More Good Signs in Downtown Waterbury

My post yesterday about the busy weekend in Downtown Waterbury drew a comment on Facebook about some of the problems that our downtown still faces. While I have never denied that there are still issues to be worked out, there is a lot more going on than some people would believe.

Therefore, in the latest installment of my efforts to market downtown, I have attempted address these concerns. In no particular order...

Good shows at the Palace:
Fiddler on the Roof, Grease, Tosca, and Riverdance are all being performed at the Palace this spring alone. Also, there will be shows with Tracy Morgan, the band Chicago, Jim Brickman, John Mellencamp, and Clay Aiken. Sounds to me like there’s something for almost everyone there. And we can’t forget the past visits by Mya Angelou, Weird Al Yankovic, George Carlin, and Tony Bennett, as well as shows of Mamma Mia!, Hairspray, Avenue Q, and Spamalot that have all graced the stage there. (And those are just the ones I can pull off the top of my head.)

Clean up the Green:
It’s not perfect, but the Farmer’s Market that has been held there for the past five years has drawn good crowds from July to October. Not only those that live around the Green, but those who work in the area are often seen out and about getting their produce for the week. It’s my understanding that there has been some success with the concerts that Main Street has hosted there as well.

Furthermore, the Second Annual Spirit of Waterbury Festival this year was a huge success, as was the Fifth Annual Mardi-Gross celebration that brought thousands of kids to Bank Street for an opportunity to do a little Trick-or-Treating.

A Vision for Downtown:
Carl Rosa and Main Street Waterbury have had a plan in place for almost six years now. The Jarjura administration doesn’t always follow it, but much has been done to move along the path that was laid out in 2004.

This includes the market-rate apartments that opened back in January at 70 Bank Street. Isn’t it amazing that those 18 apartments were rented in less than six months? The developer who transformed that building has already started work on 12 more market rate condos in the “Apothecary Hall” at the intersection of Bank and South Main.

This vision also includes the façade improvements that have started in six different downtown buildings, five of them on Bank Street alone. In the future Main Street Waterbury will be rolling out a second round of applications for not only façade grants, but signage grants as well.

This vision also includes the work that Carl Rosa asked me to do regarding outdoor dining regulations for our many wonderful restaurants, regulations to prevent the proliferation of “newspaper boxes” that are not maintained properly, and new signage regulations.

Parking:
That’s going to be a problem in any city, but thanks to the work of Main Street Waterbury the city purchased a sweeper to clean the garage. Also, I have always found the garage well lit, and felt safe whenever I’ve parked there. In fact, during the warm weather months, parking at the Buckingham garage is usually my first option.

Also, if people want to avoid tickets, Main Street Waterbury has set up a website detailing the parking options in downtown. This site lists where the parking sites are, how much it costs to park there, and where you can get a Waterbury Meter Card. These cards allow you to put time on a parking meter, as well as taking unused time off the meter. That way you’re not stuck putting $1.00 of quarters in the meter for a 20 minute errand. In fact, you don’t even need to look for quarters anymore.

In conclusion, if someone asked me what I felt was the biggest problem facing downtown, I’d say perception. Not enough people are paying attention to the work Main Street Waterbury is doing, and the accomplishments that they have achieved over the past 5 years.

Hope to see you at the next big event!

Another Sign of Downtown Success

This weekend was another wonderful time for people to visit Downtown Waterbury. A few of the things for people to see included...

Performances of "A Christmas Carol" by Shakesperience Productions. Of the 6 shows, which were held in the Shakesperience studio on Bank St, 5 were either sold out, or had less then 10 empty seats. The crowds were wonderful, and those of us who were in the show had a fantastic time.

The Connecticut Dance Theater also had shows in their new space on Bank St. They recently took over the third floor of the old Howland-Hughes building, and converted it to a performance space.

Even if theater is not your thing, you could have spent the weekend looking at all the fantastic displays that the Downtown Merchants had set up as part of Main Street Waterbury's 5th Annual Holiday Decoration Competition. Main Street Waterbury announced today that the CT Dance Theater took the overall grand prize, while Cafe Europa won the people's choice award.

While you were enjoying the sights of our downtown businesses on Saturday, you could have also taken a tour of Waterbury's newly renovated City Hall. Two years of work are nearing completion, and the building is once again poised to be a public jewel for the Brass City. As someone who spent several months in 2007 fighting to have the building restored, the re-dedication on January 1 is going to be especially sweet.

Finally, after spending all that time walking around our revitalized downtown, you could have stopped in at any one of our fabulous restaurants for a bite to eat.

In fact, on Saturday afternoon I stopped over at Bank Street Bistro for a quick dinner between the two "Christmas Carol" performances. As I was leaving a gentleman, who had also decided to stay downtown after the show, stopped me to tell me what a fine job my fellow actors and I had done.

As I crossed Bank Street back to the studio, I remembered where downtown was when I joined Main Street Waterbury back in 2005, and how far we've come. I'm proud to have been a part of the process, and see that things are on the right path.

How Much Longer?

For those of you who have been keeping track, it has now been 93 days since Alderman Paul Ciochetti resigned his seat on the Waterbury Board of Aldermen due to health concerns.

While I realize that Alderman Ciochetti's departure leaves a void on the Board of Aldermen that will be difficult to fill by his successor, I am getting more and more confused by the silence coming from the Mayor's office on this issue.

When Alderman Ciochetti first resigned, most of us who follow politics logically assumed that Jason Van Stone would be appointed as his successor. Considering that Jason fell only 91 votes short of being elected to the Board of Aldermen in the 2009 election, it seemed like an easy decision. Most of us expected Alderman Ciochetti's seat to be filled quickly.

However, almost as soon as the resignation was official, the intrigue began.

Initially, we were given the impression that Mayor Jarjura was waiting for the 2010 election season to wrap up before he named Alderman Ciochetti's replacement. His reasoning for this was that the presumptive successor (Jason) was currently running against State Representative Jeff Berger in the 73rd District. The Mayor felt that it would be inappropriate to give Jason an additional platform from which to attack a fellow Democrat.

While I wasn't happy with this argument, at least I understood it. The conventional wisdom shifted to the following scenario: If Jason lost, he'd be appointed to the Board, if Jason won, the Mayor would appoint someone else. Several names were discussed as that "someone else".

However, we are now 37 days past the 2010 elections, and the silence from 236 Grand Street has become deafening.

Chew Toy Of The Week

It seems that the political attacks in Waterbury never take a break. I understand the frustration people express when candidates sling mud at each other during the campaign for higher office. It is taken to a whole new low however when the newspaper decides to join in the fun and attack someone only for what it looks like they did.

Those of you who know me best probably saw last Tuesday's article in the Republican-American and shook your head in disgust. Those of you who know me best know what kind of person I am, and how highly I value words like honor and integrity. Unfortunately the editors of the Republican-American do not know me, and chose to add insult to injury in Saturday's editorial.

I realize that I have become the newspapers "Chew Toy of the Week" and have had quite a few people tell me I should just ignore this, and hope that it goes away. However, I do not take attacks on my character lightly, and decided to respond to these repeated insinuations and innuendos by sending the following letter to the Board of Education for tonight's meeting.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of Education,

To say I was surprised by the controversy generated as a result of the consideration of my hiring to a part-time position at the Waterbury Adult Education Center would be an understatement. What was most disappointing, however, was that the controversy was not about my qualifications, but based on innuendos and suggestions that have no bearing in fact. In my hopes to put the matter to rest, I would like to share a few facts with you regarding my decision to seek this position.

First, to the best of my knowledge, I had no advance information regarding the posting at Adult Education. I remember that when I was told of the opening, it was in the context that it had already been posted. Additionally, I did not start the application process until more than a week later. By that time, the job was clearly posted on the Department of Education website for all to see.

Secondly, at no point did I contact anyone about my application in an effort to gain a favored position in the interview process. Furthermore, no one contacted Mr. Musto, Dr. Snead, or Mayor Jarjura on my behalf. If I am unable to earn a job on my own merits, so be it. I do not seek a place in any organization that I do not deserve.

Furthermore, as you are already aware, science is a shortage area throughout the State of Connecticut and the entire nation. In any school district a science posting would likely generate an absolute maximum of five applicants. While an Elementary position, or a Secondary education position in the Humanities (English, or Social Studies) would generate hundreds of potential candidates. This shortage is the reason that the State allows Science teachers to work under a Durational Shortage Area Permit, (commonly referred to as a DSAP) while they complete the necessary training. In fact, when I was hired to teach at Wilby in 2002, I was working under such a permit. Now, I hold a Connecticut Certification in both Chemistry and General Science that is valid until November of 2014. I also currently hold a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry and more than 50 graduate level credits in the sciences. These facts are verifiable by the Department of Education.

Additionally, I have been unemployed since the 31 of August. My current situation is the result of a sudden reduction in force at the Connecticut Science Center that affected a total of 15 people who were working there at the time. None of us were terminated as a result of our performance, and I am willing to provide you with a copy of my termination letter if you so desire.

Finally, my mother has not held a seat on the Board of Education since January 1, 2004. Not only was she not involved in my application process, I am not sure what political clout she would have after such a lengthy absence from the political scene.

Those are the facts regarding my application to the Adult Education center as I can best communicate them. If you have any further questions, you can contact me, and I will answer any questions you wish to put before me. If any of these concerns had been brought to my attention before the workshop on November 8th, I would have been equally willing to address your concerns, without being turned into the newspapers “chew toy of the week”. Hopefully this will put your minds at ease and reassure you that there was nothing inappropriate in how my application was processed.

As always, if you have any questions, let me know.

Charter Revision Question Recap

The dust has settled after another interesting and exciting election (At least here in Waterbury.) While I was disappointed by the results of many of the state races, the results of the Charter Revision Questions provided a bright spot to a cold night.

I realize that some of you may have disagreed with my opinions on the eight questions that were decided yesterday, and I respect that. In fact, I couldn't even get my wife to agree with me on all of them. Regardless of your opinions, however, what I think we can all agree on is that the relative turnout for the Questions was quite high. According to today's Republican-American the total turnout in Waterbury was about 38%. Of the 21,000 voters who turned out yesterday, approximately 14,000 voted for the Charter Revision Questions. This means that about 2/3 of the Waterbury voters took the time to flip the ballot over, and make a decision about the future of our city.

What makes this result so impressive is that there was very little coverage of the Charter Revision Questions leading up to the election. As best as I can remember there was only one article in the newspaper about the questions, and there were considerable errors in the story.

Thankfully, I was able to get information out to the citizens that (I hope) helped them make an informed decision. Thanks to Larry Rifkin at 1320 WATR, and my friend Raechel Guest, the information I provided here was able to reach a wider audience.

I know that my efforts alone did not get the total number of votes to such a high level, and I doubt I was able to sway the results of the questions on my own, but it is nice to see such a wonderful turnout for issues that can often be confusing.

In case you haven't had a chance to see the paper, the results on the questions are listed below.

Question	Yes	No
#1	9573	4430
#2	9623	4290
#3	6478	7882
#4	9950	4116
#5	9575	4444
#6	4394	9734
#7	11490	2980
#8	11463	2282

Personally, of the eight results, I was only disappointed by the failure of Question #6. I understand that some people may have been concerned about the political influence that would be exerted by removing the Civil Service requirement from the Superintendent, but as you have seen in my earlier post, I think the test severely limits our applicants, and scares some potentially great applicants away.

Either way, the people have spoken. I'm glad that the work of the Charter Revision Commission resulted in some positive changes for the City of Waterbury.

Now the big question is how long before the fun begins for the 2011 election. Any guesses?

Charter Revision Question #1

This is the seventh and final installment in a seven part series regarding the Charter Revision Questions that will be on the Waterbury ballot on Tuesday. Remember that Questions 1 and 2 will be on the front of the ballot, while Questions 3 through 8 will be on the back of the ballot.

QUESTION 1:

Shall the Charter be revised to clarify the City’s reservation of rights and alternative remedies in enforcing its rights under the Charter?

This revision involves sections of the Charter that provide mechanisms for the City to enforce various rights. In many instances, there may be more effective or practical alternatives under state or federal law. The proposed language clarifies the City’s right to pursue alternative or multiple options under §§1B-5 and 3C-1 and adds a new §11G pertaining to §§11A, 11B, and 11C.

Like the last two questions on this year’s ballot, this questions in mostly cosmetic in nature. However, unlike Questions #7 and #8, there is some substance to the changes proposed.

In the current Charter there are a few sections that state what power the Charter has in comparison to State and Federal laws, one example of this is in Section 1B-5. Section 1B-5 deals with the City’s ability to impose Liens for Assessments, Water Charges, Sewer Charges, and Other Charges.

In the current language the section begins as follows:

“In the alternative to any powers conferred by the General Statutes, the City may proceed as set forth in this section.”

If this question is approved, the beginning of this section would be changed to:

“In addition to or in the alternative to any and all powers conferred by federal and state law, constitutions, statutes and regulations, and, in addition to or in the alternative to, without limiting Ordinance provisions regarding the collection and lien practices and methods of the City of Waterbury, the City may proceed as set forth in this section.”

After studying the language, my understanding is that the original section states that the City Charter supersedes anything that may be listed in State Law.

While the new language still allows the City Charter to stand in over State Law on certain issues, it also allows the City to employ State or Federal laws that may be more effective or efficient than what is in the City Charter.

In the end, approval of this question allows the City to improve the way it enforces its laws and regulations. Also, approval of this question will have little impact on our daily lives.

This concludes my series of posts on the Charter Revision Questions. It is my hope that these segments have allowed you to make an informed decision on these important issues. While I am supporting all eight questions, I realize that some of you may disagree. That is fine, as long as our disagreements are based on truth.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Charter Revision Question #2

This is the sixth in a seven part series regarding the Charter Revision Questions that will be on the Waterbury ballot on Tuesday. Remember that Questions 1 and 2 will be on the front of the ballot, while Questions 3 through 8 will be on the back of the ballot.

QUESTION 2:

Shall the Charter be revised so that the non-majority members of the boards and commissions are chosen from a list of nominations submitted by each member of the Board of Aldermen not of the same political party as the Mayor?

This revision arises out of language in §4-2(b)(1) which restricts the right of the Mayor to make appointments to City boards and commissions by requiring that he fill minority positions from a list provided by the minority leader. This provision, designed for the two-party system, has become unworkable in a three-party system. The proposed revision creates restricted and unrestricted mayoral appointments and eliminates majority party and minority party references. The proposal provides for broader Aldermanic involvement in appointments resulting in a larger list of potential appointees from which the Mayor can choose. It also provides the opportunity for unaffiliated voters to serve on boards and commissions.

Though the explanatory text for this question seems couched in a myriad of legal jargon, the concept behind this proposal can be summed up rather easily. By approving this question, voters in Waterbury can add a layer of accountability to the appointment of Boards and Commission in the city.

Regardless of the results of this particular referendum, there are certain rules that apply to the Boards and Commissions in the City of Waterbury. A typical Commission in Waterbury has seven members, one of these members is the Aldermanic Liaison, and no more than four of the members can be of the same political party.

Under the current system, the Mayor appoints all members of the various Boards and Commissions. Any Democrat who wishes to be appointed to a Board or Commission submits his or her name to the Mayor for consideration. Any member of the Republican or Independent Parties must submit their name to the Minority Leader of the Board of Aldermen, Alderman Cicero Booker Jr. For each vacancy on a Board or Commission, Alderman Booker then chooses two names from the Independents and Republicans t give to the Mayor. The Mayor is required to choose one of those two names.

Where this situation could run into trouble is based on the fact that Alderman Booker is not bound by any language in the Charter or any City Ordinance to be fair in his selections. If Alderman Booker wished to only submit the names of Independents to the Mayor, and ignore all requests from Republicans, there would be nothing that Waterbury’s 7,000 plus Republicans could do about it.

Fortunately, this situation has not arisen with Alderman Booker at the helm. He has made almost every effort to be equitable to members of both parties, though he has not been perfect.

Another problem with the current system is that the over 21,000 voters in Waterbury who have chosen not to register with a party (or who have chosen to register with one of the state’s minor parties) , are completely shut out. The dependence of the current language on the terms “majority party” and “minority party” exclude all unaffiliated voters, despite the fact that they make up approximately 37% of the registered voters in the city.

By approving this change, Waterbury can open the door to these currently excluded citizens. Also, they will release the potential stranglehold the Minority Leader of the Board of Aldermen has on appointments to Boards and Commissions.

If this question is approved, the Mayor will still be the person making all the appointments to the various Boards and Commissions. However, the Mayor will now have the ability to appoint four members to the Board or Commission from among any of Waterbury’s over 55,000 registered voters. If the Mayor wishes to appoint a Republican, or an Independent, or even a Libertarian, he can under this new system.

The remaining three seats on the Board or Commission will then be filled from a list of names submitted to the Mayor from any Alderman that is not of the Mayor’s party. (On the current Board, this would be the Republicans and Independents.) Each Alderman can submit up to two names, but there can be overlap. Also, the names can be of any voter in Waterbury, affiliated with a party or not. In theory, the Mayor could wind up with a list of twelve names, but I feel that the possibilities of that happening are remote. Also, the State Law requiring that no more than four members of a seven member Board or Commission are from the same party would still apply.

By approving this change the voters give the City a way to deal with future problems that may arise. For example, under the current system there would be a major problem if the Mayor’s party did not take at least eight seats on the Board of Aldermen. Also, who would make the decisions regarding “minority party appointments” if the Board of Aldermen was equally split with 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 5 Independents? I realize that, with Waterbury’s voting history, this is highly unlikely, but it is still possible.

Also, despite Alderman DePillo’s claims that the Charter Revision Commission was being “short-sighted” in approving this change, I believe this proposal addresses the fact that the Board of Aldermen will always be changing in membership and leadership. In fact, despite my frequent political battles with the Independent Party, I feel approval of this question actually protects them in the future.

Though they have held between four and six seats on the Board of Aldermen for the past seven years, only about 1% of Waterbury’s voters are registered with the Independent Party. Eventually a time will come when the Independent Party is not holding the position of Minority Leader. When that happens, the new Minority Leader would be justified in ignoring requests from members of the Independent Party to join the Boards or Commissions. When you consider the fact that registered Republicans outnumber registered Independents by a factor of 13 to 1, and registered Democrats outnumber registered Independents by a factor of 50 to 1, this situation is not only possible but likely.

Furthermore, under the current language, the Independents would have no legal recourse against their being shut out. If this question is approved, then as long as there is a member of the Independent Party on the Board of Aldermen, they will have a chance to be appointed to a Board or Commission.

As I mentioned before, I feel the approval of this question will actually improve the openness of government and add a layer of accountability to our Boards and Commissions. Furthermore, approval of this question will open up our Boards and Commissions to the many Unaffiliated voters.

As always, if you have any questions let me know.

Charter Revision Question #3

This is the fifth in a seven part series regarding the Charter Revision Questions that will be on the Waterbury ballot on Tuesday. Remember that Questions 1 and 2 will be on the front of the ballot, while Questions 3 through 8 will be on the back of the ballot.

QUESTION 3:

Shall the Charter be revised to (1) eliminate the elected positions of City Clerk and Town Clerk; (2) substitute therefor a city clerk and town clerk each appointed for a term of five years pursuant to the procedure for appointment of department heads set forth in Chapter 7, Part A, of the Charter; and (3) provide the city clerk and town clerk the option each to appoint a deputy clerk in accordance with civil service procedures?

This revision is proposed for three reasons: (1) the duties of these positions involve recording the actions of those who set policy and preserving necessary and important records; they do not involve establishing policy or setting political direction, and, therefore, should be removed from political influences as much as possible; (2) the two-year cycle for holders of these positions is detrimental to the efficient and effective functioning of these offices; and (3) the training for state certification for the town clerk takes approximately three years to complete and only individuals already working in the capacity of town clerk can take the required courses.

When this issue came before the Charter Revision Commission we saw an opportunity to streamline government and remove for the highly contentious political arena two positions that have no executive or legislative power within the City of Waterbury.

As we researched this issue we found some very interesting facts about the positions of Town Clerk and City Clerk. One thing that is important to remember is that state law requires all towns and cities have a Town Clerk. The role of the Town Clerk and the steps for their removal are clearly stated in state law. Also, while we did find that 73 of 105 towns surveyed have elections for their Town Clerks, only eight of those elections are regularly contested. Therefore, out of 105 Town Clerks, 97 of them face little to no political scrutiny in their towns.

We also discovered a rather interesting quirk in state law regarding the position of Town Clerk. For a Town Clerk to earn a State of Connecticut certification, they must complete five courses. These courses are offered every six months and only one course at a time. Therefore, to complete the certification process takes AT LEAST two and a half years! Also, you can only take the certification classes if you are currently working in a Town Clerks office.

This means that, under the current system, the Town Clerk needs to be elected and re-elected at least once to complete the classes. Therefore, unless you have a Town Clerk who is forward thinking, like Mrs. Spinelli, and has their assistants take the certification classes, a town who keeps the Town Clerk an elected position is likely to have a revolving door of Town Clerks who have to learn on the job.

As we have approached election some interesting arguments have arisen about why this question should be rejected. A few of the arguments raised are valid; however, most are based on fear tactics, and in one case, an outright lie.

The one valid argument that I have regularly heard is that the citizens of Waterbury should have the opportunity to vote for as many City Officials as possible. I can understand this argument and would consider supporting it if we were discussing officials that have legislative or executive authority.

However, the only time the City Clerk and Town Clerk have even been considered to have any of sort of authority is during the 2007 mayoral campaign of Alderman Odle. During that campaign, the candidates for City Clerk (Mrs. Karen Mulcahy) and Town Clerk (Alderman DePillo) spoke frequently of running the city as a “triumvirate”. While I applaud their desire to work as a team, by doing so Mrs. Mulcahy and Alderman DePillo would have been stepping far beyond their roles as City Clerk and Town Clerk.

Another argument that I have heard against this question is based on the fear-mongering that has become the standard fare from Alderman DePillo. With little to no justification, Alderman DePillo is trying to scare the citizens of Waterbury into voting against this question with veiled threats of voter fraud and intimidation being committed by future Town Clerks and City Clerks. Alderman DePillo bases these accusations of what MIGHT happen on the fact that the City Clerk is the person who receives and verifies all ballot petitions and the Town Clerk is the person who handles absentee ballots.

In the past ten years there has been no evidence or incidents to support any claims of mismanagement against our Town Clerk, and only one incident against our City Clerks who have served during that time. That singular issue revolved around some petitions that were misplaced, and I believe they were only misplaced temporarily. Also, our current City Clerk, Mr. Mike Dalton, is two people removed from that incident in 2004.

Furthermore, our City Clerk is responsible for maintaining the records of Waterbury’s many Boards and Commissions. As Mr. Dalton will show to anyone who asks, when he assumed the office in 2006, Waterbury’s historical records were in disastrous condition. It took a considerable effort by Mr. Dalton and his staff to restore and recover those historic records, some of which date back over 150 years.

Leaving the positions of Town Clerk and City Clerk in the hands of politicians who may be more interested in furthering their career instead of doing their job is just looking for trouble.

The final argument against the approval of this question is based on an outright lie.

Lie – an inaccurate or false statement.

The lie that has been spread to encourage rejection of this question is that, if the positions become appointed the salary of the Town Clerk and City Clerk with double or triple in size, with no recourse by the Board of Aldermen or the voters. I have heard Alderman DePillo say this several times. Whether he does this out of malice or ignorance is a question only he can answer.

I realize that calling something a lie is a strong statement and I do not make it lightly. However, if you look at the City Charter, you will find a section that is NOT being altered as a result of Tuesday’s election.

Section 2D-3
Compensation for the City Clerk and Town Clerk

Effective on December 1, 2005 the City Clerk and Town Clerk shall both be paid an annual salary in an amount equal to fifty (50%) percent of the salary of the Mayor. The salary of for the City Clerk and Town Clerk shall be adjusted only at the commencement of the Mayor’s Term of Office, to reflect any changes.

When you consider the above section, it becomes obvious that the only way for the salary of the City Clerk or Town Clerk to double, the salary of the Mayor would also have to double.

In conclusion, while there is a valid argument for maintaining accountability of our elected officials by frequent elections, I feel that argument best applies to those officials that have legislative or executive power. When you have positions that are nothing more than record keepers, I feel the need for consistency and competence outweighs the few potential political gains. That is why I support this issue, and encourage you to do the same.

As always, let me know if you have any questions.

Charter Revision Question #4

This is the fourth in my seven part series detailing the Charter Revision Questions that will be on the Waterbury ballot on Tuesday. This post will focus on Question #4.

QUESTION 4:

Shall the Charter be revised to require a five-point preference for City residents on all civil service examinations?

Under this revision, the five-point residential preference given on entry-level civil service examinations would be extended to all civil service examinations.

The idea of changing the way residency points are awarded was actually supported by two members of the Board of Aldermen. Alderwoman Anne Phelan came to the Charter Revision Commission with a proposal to extend the 5 point bonus that is currently given to residents on entry-level exams only, to all “open exams”.

An “open exam” is any exam that is being taken by people not already employed by the city seeking to move up within a department.

Within the City of Waterbury there are a number of City jobs that are listed with both a title and a number. Examples include “Maintainer 1” and “Maintainer 2”. In this system the Maintainer 1 is considered an entry level position, the Maintainer 2 is not. Therefore, someone who does not currently work for the city would get 5 bonus points on the Maintainer 1 exam, but not on the Maintainer 2 exam. Also, someone who worked for the city as a Maintainer 1 would not get any bonus points if they took the test required to be promoted to Maintainer 2.

Alderwoman Phelan’s proposal would equalize the disparity between the two candidates not yet working for the city by given both candidates the five extra points.

The second member of the Board of Aldermen to support this idea was Alderman DePillo.

Alderman DePillo’s idea, however, went further then Alderwoman Phelan’s. Alderman DePillo would have increased the number of bonus points from five to ten, and included promotional exams in addition to the open exams. In this situation, all three candidates mentioned would receive ten bonus points.

After our deliberations, the Charter Revision Commission decided to split the difference between the two proposals, and give five points on all exams.

If you have been keeping an eye on the Republican-American, you have seen letters both in support and in opposition to this particular issue. Fortunately the concept is fairly straightforward. However, you choose to vote, I encourage everyone to vote on every question.

As always, let me know if you have any questions.

Charter Revision Question #5

This is the third in an expected seven part series discussing the Charter Revision Questions that are located on this year’s ballot in Waterbury. This post will focus on Question #5.

QUESTION 5:

Shall the Charter be revised in order to reestablish the City’s ability to contract to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system?

This revision is a result of court decisions that redefined the term “surplus water”, as used in the Charter’s Special Acts and Historical Provisions, in a way that called in to question the City’s power to contract to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system. The proposed new §4-10 is meant to provide an alternative to the existing language thus preserving the City’s ability to enter into such an arrangement.

As I stated on WATR on Tuesday this particular question has a much smaller impact on the City of Waterbury than meets the eye. As mentioned in the explanatory text, this question arises out of a lawsuit that was filed against the city back in 2000 regarding the Shepaug River. As a result of the lawsuit, it was determined that the City of Waterbury can no longer use the term “surplus water” in its Charter language. As a result, one of the historical sections of the Charter, Section 11A-2(b), could no longer be enforced. Since Chapter 11 of the Waterbury Charter contains language that has been in place for decades, and almost all of this language is a result of Special Acts passed by the State Legislature in Hartford, the Charter Revision Commission was reluctant to alter that language.

As a result, if this question is approved, the historical section will be superseded by a new section of the Charter, Section 4-10. The new section is almost identical to the historical provision, which was passed by Special Act in 1931. For comparison’s sake, the two sections are shown below. The underlined portions of the two sections show language that has been changed.

Section 11A-2(b)
The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen, is empowered to contract and agree on behalf of the City, upon such terms as the Mayor and Board of Aldermen may deem advisable, with any electric power company, incorporated and doing business in this state, in such manner and form as will enable such power company to develop electrical energy by water power from any surplus waters which may exist in any present or future reservoir or reservoirs of said City. The term “surplus water”, as used herein, shall be construed to mean such water impounded in or escaping from such reservoir or reservoirs as is not actually needed by the City for the public use and convenience of the inhabitants. All water so used for the purpose of developing electrical energy shall be returned to the stream from which taken. The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen of the City, is empowered to contract to lease any land owned by the City to such electrical power company for such length of time and on such terms as may be agreed upon for the location thereon of power houses, conduits and transmission lines and for such other purposes as may be necessary or convenient for the creation, development or transmission of electrical energy developed from such surplus water by the power company contracting for its use.

Section 4-10
In addition to or in the alternative to any and all powers conferred by federal and state law, constitutions, statutes and regulations, notwithstanding anything in this Charter to the contrary other than the requirements of Sec. 3A-2(d), the Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen, is empowered to contract and agree on behalf of the City, upon such terms as the Mayor and Board of Aldermen may deem advisable, with any electric power company, incorporated and doing business in this state, in such manner and form as will enable such power company to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system, so long as use of such water for electric power purposes does not materially impact upon the City’s ability to meet its water supply obligations. The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen of the City, is empowered to contract to lease any land owned by the City to such electrical power company for such length of time and on such terms as may be agreed upon for the location thereon of power houses, conduits and transmission lines and for such other purposes as may be necessary or convenient for the creation, development or transmission of electrical energy developed from such surplus water by the power company contracting for its use.

As you can see the phrase in the historical section talking about “surplus waters which may exist in any present or future reservoir or reservoirs of said City” has be replaced in the new section with the phrase “water within the City’s municipal waterworks system, so long as use of such water for electric power purposes does not materially impact upon the City’s ability to meet its water supply obligations”. It is my opinion that these two phrases mean essentially the same thing. In both cases the power company cannot use so much water that the City of Waterbury suffers as a result. Beyond that definition, and the new introduction, the sections are identical.

Furthermore, the introduction in the new section actually adds a layer of protection to the residents of Waterbury. Section 3A-2(d) of the Charter includes a subsection that requires a referendum for any lease that totals over $5,000,000 in value.

If you were listening to WATR yesterday, you heard me get into an intense discussion with Alderman DePillo regarding this question. Alderman DePillo seems convinced that any such lease will wind up hurting the city, as he expressed no faith in anyone in the City accurately determining how much water can be used before it would “materially impact” the City’s obligations.

While I respect his concerns, I feel obligated to point out that this is contradictory to Alderman DePillo’s campaign claims, in his failed 2005 Mayoral bid, that he was going to bring in a water bottling plant to downtown Waterbury. During the campaign Alderman DePillo never revealed the name of the company that was considering moving to Waterbury, though yesterday he told us that it was the Nestle Corporation. He also mentioned that Nestle had been banned from several states due to the large impact that they had on the water supplies in those states. However, according to Alderman DePillo, in Waterbury Nestle would have only used “20% of the excess” water.

This claim by the Alderman begs the question of how he can be so confident that Nestle would only have used 20% of the City’s excess water to run a water bottling plant, but have no faith in a power plant being able to ever come in and not materially impacting the City’s water. Sometimes I wonder if the reason that Alderman DePillo is against this plan is because he didn’t introduce it.

Alderman DePillo also felt it was inappropriate for the City to lease land to a private company for a hydroelectric plant, preferring to have the City build and staff such a power plant using City funds to construct the plant, and City employees to run the plant.

This claim is especially confusing to me, as Alderman DePillo has built his reputation on fighting what he has seen as excessively high costs on City capital improvement plans, and the high pay of city employees. As Alderman DePillo has been so consistent on suggesting that City workers are overpaid, and City bonding projects are overpriced, why would he push for the construction of a power plant with City funds that would easily run to the millions of dollars, and advocate for the hiring of more City employees?

It seems clear to me that Alderman DePillo has changed his tune drastically on this issue, for reasons that are known only to him.

It is my opinion that this question should be approved. First, approval of this question only restores rights that the City of Waterbury has had since 1931. Second, if it is run properly, a hydroelectric plant would have less impact on our water supply than a water bottling facility. Finally, if a company comes in and leases City land, that would bring money to the City in rent, and jobs to the City.

As always, if you have any questions, let me know.

Charter Revision Question #6

This is the second in an expected seven part series discussing the Charter Revision Questions that are located on this year’s ballot in Waterbury. This post will focus on Question #6.

QUESTION 6:

Shall the Charter be revised to allow the Board of Education to hire the superintendent of Schools without using civil service procedures?

This revision eliminates the requirement that the Board of Education appoint the Superintendent of Schools through civil service procedures.

This is a Charter change that is, in my opinion, long overdue. Waterbury is the only school district in Connecticut that requires Superintendent Candidates to take a civil service exam to be considered for the job. In fact at one point Waterbury was one of only two districts in the entire country that requires such a test.

My reason for backing the approval of this question is based on a concern that the presence of a civil service exam has been limiting the number of candidates for Superintendent of the Waterbury Public Schools. Furthermore, by limiting the number of candidates, we may be (inadvertently) reducing the quality of the candidates that are brought before the Board of Education.

As an example of my concerns, I would like to discuss a Superintendent search that took place in Waterbury many years ago. (The Superintendent search in question predates the search that resulted in the hiring of Dr. Snead.)

After the Civil Service exam, the Waterbury Board of Education was presented with three names. As a result of the rules of Civil Service, the Board of Education was required to choose one of these three candidates. Each of these candidates had flaws in their resumes that could have been considered fatal.

Candidate 1 had no experience in an urban school system.

Candidate 2 had been fired from a school district in Rhode Island under suspicion of the misuse of funds. Candidate 2 was later hired by a different school system and arrested for misuse of funds in that district.

Candidate 3 had been arrested for indecent exposure at a rest stop in New York.

The Waterbury Board of Education hired Candidate 1; however they realized that none of these three individuals were a good fit for Waterbury.

If this change is approved, when the Board of Education begins its deliberations for Dr. Snead's successor, they will be able to publicly vet as many candidates as they choose. They will not be limited to the top three scores on a test. This will allow for a more open discussion and a higher standard for the candidates who are looking to be our next Superintendent.

As with Questions 7 and 8, I encourage all voters to support this proposal. I will be posting the information on Question 5 tomorrow.

As before, if you have any further questions, let me know.

Charter Revision Questions #7 and #8

In an effort to inform the citizens of Waterbury about the Charter Revision Questions that they will be voting on this year, I have decided to write a series of posts on the 8 questions. These questions will be found on the right side and the back of your ballot. Please take the time to vote on these important measures.

As I discuss each question I will include both the text of the question (in bold) as well as the explanatory text (in italics) that can be found in the informational booklet the City will provide at each polling place.

To start my informational series, I will be discussing Questions 7 and 8. I have chosen these questions because they are the easiest to explain and (in my opinion) the least controversial.

QUESTION 7:
Shall the Charter be revised to replace the term “water rents” with the more accurate and appropriate term “water charges and/or sewer charges”?

This is an editorial revision to update the language used in Charter provisions dealing with charges for the use of City water. These charges, once referred to as “water rents” are now called “water charges”. In addition, there is now a charge for the use of the City sewer system which is treated in a manner similar to water charges. To bring the Charter up to date, this revision replaces the term “water rents” with “water charges and/or sewer charges”.

Personally I feel this question is a non-issue for the voters. As the explanatory text says, the changes implemented by the approval of this question are merely cosmetic in nature. Approval of this question will not change anything in the way the city does business, all it does is modernize the language in the Charter. Since we cannot "rent" water, I feel the changes are useful and should be approved.

QUESTION 8:
Shall the Charter be revised to replace outdated position and department titles with the appropriate titles?

This editorial revision replaces outdated job titles with the appropriate, currently-used titles as follows: “Superintendent of Police” becomes “Chief of Police”; “Chief Engineer” becomes “Fire Chief”; “Health Officer” becomes “Health Director”; “Director of Personnel” becomes “Director of Human Resources”. In addition, the “Department of Personnel” becomes “Department of Human Resources”.

Again, I feel this question is a non-issue. As you can see in the explanatory text, these are changes in name only. Nothing about the workings of these offices will change. Since it has been several years since I've heard anyone refer to the head of the Waterbury PD as anything other than "Chief", these changes seem long overdue. Again, these are changes that I feel should be approved.

For the sake of your sanity, I will stop here for now. I will get the other 6 questions posted between now and Election Day. If you have any questions, just let me know in the comments and I'll do my best to answer them.

Election 2010 - Primary Edition

The 2010 primary is quickly approaching, and the campaigns are definitely heating up on all fronts. Some of the political battles have reached a fever pitch, in terms of both intensity and negativity. I can’t remember the last time I got so much campaign literature during the month of August

While I have made no secret of being a registered Republican, I have always felt that it is important to get as much information out to the voters as possible.

With that in mind, below you will find tables listing all of the major party candidates that are going to appear on a ballot. I have also listed those candidates running with the Independent Party for those who are most familiar with Waterbury politics.

(Races that are shown in italics have a primary on the 10th.)

Republican Candidates

Governor	Tom Foley	Mike Fedele	Oz Griebel
Lt. Governor	Mark Boughton	Lisa Wilson-Foley
Secretary Of State	Jerry Farrell Jr.
Attorney General	Martha Dean	Ross Garber
Treasurer	Jeff Wright
Comptroller	Jack Orchulli
US Senate	Linda McMahon	Peter Schiff	Rob Simmons
1st Congressional District	Ann Brickley	Mark Zydanowicz
2nd Congressional District	Doug Dubitsky	Daria Novak	Janet Peckinpaugh
3rd Congressional District	Jerry Labriola Jr.
4th Congressional District	Dan Debicella	Rob Merkle	Rick Torres
5th Congressional District	Sam Caligiuri	Justin Bernier	Mark Greenberg
80th State House	Rob Sampson	Alan Giacomi

Democratic Candidates

Governor	Dan Malloy	Ned Lamont
Lt. Governor	Nancy Wyman	Mary Glassman
Secretary Of State	Denise Merrill	Gerry Garcia
Attorney General	George Jepsen
Treasurer	Denise Nappier
Comptroller	Kevin Lembo	Mike Jarjura
US Senate	Richard Blumenthal
1st Congressional District	John Larson
2nd Congressional District	Joe Courtney
3rd Congressional District	Rosa DeLauro
4th Congressional District	Jim Himes
5th Congressional District	Chris Murphy

Independent Party Candidates

Governor	Tom Marsh
Lt. Governor	Cicero Booker Jr.
Secretary Of State	Mike Telesca
US Senate	Warren Mosler

Putting The Results In Perspective

As a result of Commissioner D’Angelo’s letter in the Sunday Republican of July 25, I decided to do a little research and find out just how Waterbury’s scores stacked up to the rest of the state. What I found provides an interesting insight to the discussions that are sure to arise as we head into the 2010-11 school year.

Some of the numbers were disappointing, while others actually gave the city of Waterbury something to be proud of. There are two big questions that arise from my basic analysis.

1) Will the school board look at the disappointing side of the numbers to make some serious changes?

2) Will the public look at the positive aspect of these numbers and stop trying to concoct excuses for bashing everything and anything that is Waterbury?

So what are the results from the 2010 school year? To start with, let’s look at the results from Waterbury compared to the results from across the state of Connecticut. The table below lists these results for all grades of CMT and CAPT.

2010 RESULTS	WATERBURY	STATE
GRADE 3 MATH	74.4	83.6
GRADE 3 READING	53.8	72.3
GRADE 3 WRITING	65.7	80.3
GRADE 4 MATH	77.5	85.2
GRADE 4 READING	52.2	72.9
GRADE 4 WRITING	77.4	86.5
GRADE 5 MATH	82.6	87.8
GRADE 5 READING	58.2	75.4
GRADE 5 WRITING	75.7	87.3
5 SCIENCE	64.4	82.5
GRADE 6 MATH	67.2	88.2
GRADE 6 READING	64.6	85.5
GRADE 6 WRITING	63.9	85.5
GRADE 7 MATH	65.3	87.4
GRADE 7 READING	66.4	85.3
GRADE 7 WRITING	60.7	79.7
GRADE 8 MATH	59.6	86.6
GRADE 8 READING	58.8	82.6
GRADE 8 WRITING	60.4	80.6
GRADE 8 SCIENCE	40.9	76.0
GRADE 10 MATH	41.1	78.8
GRADE 10 READING	61.1	81.5
GRADE 10 WRITING	75.5	82.9
GRADE 10 SCIENCE	46.1	86.2

As you can see, this is the disappointing side of the numbers. The Waterbury School System was below the state averages in every test from Grades 3-10. Clearly the Department of Education has a lot of work to do, and I don’t think there’s anyone that denies that. From what I’ve seen, the big questions are what action to take, and how quickly to take that action. Some members of the Board want to impose sweeping changes yesterday, while others seem to drag their feet on new initiatives.

However, the story does not end with these few statistics. There are always going to be people who look at this one bit of information and try to declare that the Waterbury School System is “The Worst In The State” and “Nothing Ever Goes Right In Waterbury” and “Everyone Needs to Move Out” and on and on.

What is truly sad about that situation is that the people who act like that don’t realize that they’re contributing to the problem. Perception and perspective is the key to understanding any situation, whether real or fictional. So let’s add some perspective to these numbers.

The most important aspect to this discussion of perspective is who we compare ourselves too when we look at our test results. It is easy for the public (and the newspaper) to compare us to districts such as Wolcott, Region 15 (Middlebury/Southbury), Region 16 (Prospect/Beacon Falls), Cheshire, and Watertown. These are all towns that we are familiar with, and can relate too. However, these towns have very little to do with education in Waterbury. As a state, Connecticut has a reputation of being very self segregating, and the greater Waterbury area is no different.

During the 2007-2008 school year, the students in Waterbury were 28.1% Black, 43.1% Hispanic, and 26.7% White. The students in Wolcott, on the other hand, were 1.9% Black, 3.7% Hispanic, and 92.6% White.

Wolcott had 13.8% of its students qualify for free and reduced price lunch; Waterbury had 71.9% of its students qualify for the same program.

Wolcott had 4.2% of its students come from households where English is not the primary language, in Waterbury that number was 14.2%.

(Data collected from the Waterbury and Wolcott 2007-2008 Strategic School Profiles)

Obviously, comparing Wolcott and Waterbury is an exercise in futility, and shows what those of us who have been in the classroom mean when we say that there are certain factors beyond our control.

So what numbers should we look at? In an effort to answer that question the state divided the different school districts into 9 groups known as District Reference Groups (DRGs) lettered A through I. The schools in a particular DRG have similar demographics, and (it is assumed) similar challenges. DRG A has places such as Darien, Westport, and Wilton. Waterbury is currently placed in DRG I. Therefore, if we are to compare ourselves to similar schools, we should look at those in our DRG.

The schools currently in DRG I are, Bridgeport, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, New London, Waterbury, and Windham

When you compare Waterbury to these six other districts, you come to realize that, though things are difficult, they are far from hopeless. To illustrate my point, the table below shows the results of the 3rd grade CMT for the seven schools in DRG I. (The number in parenthesis is our ranking within the DRG.)

CMT GRADE 3 RESULTS	MATH	READING	WRITING
BRIDGEPORT	57.2	41.2	59.5
HARTFORD	61.4	45.7	66.4
NEW BRITAIN	43.6	35.2	50.8
NEW HAVEN	62.7	41.3	56.7
NEW LONDON	60.9	44.2	62.6
WATERBURY	74.4 (1)	53.8 (1)	65.7 (3)
WINDHAM	68.3	48.8	66.2

As you can see, the only section of the test where Waterbury students were outperformed was the Writing sample. In that test we were third out of seven districts, but the top district (Hartford) was only 0.7% better. The trend continues in the 4th and 5th Grade CMT results, where Waterbury was the top performing district in six out of seven areas. The only test where we were out performed was the 5th Grade writing, where we came in second to New London. (see below)

CMT GRADE 4 RESULTS	MATH	READING	WRITING
BRIDGEPORT	59.0	41.6	67.3
HARTFORD	58.9	34.1	65.8
NEW BRITAIN	49.7	35.4	57.1
NEW HAVEN	67.4	44.7	71.5
NEW LONDON	61.6	41.4	75.1
WATERBURY	77.5 (1)	52.2 (1)	77.4 (1)
WINDHAM	66.8	48.8	72.4

CMT GRADE 5 RESULTS	MATH	SCIENCE	READING	WRITING
BRIDGEPORT	66.5	50.0	39.5	71.0
HARTFORD	62.7	43.6	32.2	66.1
NEW BRITAIN	58.8	47.5	40.1	61.0
NEW HAVEN	68.4	55.9	47.7	70.2
NEW LONDON	78.5	63.4	56.8	81.3
WATERBURY	82.6 (1)	64.4 (1)	58.2 (1)	75.7 (2)
WINDHAM	47.2	41.8	33.0	56.1

After 5th Grade our standing in the DRG seems to drop, but at no point are we the lowest performing school out of the 7 in our group. This suggests that programs that have been implemented in the Elementary Schools seem to be working, it also could support the belief that there needs to be a change away from the current Middle Schools to more K-8 schools. (Wait, wasn’t that one of the reasons for building or rebuilding Gilmartin, Duggan, Carrington, and the To-Be-Named School in the North End?)

Further, it seems that across the grades, our students are scoring well in the Writing section of the CMT and CAPT. This year’s 6th grade class is the only one that was not either first or second in their DRG. Even though they were fifth, they did considerably better then the two districts behind them, New Britain and Windham. The Reading section of these tests also show some promise, as Waterbury had the best scores in the DRG in 7th grade, and came in second among the DRG I schools on the CAPT.

There is an area of the results that does make me pause in concern, however. Waterbury’s scores in Math and Science after the students leave Elementary School are simply unacceptable. If the Board of Education wishes to prioritize on a specific section of the CMT and CAPT, I would strongly encourage them to focus on Math and Science. Technology is constantly changing and improving, devices that I would not have dreamed of when I was in High School are now commonplace, and our students are going to need to be able to keep up if they wish to thrive in the 21st century.

CMT GRADE 6 RESULTS	MATH	READING	WRITING
BRIDGEPORT	73.0	64.4	70.3
HARTFORD	71.8	64.8	69.1
NEW BRITAIN	53.3	47.5	50.4
NEW HAVEN	74.2	74.4	71.2
NEW LONDON	60.1	67.3	72.4
WATERBURY	67.2 (4)	64.6 (4)	63.9 (5)
WINDHAM	52.4	50.5	53.2

CMT GRADE 7 RESULTS	MATH	READING	WRITING
BRIDGEPORT	65.4	63.9	55.6
HARTFORD	65.8	59.2	51.9
NEW BRITAIN	53.5	52.1	39.3
NEW HAVEN	70.8	66.3	51.8
NEW LONDON	60.6	65.4	64.4
WATERBURY	65.3 (4)	66.4 (1)	60.7 (2)
WINDHAM	49.8	48.4	36.2

CMT GRADE 8 RESULTS	MATH	SCIENCE	READING	WRITING
BRIDGEPORT	61.6	43.4	52.3	53.6
HARTFORD	63.1	44.4	59.5	57.9
NEW BRITAIN	56.2	35.2	49.7	46.8
NEW HAVEN	71.6	48.5	66.5	55.3
NEW LONDON	54.5	44.3	58.9	54.7
WATERBURY	59.6 (4)	40.9 (5)	58.8 (4)	60.4 (1)
WINDHAM	52.5	34.7	42.2	39.4

CAPT RESULTS	MATH	SCIENCE	READING	WRITING
BRIDGEPORT	33.7	37.7	38.9	50.9
HARTFORD	52.2	49.9	64.3	68.1
NEW BRITAIN	49	46.1	59.1	58.7
NEW HAVEN	49.4	53.1	59.0	70.7
NEW LONDON	50.5	56.3	55.0	67.0
WATERBURY	41.1 (6)	46.1 (5)	61.1 (2)	75.5 (1)
WINDHAM	45.1	55.8	56.0	58.8

In conclusion, the CMT and CAPT results of 2010 are a mixed bag of positives and negatives. There are areas of improvement, to be certain, however, simply pointing at sections of the data and complaining without offering any solutions is not going to help anybody, least of all our students.

The Art Of Political Smear

In the July 26 edition of the Republican-American, the following was published in the "Brass Tacks" column:

Job with Bureau of Water preceded elected position.

Alderman Ernest M. Brunelli wants everybody to know that he got his job honestly.

Brunelli is a temporary worker for the Bureau of Water, which has been accused of nepotism. The son of superintendent Kenneth Skov and relative of Skov's secretary, Marcy Michaud, both work there too.

When the Board of Aldermen sought an audit of the bureau for its hiring practices, among other concerns, Brunelli said he was deluged by calls from people accusing him of abusing his political power.

But Brunelli got his job in 2004, long before he was elected to the Board of Aldermen.

Although friends with foreman Stephen E. Laccone, Brunelli wasn't hired by him, and isn't related to anybody on staff.

He said he was so upset by the accusations he almost quit.

"I'm not an alderman down there," Brunelli said. "I'm just a worker."

To say I was disappointed in these developments would be an amazing understatement. This, petty, unnecessary harassment of Alderman Brunelli was the result of an article that ran in the July 21 edition of the paper.

While I am not disputing the facts of the article, what bothers me is that certain people will go to such lengths to demonize someone who has held a job for 6 years because he decided to run for the Board of Aldermen 10 months ago. Next they’ll be accusing Alderman Begnal of using political influence to get his teaching job, even though Alderman Begnal was hired as a gym teacher in the 1980’s, and only elected last year. After all, why let facts get in the way of an argument?

I’m further saddened by the fact that the people who seem to be responsible for this maneuver have shown a propensity for attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. It is a good thing for the city when a person goes into public service to look out for the tax payers and making sure that everything is done properly. It’s a detriment to the city when people stop focusing on the public, and start focusing on ways to get their name in the newspaper.

I had an opportunity to get to know Alderman Brunelli during last year’s campaign. While I do not know him well, at every event he came across as a friendly gentleman that had the best interests of Waterbury at heart.

I cannot believe that Alderman Brunelli did anything to deserve this abuse from a few political operatives that see a conspiracy behind every corner and trusts absolutely no one.

Fortunately, many of the comments that were posted after the article show that most of the people who commented share my opinion.

Some of the relevant comments, pulled directly from the Republican-American website:

Just a rumor wrote on Jul 21, 2010 11:23 AM:
"...This paper goes to great lengths to demonize employees with little or no facts. Relying on Depillo's rants as facts is ridicules...."

True Waterburian wrote on Jul 21, 2010 2:29 PM:
"...When will this city learn that all that representatives from the Independent(SAY NO) party says is inaccurate and mis truths. I am tired of this paper reporting these statements ase accusations without verifying thier accuracy "

all facts wrote on Jul 21, 2010 7:28 PM:
" It is amazing that Larry D would make accusations of the water department. It is justr retrobution for the superintendent because he suspendedan employee for plowing Depillo's street with city equipment. Laryy utilized city equipment for personal gain. Write about that. "

I think these comments speak for themselves. I hope Alderman Brunelli keeps his head up, and doesn't let this ridiculousness wear him down.

Asking The Right Questions

In the Sunday, July 25 edition of the Republican-American there was a very interesting letter from Board of Education Commissioner Paul D'Angelo.

In the letter Commissioner D’Angelo calls for radical changes in the Waterbury School System. It is his opinion that the status quo is no longer acceptable if Waterbury students are going to succeed in the 21st Century. I agree with Commissioner D'Angelo, however I have some concerns regarding the direction he takes with his proposals.

While I know that serious changes need to be made to our Education Department to ensure all of Waterbury's 18,000 students have the tools they need to succeed in life. I also am one of the first people to praise the teachers and administrators in the school system who bring their best efforts to their jobs every day of the school year.

To truly evaluate a schools performance, you can't just look at one aspect of the school, there is a lot more going on that will never show up on a test. When a district is looking at this much data, you have to make sure you are asking the right questions. Currently the City of Waterbury and the State of Connecticut only looks at the passing rate of students in successive years. While the argument can be made that the scores should improve as the teachers perfect their educational techniques, taking that approach gives the public a very poor view of the true results.

The purpose of the CMT, the CAPT, and the annual review of test results is to show that the schools are doing everything they can to improve our students as they move through the system. With a system as large as Waterbury, however, there are many variables that are well beyond the teachers and administrators control. True reform will only occur when we hold the teachers accountable for the aspects they can influence. Bashing teachers for situations they cannot influence is unfair to everyone.

With that in mind, I encourage the Board of Education to start looking at the questions they are asking when they look at the test results. From my years of scientific study, I have found that asking the right questions is as important as the answers you receive. To illustrate my point, I'll use Wallace Middle School as an example.

1. How many students who took the 8th Grade CMT at Wallace in 2010 took the 6th Grade CMT's in Waterbury in 2008?
2. How many of those students stayed in the Waterbury Public Schools during the 2 years in between?
3. How many of those students improved 1 level (1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc.) between 2008 and 2010?
4. How many of those students improved 2 levels (1 to 3, 2 to 4, etc.) between 2008 and 2010?
5. Did any students degrade 1 level (2 to 1, 3 to 2, etc.) between 2008 and 2010?

These questions are important because they allow us to focus on what is (or is not) working in our schools. If we have a student transfer to Wallace in September of their 8th grade year from Bridgeport (as an example), and the student is reading at a 4th grade level, how can we hold the Wallace teachers solely responsible for the students test scores in March? As the saying goes, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

If we can identify the students that are staying in the school system, and track their results over the course of several years, then we can truly identify what is and isn’t working in our educational system. Only by asking the right questions will we get the answers we need to best serve the students of Waterbury.