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.