic drop in turnout. Out of the 22 polling locations in the city, Blessed Sacrament school (73-5) shows the smallest proportional drop off in voters. Sadly, they still showed a loss of 32.52%.

In 2005 649 voters showed up out of 1,174 registered. In 2009, 449 voters showed up out of 1,194 registered. When you consider that the district increased its voter registration by 20, there should have been 660 people voting to maintain the turnout of 2005.

I find it downright appalling that every single district in the city has had it's turnout slashed by at least 1/3 over the past four years. Furthermore it is almost unconscionable to see that 4 of the 22 poling locations on Tuesday had a turnout of less then 10%!

While it's easy for me to rant about these terrible numbers and what it means for our society, democracy, common sense, and so on, there has to be a solution out there somewhere. And to find to solution, we need to identify the problem.

So, why did no one show up?

1)The cross-endorsement? While that may have been a reason for some people, I cannot accept that as a reason for over 9,000 people to sit this one out.

2)General voter apathy? Again, I have a difficult time accepting this as a standalone cause, due to the fact that voter turnouts of 50% or more used to be common in Waterbury elections.

3)Lack of coverage? I remember reading the newspaper growing up and seeing several articles a day on the campaigns, often on the front page. I also remember the newspaper printing a rather large copy of the ballot so people could decide in advance who they were going to cast their votes for. Both of these practices have come to an end in recent years.

4)Negativity in the campaigns? While I can see this turning a lot of people off, I have no problem saying with a straight face that the Republican campaign stayed positive. Everything that I saw my fellow candidates and I put out there was based on facts. We didn't call people names, or try and have people arrested.

5)Something else? Is there a reason that I've missed?

If those are the problems, then the question becomes, how do we fix it?

In terms of distributing information, I know that Raechel and John Murray run their own Waterbury based blogs, and John has the Waterbury Observer which comes out every month. There are also several shows on the Public Access channels, but none of those shows reach a wide audience, especially with the proliferation of TV providers that are not required to carry those channels. Further, one can only assume that the current economic troubles affecting newspapers like the Courant are also taking a toll on the Republican-American.

With this situation, only the people who are truly interested in politics will find the information, the casual observer will probably not take the time. This is something I see as a problem that stretches far beyond the boundaries of Waterbury. As they say, though, all politics is local.

It seems to me that we need to find a way to get the citizens of Waterbury to care about politics again. We need to find a person or people to inspire them and get them excited about the prospect of voting. But where do we find such a person, and how do we get that message out there?

I try and do my part with this blog and my show, but I can't do it alone. Who else is willing to step up to the plate and make a difference? Who's willing to join me in this quest?

Change In Policy

For various reasons, mostly due to exhaustion and frustration with "Monday-morning quarterbacks", this blog will no longer be accepting "Anonymous" comments.

People are still welcome to comment on my posts, but if you are not willing to stand by what you say by putting your name next to it, is it really worth saying?

Disappointment

I wish I had a better title for this morning’s post, but sometimes there are no other words to describe how a person feels.

For the past 3 months now my friends on Row A and I have poured our hearts and souls in to the campaign for seats on the Board of Aldermen and the Board of Education. I had the privilege of running with some very talented and very nice individuals. As the sun rose yesterday we were cautiously optimistic that our hard work would pay off and all nine of us would be elected to our respective Boards. Unfortunately the voters of Waterbury had different ideas. When the results were tallied late last night, only three of us were chosen to help more the city forward. Paul Ciochetti was returned to the Board of Aldermen for his third term, to be joined by rookie Jerry Padula. On the Education side of the ballot, Commissioner Stango was reelected to his second four-year term. I know that the three of them will do a wonderful job working for the city and the citizens of Waterbury.

I know that my fellow candidates and I did all we could to be victorious yesterday, and that (as difficult as it sounds right now) we need to hold our heads high. I do not know what the future holds for me, but I know that there is nothing in my past to be ashamed of.

Right now, I just need a few days to recover.

One Day More

To my friends, family, and supporters:

Tomorrow is Election Day, that wonderful time where we get to experience what DPUC Commissioner Kevin DelGobbo once called a "controlled revolution".

As you know (and are probably tired of hearing), my name is on the Waterbury ballot for the Board of Aldermen on Row A. I am running this year with eight outstanding individuals who share my desire to bring a positive change to the city of Waterbury, and lead the Brass City into the 21st century with heads held high.

My fellow Board of Aldermen candidates (Jerry Padula, Jason Van Stone, Sam Rush, and incumbents Carlo Palladino, and Paul Ciochetti) all bring unique qualities to the table, and all of us are willing to work as hard as we need to so that the City of Waterbury can continue to improve. Our candidates for the Board of Education (Christine Chauncey, Rev. Ollie Gray III, and incumbent Charles Stango) live the motto “It’s for the kids”, and have the experience in education and mentoring necessary to make a difference.

While it is easy for me to brag about myself and my team, I hope that over the past 3 months I have been able to convince you that we are all deserving of your vote.

Those of you that know me best know the type of person I am, and know how dedicated I am to helping my hometown be as wonderful as possible. I would not be working as hard as I have if I did not believe what I have said on TV and on the campaign trail, and if I did not believe in my teammates.

Those of you that know me best, also know that I stand by the following statements:

I will not sacrifice my dreams because people say they are impossible.

I will not sacrifice my ideals to take the easy way out.

I will not sacrifice my character for the sake of personal gain.

I will do all that I can for the city on the citizens of Waterbury.

I will strive every day to live the ideals I learned on my journey to the rank of Eagle Scout. “On my honor I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country.”

In less than 24 hours, however, this campaign leaves my control and is turned over to you the voters. In about 36 hours we will know Waterbury’s decision. I hope that I am elected to serve my hometown as an Alderman, and in that office I pledge to continue the work I have started.

If you share my hopes and my dreams, then I have only one request of you. Tell your friends, family, and coworkers to come out and vote on Tuesday. Tell them about my campaign and those who are running with me on Row A. Tell them all the reasons why we deserve their vote. If you do that for me, then on December 1 we can begin to work together for the City of Waterbury.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,
Bryan Paul Baker
Republican Candidate
Waterbury Board of Aldermen

Bunker Hill Neighborhood Association Forum

Last night the Bunker Hill Neighborhood Association held a Mayoral Forum, and Meet the Candidates night for its members. The evening was a wonderful opportunity for the residents of Bunker Hill to meet all of us running for office this year (41 of us by my count), and hear the thoughts of the Mayoral contenders on the city of Waterbury.

The most interesting part of last night was how disparate the candidates sounded. As I stood in the back of the room, I found that Commissioner Theriault sounded angry and confrontational for most of the event. Mayor Jarjura, on the other hand, seemed to be the only one mentioning anything positive about the city of Waterbury. While everyone's feelings are open to interpretation and debate, I feel it's appropriate to include some of the more memorable comments from the evening.

As I mentioned before, the Mayor attempted to strike a positive tone in his responses, while realizing that things are not perfect. The Mayor told audience members that the city needed to focus on the basics, such as Fire, Police, Public Works, Health and Education. The mayor also praised the fact that the city is on pace for a 96% collection rate in taxes, hasn't had to lay off a single city employee, and has had 8 balanced budgets. Admittedly, most of what Mayor Jarjura said was standard fare for a four-term incumbent seeking reelection.

Commissioner Theriault, however, took a negative and aggressive tone from the beginning. In his opening remarks he commented on how he'd "love to teach the Mayor a lesson". He then proceeded to take several pot shots at the City of Waterbury, saying that "some areas of this town are downright disgusting". Furthermore, at one point during the night he referred to his old neighborhood around Cooke St. as "a jungle", and warned people that “you can’t go there at night.”

I cannot comprehend how someone who claims to love the City of Waterbury as much as Commissioner Theriault does can say that his hometown is “downright disgusting”. I have lived in Waterbury almost my entire life, I realize that there are things in the city that need to be fixed, but I have never considered any part of Waterbury “disgusting” or “a jungle”.

The evening just reinforced for me just how stark the differences are between the so-called Independents, and everyone else running for office. Every time I’ve been out meeting the voters of Waterbury I’ve done my best to accentuate the positive, while recognizing that there are problems that need fixing. I’ve also stressed that the elected officials in Waterbury need to do their best to work together to fix whatever problems may arise.

The so-called Independents, however, rant and rave about how everything is wrong in the city, claim that everyone they disagree with is corrupt on some level and give the impression that everyone who can leave Waterbury should do so as quickly as possible. That’s not the way to govern.

Hopefully people agree with me, and will vote Row A on November 3.

Ballot Position Lottery

This morning the Registrar of Voters held its lottery to determine the positions of the Board of Aldermen and Board of Education candidates on the November ballot. Below is the results of this lottery.

(Due to space constraints, the ballot has been turned 90 degrees.)

Position	Republican	Democrat	Independent
5	Palladino	Piccochi	DePillo
6	Baker	Begnal	Abreu
7	Van Stone	Pernerewski	Derouin
8	Padula	Caiazzo	Denze
9	Rush	Phelan	Telesca
10	Ciochetti	Negron	Adkins
11		Napoli	Booker
12		Petteway	Burgio
13		Brunelli	Mulcahy
14	Chauncey	Flaherty-Merrit	Sweeny
15	Stango	Harvey	Rosa
16	Gray	Morales	Stepanitis

Letter to the Zoning Commission

For the past few weeks there has been a lot of discussion regarding the proposed purchase of 101 acres of land up on Park Rd by the City of Waterbury. The land is currently owned by Mr. Norman Drubner, who is hoping to develop the land by putting approximately 500 condominiums on the property.

The local Neighborhood Association has been fighting this development for several months, and the Zoning Commission has a meeting on Wednesday (9/23) to discuss changing the zoning of the property so that only single family houses can be built there.

A few weeks ago Mr. Drubner offered to sell the 101 acre parcel to the city for a cost of $1.75 Million. The Mayor supported the idea, but the sale was contingent on the city dropping to proposed zoning change, and not putting any restrictions on the future use of the land. When the land was appraised, it was given a value of over $4 Million, but this was assuming the proposed development of the land proceeding as Mr. Drubner originally intended.

When the issue came before the Board of Aldermen two weeks ago it got a lot of attention, and became stalled in committee. Since then Mr. Drubner has pulled his sale offer to the city, and announced that he is going to continue working to get his original development plans approved.

With these recent developments I decided to weigh in on the issue, so I sent the following letter to the Waterbury Zoning Commission for their meeting on Wednesday.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Zoning Commission:

I wish to express my support for the zoning change of the 101.6 acres on Park Road from a designation of RM, to a designation of RS-12. As a lifelong resident of the City of Waterbury, I feel that this change will be in the best interests of all involved.

When the city decided to impose a moratorium on high-density developments over 1 year ago, there were several different reasons behind the city’s decision. These arguments included a desire to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods, a need for time to implement the changes recommended by the City’s Plan of Conservation and Development, and the conditions of the housing market providing the city with a glut of condominiums that were remaining available for considerable stretches of time. In the 18 months since the moratorium was imposed, none of these arguments against high-density developments have changed; in fact they have been strengthened.
I find it difficult to believe that any developer would be successful in quickly selling hundreds of new condominiums in this economy, with the large number of options already available to potential customers. I also feel that the surrounding community would not be well served by such a large addition of houses and residents to its infrastructure. While I am aware that there are several condominium developments already in the vicinity of this property, that is not justification enough to add another such development.

Furthermore, the attitude of the developer to the community leaves something to be desired. While it was noble that Mr. Drubner was willing to consider “gifting” the property to the city, his gesture rang hollow. The fact that the asking price could only be considered a gift if the property was appraised on what could be developed in the future, made the offer appear insincere, whatever Mr. Drubner’s intentions may have truly been. This, combined with a determination to have the proposed zoning change dropped, caused many residents to question Mr. Drubner’s motives. If Mr. Drubner truly wanted to work with the residents of the community, he would not be advocating against a zoning change that seems to blend with the needs and desires of the community.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate my support for the proposed zoning change before this commission. By returning this property to a zoning conducive to single family housing, the city is not only reaffirming its commitment to the ideals of the 2005 Plan of Conservation and Development, it is also showing its support to the residents of the city who have fought with such determination against an unnecessary development. When you consider the conditions of the housing market, the desires of the community, and the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development, the choice seems clear. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

As always, I appreciate your feedback.

Theriault For Mayor?

Tonight I was at the regular meeting of the Waterbury Board of Aldermen, where I try and take the time to listen to the public speaking. I find this gives me an insight into what issues the citizens of Waterbury find important. It also allows me to keep tabs on what the other political parties are bringing up as "hot button" issues for the municipal election in November. Tonight, however, the public speaking portion of the Board of Aldermen meeting was unique.

The first speaker of the evening was Nick Coscia. Nick has made it a point in retirement to bring Waterbury politics to the citizens. He is a common sight at the Board of Aldermen meetings, has a regular show on the public access station, and is rarely seen without his video camera. Though I may not always agree with him, I respect his dedication to the city of Waterbury.

When Mr. Coscia got up to speak tonight he decided to open the meeting up with a bang. He commented that "the bases (were) loaded" tonight as all 3 mayoral candidates were in attendance. The 3 candidates were Mayor Jarjura, Alderman Vance, and Board of Education Commissioner John Theriault. As you know Alderman Vance is challenging Mayor Jarjura for the Democratic nomination, and Mayor Jarjura has been cross endorsed by the Republicans.

Mr. Coscia's comment caught several people in the room off guard, including Independent Alderman Frank Burgio who seemed (from where I was standing) to try and correct Mr. Coscia by telling him that there were only 2 candidates. At this point, however, Mr. Coscia reasserted his claim that there were 3 candidates, and again listed Mayor Jarjura, Alderman Vance, and Commissioner Theriault.

While I have no way of confirming Mr. Coscia's claim, there are two very interesting things to consider, which seem to support tonight's announcement. First, I had noticed Commissioner Theriault sitting in the back of the room at tonight's meeting. I found it unusual, because usually the Commissioner is busy with Board of Education meetings on Monday nights. Secondly, the Commissioner made no effort to correct Mr. Coscia's statement, and actually left shortly after the announcement was made.

We will have to wait and see if Mr. Coscia's statement tonight was correct or not, but for now it adds an interesting angle to what has already become a municipal race like no other.

The Campaign Gets Started

Now that the conventions are done, and everyone knows who is running for what on which ticket, the job of campaigning begins in earnest. Now it is time for us candidates to go out door knocking, shaking hands, meeting and listening to the citizens of Waterbury, and doing all we can to prove that we are the best people for the positions we are seeking. I hope to be able to show all of Waterbury that I will serve them well on the Board of Aldermen.

To get my message out, I have also started a Twitter account, and my own Facebook group.

For right now, I am heading back out to the Ponte Fest. Hopefully I'll see you there!

Why Am I Doing This?

In three months the citizens of Waterbury will be going to the polls to chose who will lead their City for the next two years. As you should be aware, my name will be on the Republican line this year, as I seek election to the Board of Aldermen. Often, when my friends and family hear about my decision to seek elected office, the number one question I am asked is why? Why am I taking on such a monumental task?

I know that I am taking an amazing chance by running for Board of Aldermen. I know that there is a chance that I could spend the next three months door knocking, working the crownd at events, hosting TV shows, poll standing...everything I can to get elected, only to find myself on the outside looking in on November 4. Despite these risks I am grateful for the opportunity to run, and am excited to get the campaign started.

So why run?

I am running because I feel that I can further help the City of Waterbury if I am fortunate enough to be elected to the Board of Aldermen. I want to see my hometown rise from the grip of the naysayers and doomsday prophets who feel that Waterbury’s best days are behind us. I want to be able to help silence all the critics who see a conspiracy behind every plan, impossibility behind every proposal.

The city of Waterbury is our city, and it will be as great as we make it. There are those who will do nothing but complain, those who will never present a viable proposal for the city, and those who will object to a plan without feeling the need to find an alternative solution. Those are the people that we must silence, the people that we must prove wrong with everything we say and do.

That is why I am before you tonight, to make the City of Waterbury, my hometown, as wonderful a city as possible. I want everyone to see in Waterbury what I have always seen, and I will work as hard as I can to realize that dream.

Hopefully you will share my vision and support me in November. I look forward to hearing from you.

Waterbury Republican Convention

Tonight the Republican Party in the City of Waterbury held their convention for local office. The convention was more interesting then usual, as the Republicans have decided to cross-endorse current Mayor, Mike Jarjura, as he seeks a fifth term in office. As a result of this cross endorsement, the Republicans only put up six candidates for the Board of Aldermen, and three candidates for the Board of Education. The candidates that will appear on Row A this November are:

Mayor - Mike Jarjura (D)

Town Clerk - Antoinette Spinelli (D)

City Clerk - Mike Dalton (D)

City Sherrif - Steve Conway (D)

Board of Aldermen - Paul Ciochetti, Carlo Palladino, Jason Van Stone, Sam Rush, Jerry Padula, Bryan Baker

Board of Education - Charles Stango, Christine Chauncey, Ollie Gray

The decision to cross endorse the Mayor was met with some dissension in the Republican ranks, as it sounded like at least 6 members of the Town Committee voted against the cross endorsement.

Regardless of the debate that will almost definitely ensue from the Town Committee's decision, I am honored to have been chosen for a chance to serve Waterbury on the Board of Aldermen. Waterbury has been my home for almost my entire life, and it is a city that I love despite all of its faults. I look forward to an interesting campaign season, and hopefully victory in November.

Good Riddance

In today's Republican-American was a headline that I had been hoping to see for several months now. "Power plant calls it quits." I know that there are those in town who have accused the citizens of Waterbury of being NIMBY's and not taking a good look at the facts. However, as a member of the Waterbury Environmental Control Commission, and a nearly lifelong resident of the city, I know that this move is in the best interests of the city.

The only disappointment in today's article was a quote from Mr. Maynard, one of the principal investors in Chestnut Hill;

"We're not interested in engaging in a fight for 18 months with people who aren't even willing to listen to what we're going to do and give us a fair shot at trying to explain ourselves." (emphasis added)

The reason I highlight these two sections of Mr. Maynard's quote is because I have had first hand experience of their attempts to "explain themselves.

On April 16 of this year, the Environmental Control Commission (WECC) sent a letter to Chestnut Hill with 31 questions that we still had about their proposal. Those questions were never answered. In fact, Chestnut Hill considered it "premature" to answer these questions, as they did not have an application before the state boards. It would seem to me that the WECC was more then willing to listen to Chestnut Hill. They didn't want to answer our questions.

Furthermore, on May 26 I was scheduled to meet with Mr. Goodemote to discuss the "misconceptions" that he said were floating around the city regarding the Chestnut Hill proposal. We all know how that meeting turned out.

So, while I agree that the city of Waterbury needs new investment and companies willing to move into town, remediate our brownfields, and provide our citizens with good paying jobs, we cannot afford to have the city take a step back just for the sake of moving.

On a final note, I found it interesting that the article in today's paper closed with a reference to Mr. Maynard's previous comment about a "tyranny of the few" derailing this project. If that was the case, how come the only person to speak out in favor of the plant is the editor of Connecticut magazine, who has one letter to the editor referenced three times? (The original printing on 6/28, the article on 7/5, and today's article.)

Meanwhile, a rally against the plant draws dozens to downtown on a Saturday morning, and three separate letters are published in the newspaper condemning this particular proposal. Additionally,one of the letters even provided some alternative options for the Anamet site. While not all of the options mentioned are viable, at least the letter does not just say no.

In closing I would like to commend Steve Schrag, the Chairman of the WECC for his work in getting the commissioners and the public the facts that were necessary for us to make an informed decision about the Chestnut Hill proposal. Despite what Mr. Maynard would like to believe, this was not the tyranny of the few, but an informed decision by the citizens of Waterbury. Hopefully the future will bring brighter days, and better options for the Anamet site.

Never Let The Facts Get In The Way Of A Good Argument

In the local section of today's Republican-American there is an article regarding the state of the proposed Chestnut Hill Bio-Energy plant. Mr. Larson does a commendable job reporting the status of the plant, and the opposition against it. For someone who is new to the issue, the article is a wonderful primer on the ongoing debate.

My biggest concern about the article was is the closing paragraphs, where Mr. Mike Maynard's opinions of the opposition are stated. Since Mr. Maynard is one of the principle investors in Chestnut Hill, I expected him to be in support of the plant, but I didn't expect this.

(From the Republican-American 6/21/09)

Chestnut Hill blames a spate of negative "propaganda" as the cause of its public relations debacle. Some people were under the impression that it would build the largest anaerobic digester-fueled power plant in the world, and it would allow 400 truck trips a day - both of which are highly overstated.

"I feel this was the tyranny of the few, a small handful of people decided to do whatever they needed to do to make sure this wouldn't see the light of day," Maynard said.

While I agree that there have been people who have misrepresented the facts regarding Chestnut Hill, and it is important that people keep their facts straight in any debate. The more a person inflates numbers to make a point, the more likely it is that the point will be lost.

However, as a member of the Environmental Control Commission, I watched and participated in the debate over the proposal. In that debate no one argued about the number of trucks that would be coming into the city of Waterbury. We were just as concerned about the 54 trucks that they claimed to be bringing in, as we would have been about 400 trucks. We didn't need to inflate our numbers to make our point, their numbers were problematic enough in our minds.

Furthermore, while those of us on the Environmental Control Commission were concerned that this proposal would be the largest in the world, Mr. Maynard ignores the fact that one of the ECC's 31 questions was "How many plants of this size are in operation worldwide, and where are they?" We wanted to know how common these plants were so we could get appropriate information. At our March meeting we were told that there were 60 plants world-wide that cross the 100,000 tons/year threshold, but we were not given a number as to how many crossed the 200,000 tons/year line.

As we were unable to find any anaerobic digester that handled 200,000 tons/year in our own research, we had no choice but to assume that Chestnut Hill would be the largest such plant in the world. Now we are being told that it will only be the largest in North America, be we still don't know how many plants are larger then Chestnut Hill or where they are located.

It seems more and more obvious to me that the investors of Chestnut Hill are desperately hoping that the citizens of Waterbury don't look "behind the curtain", and they figure that the best way to marginalize the protests is to accuse them of lying.

After all, why let facts get in the way of a good argument?

Only in Waterbury

From the "Daily Digest" in today's Republican-American:

The police department assigned an officer to accompany Mayor Michael J. Jarjura on Tuesday after a woman told police she wanted to get close to Jarjura to conduct a one-person protest.

Police didn't think the mayor was in any danger and said the woman called the department seeking a protest permit, but did not identify herself. However, the department assigned an officer to Jarjura for the day just to be safe, said police spokesman Lt. Christopher Corbett.

There is something both amusing and satisfying in seeing this article. First off, it is nice to see that a person in America feels comfortable enough in our First Amendment to call the police department and tell them she wants to stage a protest. We have those freedoms and it is good to see this lady embrace them.

However, I had to laugh at the fact that it would be a one-person protest. I admire the woman's determination, but I just don't understand how this woman thought that this would be an effective method of airing her grievances. Unless you have strength in numbers, I would think that a letter to the editor, a call to the local radio station, or a post on a blog would be more effective. That's just me though.

Either way, you have to give her credit for trying.

Twelfth Night

For a while now this blog has focused on the political aspects of Waterbury, and my involvement in some of the issues facing the Brass City. Not everything in Waterbury is politically based, however, and every so often there comes a time for fun and entertainment.

Starting this Thursday (6/18), Shakesperience Productions will be hosting their 5th Annual "Shakespeare In Library Park". This event has provided the citizens of Waterbury with some wonderful entertainment on what has usually been a relaxing summer evening.

This year the folks at Shakesperience will be performing "Twelfth Night". The shows begin at 7 PM and will be held on the 18-20, and 25-27 of June. There is a suggested $10 donation, and you can arrive at the park at 6:30, bring a picnic lunch, and enjoy some classic theatre. After the show you can join the cast at one of the many downtown restaurants for food and drink. The specific locations for the after show parties will be announced at each nights show.

Since it began in 2005, Shakespeare in Library Park has been a great benefit to the city of Waterbury, and a lot of fun. I hope anyone that has a chance to make it comes down to enjoy some great theatre in the shadow of the clock tower.

(For the sake of full disclosure, I do have a small part at the beginning of the show.)

The Meeting That Didn't Happen

Today was a rather disappointing one in terms of my efforts to make a fully informed decision regarding the Chestnut Hill BioEnergy proposal. Over the past two months my fellow members of the Environmental Control Commission and I have been researching the science behind the proposal, and the history of the company involved.

Some of our information supported the proposal, especially with regards to the science behind the proposal. However, there was much more information that has been discovered that makes this proposal seem like the wrong fit for Waterbury. Many of these arguments against the Chestnut Hill plant were posted in my entries on April 13, 2009 and May 1, 2009.

As this topic has become such a hot button issue in Waterbury over the past two months I was not surprised when I received a message over Facebook that Mr. Goodemote wished to speak with me about his plan. In fact I was happy to meet with him as I hoped it would give me an opportunity to ask some of the questions that those of us on the ECC had. I also hoped it would give Mr. Goodemote the opportunity to correct some of the misconceptions that he claimed were floating around the city.

With this in mind, I talked to Mr. Goodemote on May 15 and scheduled an appointment for today at 3:30. As far as I understood, I was to meet Mr. Goodemote at the proposed truck entrance at the corner of Benedict and Jewelry St.

Unfortunately when I arrived at the old Anamet site today at 3:30, Mr. Goodemote was not there. I waited at the site for 15 minutes, and even checked the public entrance on Washington Ave. During this entire time there was no sign of Mr. Goodemote, or anyone for that matter.

The fact that I was stood up by Mr. Goodemote was more then disappointing. When you consider the number of questions that the Environmental Control Commission had for the folks at Chestnut Hill, questions that were not answered at all, it makes you scratch your head.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the events of today seem to reinforce the notion that the folks at Chestnut Hill don't want the citizens of Waterbury asking too many questions. Now, more then ever, I feel that this plant is the wrong fit for the city of Waterbury.

Memorial Day 2009

As we honor our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen this year I am reminded of words that have echoed through the centuries. These two men said all that needed to be said, so I will not pontificate or expound on the obvious. All I can say is God Bless America.


Gettysburg Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate... we can not consecrate... we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government : of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

-Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)


In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

— Lt.-Col. John McCrae (1872 - 1918)

Naugatuck River Race 2009

As you may be aware, for the past few years I have looked to improve the city through my involvement in political organizations and campaigns. Though I was unsuccessful, I took great pride in running for the Board of Aldermen with Representative D'Amelio in 2007. I have been proud to led my support to Rep. D'Amelio, Rep. Noujaim, and Sen. Caliguiri in their recent campaigns. That is also why I helped establish the Young GOP of Waterbury back in February.

For me, however, politics isn't just about a person labeling themselves as a Republican, Democrat, or even Independent. Politics is about everyone bringing their best ideas to the table to see what will help the City of Waterbury the most.

That is why I have been working with several different groups to do what I can to help improve downtown Waterbury, and the city in general. I have involved myself with the City Hall restoration project, and the Design Committee on Main Street Waterbury. I have also supported my neighborhood, by paying dues to the EMNA, and my church, Saints Peter & Paul.

I have also kept an eye on the work of the Greenway Commission, lending my voice to the hundreds that showed up at Kennedy High School back on the 30th.

Along with the Greeway Commission, The Naugatuck River Revival Group has been working to restore the Naugatuck River to a state that the Naugatuck Valley can be proud of again. Both groups are hoping to make the river an area for bike paths, hiking trails, art displays, and even canoe and kayak races. With these noble goals in mind, I was glad to offer my support this past Saturday by participating in the 2nd annual River Race.

So this past Saturday, YGOP Chairman Sean Hughes and I hopped in to a canoe and joined over 300 others in the six-mile trip from the Platts Mills Section of Waterbury to Beacon Falls. As we set off, I knew we were not likely to have the best time of the race, as both Sean and I are novices, however, we were hoping to best the time of Mayor Jarjura (2:02 in last years race). We also were aiming to finish the race with fewer spills then the Mayor experienced last year (3).

Unfortunately, while I may have a knack for public speaking, and am comfortable voicing my opinion on policy matters, that does not translate into a River Race. After 2 and 1/2 hours, and 4 different spills into the river, Sean and I finally managed to cross the finish line. We were soaking wet and weary, but we were still smiling.

Even though we did not obtain the results that we were hoping for in terms of the race, we still had a good time. We were glad that we could help the Naugatuck River Revival Group raise some money and awareness about the potential that the Naugatuck River possesses. Someday I may race the river again, but first I think I need a few days to recover from all the bumps and bruises.

A few lessons in kayaking probably won't hurt either.

All photos courtesy of my wife, Kerri.

Risk vs. Reward

Since the presentation by Chestnut Hill Bio-Energy Company to the Waterbury Environmental Control Commission back on the 26 of March, I have been carefully weighing the positives and the negatives of the proposed food-waste to electricity plant. In my last post I mentioned that I was supportive of the concept, but uncertain about this particular project. As usual, the devil is in the details, and the more I learned about this plant, and the company behind it, the less thrilled I was about what was before me.

During the public hearing, much was made about the concerns of odor from the plant. This concern was based on the reputation Chestnut Hill had when it took over a composting plant in New Jersey. Originally I did not share the concerns, as an anaerobic digester is drastically different from a composting facility.

However, these concerns prompted those of us on the Commission to look at the DEP records from New Jersey regarding the composting facility. As I looked over these number I was disappointed to see over 50 violations of "Discharging pollutants to the waters of the State without a valid NJPDES permit issued by the department." This lengthy list of problems, and the fact that the site is located next to the Naugatuck River, gave me pause.

Furthermore, though the folks from Chestnut Hill seemed willing to answer our questions at the public hearing, they have been less then forthcoming with information since we adjourned on 3/26.

I understand that they may not want to get bogged down in repeatedly answering the same questions for every commission and community group. However, as our commission is specifically focused on the environment, I would have figured that the folks from Chestnut Hill would want to answer our questions. Especially since, the more of our questions they answer, the less questions they would have to face from other groups.

Lastly, I have never been completely comfortable with the fact that this plant would be the biggest such plant in the world. Though there seem to be several such power plants that handle 100,000 tons of waste per year, no one could tell me of any power plant that crossed the 200,000 ton/year threshold.

Also, this plant would be the only one I could find that would be located in the middle of an urban area was disconcerting. Every other plant that has been built, or proposed, has been located on the outskirts of a city, or in a rural area. Without a precedent to point to, how can we be certain that this is a good fit for Waterbury?

With all of these in mind, I find that I am no longer able to give the Chestnut Hill project my full support as it is currently proposed. I still feel that the technology is solid, and could provide the City of Waterbury with jobs that it desperately needs. However, I feel that my concerns have not been addressed to my satisfaction.

I realize that it is not good government to simply reject a proposal without giving possible alternatives. Therefore, I offer the following options to the folks at Chestnut Hill if they truly wish to help the City of Waterbury.

1) Reduce the size of the plant. If this proposal was for a plant that would consume 50,000 tons of food waste per year I would have fewer concerns. Instead of 54 trucks on our streets, six days a week, we would only be looking at 14 or 15 trucks a day. Furthermore, there would be less concerns regarding the breakdown of trucks, or breakdowns in the plant itself.

2) Move the plant to a location on the outskirts of Waterbury. The people from Chestnut Hill mentioned that the WDC showed them other sites within the city of Waterbury. If the power plant was located on a smaller site, away from the center of our population, many of the odor concerns would be alleviated. Also, there are several empty industrial sites near the on and off ramps of either 8 or 84.

3) Work with the sewage treatment plant. In Milwaukee, WI there is a plan to build the same anaerobic digesters that are proposed for the Chestnut Hill site near the sewer treatment site. In Milwaukee the digesters would take the waste directly from the sewage treatment plant and produce the same products of methane and carbon dioxide. This would have the dual benefit of generating electricity for the city and the state, while helping clean up the sewer treatment plant.

These are my thoughts on the plant, and do not reflect any party, or even the official position of the Environmental Control Commission. The ECC will be voting on 5/28 regarding the plant, and I encourage you to attend. As always, I welcome your comments.

Chestnut Hill BioEnergy

Recently there has been a considerable amount of ink dedicated to the Food-to-Energy plant that is being considered for the old Anamet site in downtown Waterbury. The plant will be operated by Chestnut Hill BioEnergy, out of Massachusetts, and will generate 12 MW of electricity when completed in 2013. Because of the First Light natural gas plant, that is being constructed a few blocks away from the proposed Chestnut Hill site, there have been some serious concerns raised.

With these concerns in mind, several of the principles of Chestnut Hill came to the regular meeting of the Environmental Control Commission (ECC) on March 26, and gave a presentation about their plans. It was a pleasure to be able to host the investors, as the ECC is only an advisory board, and has no authority over the plant. I considered the willingness to meet with us an impressive display of corporate citizenship.

As I listened to the presentation, I took careful look at the technology that would be involved in the construction of the plant, and the anaerobic digestion process that would be used. I've also been taking into consideration the traffic that will be generated by the trucks coming into and out of the plant with the feedstock and resulting products. There are a lot of factors to consider, and I am still not 100% certain of my decision. For the most part, however, I am supportive of this concept.

My reasons for supporting the plant are as follows:

1) The site that is being considered for the power plant is currently a brownfield. The site has been abandoned for several years, and is generating very little tax revenue for the city of Waterbury. After the $50-$60 Million investment in the cleanup and the construction, the city will be better off in a tax sense. Even with the tax credit that the plant is going to apply for, the city will be making more tax money then it is from having the site continue to sit vacant. Also, as we have seen from the Mattatuck Manufacturing site on the East End, we're probably not going to see people breaking down the doors to remediate the site.

2) The plant is expected to generate 40-50 skilled jobs, and the investors have expressed a verbal commitment to keep the jobs local. These jobs will not be six-figure management positions, but they are expected to be full-time positions with benefits. Considering the fact that the city of Waterbury has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state, this is a definite plus.

3) The technology involved is well established and gaining popularity in other parts of the world. The UK and Europe already have several of these plants on-line, and there are several other plants in the planning phase. Also, this technology is endorsed by environmental groups in the UK. Furthermore, the presentation takes as many precautions as are humanly possible to eliminate the smells, and any risk of leakage.

As I mentioned before, though, I am not completely sold on the proposal. My remaining concerns are as follows.

1) The addition of 54 trucks per day, 6 days a week, on local roads. The plans do keep the trucks off of residential streets, and work well for the most part. However, they do not take into account the impossibility to get from route 8 S to the Exit on 84 E that is suggested. Also, the exit routes were miscalculated by the company.

2) How do we make sure that the company does what they say it is going to do? This is an issue with any new business in any city, especially when industry is involved. However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, the fact that Chestnut Hill was willing to meet with the ECC at all, is a good sign.

I know that my opinions on this issue are going to draw fire, and I think i can guess who will supply the ammunition, but I am willing to take the heat. I welcome your comments and concerns about this proposed plant.

The End Of The (Public) Debate

Those of you who have been regular readers of this blog and are my friends on Facebook have been following the Letters to the Editor that have been going forth since January between myself and Mr. Frank M. DePaola. I have enjoyed the debate, and was ready with a response to his April 2nd letter.

Unfortunately, when I sent my letter to the Republican-American, I got this response...

Mr. Baker:

Thanks for your submittal, but this exchange of letters has run its course and we won't be running any more from either side. I believe I have Mr. DePaola's address if you want me to send a copy of this letter directly to him.

Steve Macoy
Republican-American

While I understand that the Republican-American has every editorial right to refuse a letter if it feels that the letter is inappropriate, or unnecessary, I felt that Mr. DePaola and I should have been given equal time. (He had 3 letters published, I was only allowed 2.)

Furthermore, Mr. DePaola's letters had contained numerous errors that I felt needed to be addressed. Instead of ranting and whining about my letter being published, I will now share it with you and let you decide.

"In his letter Mr. DePaola again asks what the Republicans have done for Waterbury. It is nice to see that the Independents are getting good value for the $107.50 he was paid on Election Day. It’s also interesting to note that the school project that was “$1 Billion” on 1/13 became “$1 Billion-Plus” on 2/24 and “$1.5 Billion on 4/2.

If one looks at the websites of the Republicans in the Waterbury delegation, they can find a long list of accomplishments.

Rep. D’Amelio has served the 71st district since 1996, is an Assistant Minority Leader, and a Ranking Member on the Insurance Committee. Rep. Noujaim has served the 74th district since 2002, and has spent his time in Hartford supporting the East End of Waterbury, and its veterans.

Both men have worked to save Waterbury money through the proposed postponement of the In-School Suspension law, and were vocal supporters of the Heart Center in its fight for permanent status.

Sen. Caligiuri has served the 16th district since 2006. In just the past few months he has worked to strengthen equal pay laws, and improve the licensing and oversight of trash-hauling companies in the state. This is in addition to work on a “Three-Strikes” law for repeat violent offenders.

Furthermore, Alderman Ciochetti has spent a tremendous amount of time with the PAL program. His work with Main Street Waterbury to improve the parking downtown is extremely beneficial to the city. All four men have a record of distinction, and I am proud to call them fellow Republicans."

As always, I welcome your comments.

Stepping into the spotlight.

Today was a very interesting day for me in terms of my political future in the city of Waterbury, and my personal comfort level. As you are probably aware I have been a common sight at recent Board of Aldermen meetings here in the City of Waterbury, and when there is something important to discuss, I do not shy away from the podium. I have also spent a considerable amount of time writing "Letters to the Editor" for submission in the Republican-American, our local paper.

I have always been aware that these efforts draw attention to myself, and the causes that I am fighting for. I am well aware that anything I say at a meeting or in print, can and will be used against me in the court of public opinion. It's the risks of the job, and a risk that I have always been willing to accept. But even though I've known the risks, and potential rewards for some time, I can still be caught a little off guard.

Last Monday (3/23) I was at the Board of Aldermen meeting when I was approached by a reporter from the Republican-American. Apparently an e-mail I sent was "intercepted" by the Independent party. Anyone who reads this blog, or my letters, knows that the Independent Party is often the focus of my letters and speeches. I have my feelings about how they are governing the city, and thanks to the wonders of the First Amendment, I am free to express them.

In this particular case, however, the Independents tried to throw around words such as "conspiracy" to discredit my efforts. As I said before, I knew that these attacks come with the territory, and I answered the reporters questions truthfully and honestly. What I was doing wasn't a conspiracy, it was marketing and politics. Any political group that is serious about changing its community would, and should, do the same thing.

What caught me off guard about this interview, however, wasn't that it occurred, or the article that was published in the 3/25 edition of the Republican-American. It was the fact that I got home from work that day, and found a message from WATR, inviting me to be on Ed Flynn's "Talk of The Town" program. Realizing an opportunity for publicity, I accepted the invitation and went down to the studios this morning for my interview.

I've been interviewed before, I've done radio shows before, I've done Cable Access shows before, and I've spoken at meetings before. This time, though, I wasn't sure just how the listening audience would receive me. Mr. Flynn's show is so popular, that I knew there was a chance that I could be facing a hostile crowd. This left me both nervous and excited. Usually I know my audience, and I know what to expect. This time, I was flying blind.

Despite all the hype, my time on the radio today went quite well. Mr. Flynn and I had a pleasant chat about the goals of the Young GOP group I am the Vice-Chair of, my feelings about the city of Waterbury, and the future of the Republican Party. Despite the attention I've drawn to myself, there was only one call, and he was pleasant and interesting.

In the final analysis, it was a good day. I had fun on the air, I hope my message got out, and maybe I've made a difference in my hometown. After all isn't that what we're all aiming for in life?

"Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so."

In his latest letter to the editor, (When have GOP leaders done good for Waterbury? – February 24) Frank M. DePaola exhibits the symptoms of a rather intense case of political amnesia.

In his letter Mr. DePaola claims to be responding to the information and opinions that I presented in my letter of 1/18, yet he spends most of his time repeating the same mistakes he made in his letter of 1/13. I guess Mr. DePaola subscribes to the notion that if you say something often enough, it becomes true.

As an example, Mr. DePaola claims that I spoke before the Board of Aldermen for a $60 million City Hall project. There are 2 major errors in his logic. First off, there never was a plan to renovate City Hall alone for $60 million. No matter how many times Mr. DePaola says otherwise, he is still mistaken. When I came before the Board of Aldermen from February to June of 2007, I was speaking in favor of a proper restoration of City Hall. I was just as satisfied with the $36 million project that was approved, as I would have been with the $39 million project that I originally supported. My main concern was not spending the city’s money, but restoring a building that is on the National Registry, and the centerpiece of our downtown.

Another example of Mr. DePaola’s selective memory resides in his insistence that the city tried to force a $1 billion school construction project on the taxpayers in one bonding package. Again, no matter how many times Mr. DePaola repeats himself, he is still mistaken. If he checked the minutes from the Board of Aldermen meeting on May 10, 2004 he will see the school-bonding package the he refers to.

Items 27 through 40 on this agenda mention 2 new elementary schools, a swing space for a middle school, an expansion of the Media Center at Crosby, and a new high school. While this proposal was negotiated into 3 new K-8 schools, and the Media Center expansion at Crosby, there is nothing on the agenda that would have cost the city anywhere near $1 billion. If Mr. DePaola can find an agenda for the Board of Aldermen or Board of Education that contradicts this, I would love for him to show me.

At the end of his letter, Mr. DePaola challenges Jason Van Stone and I to list some of the recent accomplishments of the Republican leadership. If one takes the time to look at the websites of the Republican members of the Waterbury delegation to the Connecticut General Assembly, they can find the answer that Mr. DePaola is looking for.

Rep. D’Amelio has served the 71st district since 1996, is an Assistant Minority Leader, and the Ranking Member on the Insurance Committee. Rep. Noujaim has served the 74th district since 2002, and has spent his time in Hartford supporting the East End of Waterbury, and its veteran population.

Rep. D’Amelio has spent time meeting with local leaders to find the best solutions to their budget problems. Both men have worked to save the city of Waterbury money through the proposed postponement of the In-School Suspension law. Both Representatives were also vocal supporters of the Heart Center of Greater Waterbury in its fight for permanent status.

In the upper chamber, Sen. Caligiuri has served the 16th Senate district of Waterbury since 2006. In just the past few months Sen. Caligiuri has worked to strengthen equal pay laws, and to improve the licensing and oversight of some of the trash-hauling companies in the state. This is in addition to his continuing work on a “Three-Strikes” law for repeat violent offenders. All three men have a record of distinction in Hartford, and I am proud to call them fellow Republicans.

Furthermore, Mr. Depaola’s desperate attempt to connect Mr. Van Stone and myself with the last Republican mayor is a tenuous leap of logic. Neither of us was involved in politics when Mayor Jarjura was elected in 2001. In fact, few of the candidates on Mr. D’Amleio’s ticket had even run for public office before 2007. Mr. DePaola, and the Independents he supports, wants everyone to believe that nothing has changed in the Republican Party. They have ignored the fact that the Republican leadership in Waterbury has undergone wholesale changes since 2002. They feel that if they keep saying something over and over again, it becomes true.

However, no matter how many times they try and say otherwise, the Waterbury Republican Party of 2009 is nothing like the Republican Party of 2002. The men and women who are involved now represent a new generation of leadership that is willing to bring the party into the 21st century with our heads held high. We will be the party of the future that brings ideas to the table and a willingness to work with the opposition to find solutions that are in the best interests of the city of Waterbury and its taxpayers.

In conclusion, despite Mr. DePaola’s best efforts in his exercise of First Amendment rights, he cannot change the truth. The truth is that the Independents have been spreading misinformation for 8 years now, and have nothing but campaign signs to show for it. Mr. DePaola my truly believe everything he wrote in his letter of 2/24, but when you consider the fact that Aldermen Denze and Booker paid Mr. DePaola a combined $107.50 of state taxpayer money for poll standing during the 2008 elections, it leaves one to wonder just how many of Mr. DePaola’s opinions have been paid for.

Happy 200th Birthday (Times 2)

Today is the 200th birthday of two men that had a tremendous impact on the world around us.


In the world of politics we celebrate the birth of Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, the father of the modern Republican Party, and one of the most revered men in American History.


In the world of science we celebrate the birth of Charles Darwin, naturalist, and father of our modern evolutionary theory.

Both men are respected, honored, and debated in their own right. Both men have changed history, and we should do well to remember their words and their works. Whatever their intentions were, their impact is still being felt today. That is why we should all work to follow their example of service to country, and intellectual study in our lives.

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives… nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." - Darwin

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract." - Abraham Lincoln

Spreading The Wealth Among Themselves

Today's Republican-American finally reported what many of us in political circles have known for several months now, the Independents main goal in the 2008 legislative elections was to line their own pockets. ("Independents Shared Wealth" - Penelope Overton)

I first reported on this issue back on 12/3, laying out how much money Larry DePillo and Mike Telesca received from Alderman Frank Burgio's campaign. (True Colors Of Independents - Green) But today's newspaper article shows that the self-serving goes much further then originally realized.

Mr. DePillo alone received a total $11,000 from the campaigns of Aldermen Burgio, Booker, and Denze. This is almost 10% of the $125,000 that the state provided for the three campaigns. Mr. Telesca also received a total of $6,000 from the three campaigns. That is a grand total of $17,000 out of $125,000 that went directly into the pockets of the men who founded the Independent party.

If this wasn't galling enough it was reported that the campaigns in question paid their poll standing crew for their efforts on election. Although none of this is illegal, the fact that most of these poll workers were family members of the candidates stinks worse then the sewage plant in the South End.

The men of the Independent Party try to tell us time and time again that they are looking out for the interests of the taxpayers of Waterbury, but all I see is the Independents looking out for the Independents.

WAR OF WORDS

For the past month now there has been a rather heated exchange in the “Letter To The Editor” section of the Republican-American regarding the “accomplishments” of the Independent Party of Waterbury.

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2008/12/14/letters/385931.txt
City's Independents are 'petty people' who pretend to lead. – Jason Van Stone

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2008/12/29/letters/388568.txt
Critic overlooked many achievements of Independents. – Frank A. Burgio Sr.

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/03/letters/389291.txt
City's Independents unable to show any accomplishments. – Jason Van Stone

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/08/letters/390281.txt
Alderman's personal attacks on critic were untoward. – Allyson Modica

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/14/letters/391317.txt
Hypocrisy manifest in Republican's political critique. – Frank M. DePaola

Of the two responses from supporters of the Independents, Mr. DePaola’s in the most informed, providing examples of the Independent Party’s so-called “accomplishments”.

Unfortunately these “accomplishments” are also riddled with numerous inaccuracies that need to be addressed. Many of the projects listed in Mr. DePaola’s letter are mis-represented, mis-priced, or both. If the Independent Party wishes to serve the citizens of Waterbury, then it needs to make sure that everyone has the correct facts. Here are the facts, in no particular order.

First, with regards to the school-bonding project, there are several things that need correcting. There was no time where the city was considering spending $1 Billion dollars in one bonding package. The $1 Billion price tag that Mr. DePaola holds up was actually the proposed price of twelve phases of work, to be bonded in individual sections, over a decade or more, IF the city needed all of those projects. Some of these twelve phases have been scrapped, others have moved forward since the initial referendum of 2004. There was no $900 Million in savings, because there was never a single $1 Billion dollar bonding package.

In fact, the package that was approved by the Board of Aldermen in June of 2004, and by the citizens of Waterbury in that November’s referendum, was only slightly different from the package that was originally approved by the Board of Education. Mr. Theriault may have saved the city some money with his ideas, but those savings were negated by the Independent Party creating a delay in the construction process by forcing a referendum, and were nowhere near the $900 Million that Mr. DePaola suggests.

Secondly, there are numerous inaccuracies with respect to City Hall. Once again, there was never a time when the city of Waterbury was proposing a $60 million budget for City Hall alone. In fact, the closest that the city came to a $60 million price tag for any project that involved City Hall was a combined package that included City Hall, and a new firehouse, AND a training center. If these proposals had been adopted, the results would have been a long-term benefit to the city, as our ISO rating would have been reduced from a 2 to a 1, saving us all money on our homeowners insurance. It also could have saved the city money in the long run, by allowing the city to move several of its offices out of space that it is currently leasing.

In his letter, Mr. DePaola also tries to take two bites of the apple when he mentions the $17 Million firehouse on East Main Street and the so-called $60 Million City Hall project. The firehouse was part of the City Hall project that Mr. DePaola mentions, NOT a separate expenditure. Furthermore, the $5 Million firehouse on West Main Street was a proposal by the city in an attempt to compromise with the Independents.

Finally, with respect to First Light and the Mixmaster, Representative Noujaim (a Republican) was involved in the discussions regarding First Light, before Mr. DePillo tried to rally the citizens of Waterbury around the issue. Also, the Mixmaster is a project being run by the State of Connecticut DOT, not the City of Waterbury. Furthermore, there are members of the Republican Party on the steering committee.

Mr. DePaola is welcome to tout the accomplishments of the Independents. After all he was paid by the Independent Party to stand at the polls for them this past November. However, with the number of errors in his letter, most of them perpetuated by Mr. DePillo and Mr. Telesca of the Independent party, the “accomplishments” he mentions seem to be nothing more than hype.

Disgusting Editorial

In today's Republican-American there was an editorial regarding the Board of Alderman's recent 12-2 approval of a new contract for the Waterbury Fire Department.

http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/08/opinion/390286.txt

As I read, and reread this editorial, I couldn't help but feel hurt and angry at the treatment my "local" paper gives to "Waterbury's Bravest". While I can understand the editorials concerns about the cost of the contract, and their opinions about whether or not the contract was in the best interests of the city, I couldn't help but feeling that this particular piece was nothing more then a pathetic cheap shot.

What disgusted me the most about this editorial was the newspaper's opinion of the Waterbury Firefighters work conditions. Through their repeated use of quotes around the word work [...a longer "work" week...this "work" schedule...they "worked" 24 hours], the editorial board of the newspaper makes it very clear that they consider the Waterbury Firefighters nothing more then a bunch of lazy slobs who waste the taxpayers money.

"In fact, firefighters serve 24-hour shifts during which they prepare meals, play cards, sleep, gripe about their pay (average: $57,000) and working conditions, and yes, answer an average of one call a day."

While I cannot argue the validity of the newspapers claims regarding the activities that take place during a normal day in the Waterbury Fire Department, the tone of this article is one of unbridled arrogance and ignorance.

Firefighters, are by their very nature a unique breed. They rush into the buildings that everyone else is rushing out of. They put their lives on the line for the citizens of Waterbury, and while they may only answer one cal a day on average, during that one call they could encounter any number of situations, from a simple kitchen fire, to a fully engulfed three-story apartment building. As the city of Waterbury was sadly reminded in May of 2007, any call has the potential to be a firefighters last.

Regardless of what you think of unions, binding arbitration, the state oversight board that ran the city of Waterbury from 2001-2006, or the Board of Aldermen in Waterbury, our Firefighters, and Firefighters around the world, deserve a lot more respect. They do a job that I know full well I could not.

I'm pretty sure the members of the Republican-American's editorial board could not do their job either. Therefore, unless the editors of the Republican-American are ready to put on the gear and risk their necks pulling someone out of a burning building, they have no right to treat Waterbury's Bravest in such a crass and disgusting manner.