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