Why I'm Supporting Mayor Jarjura

Over the past several months I have been trying to listen to the three different campaigns for Mayor to decide who to vote for to lead the city of Waterbury during the next two years. I tried to keep an open mind about all three candidates, which was no easy task, considering the large amount of negative mailers I received from both the Republicans and the Democrats. It seemed to me that most of the “slam” pieces I received were from Commissioner O’Leary’s campaign, but that may have just been a matter of perception. I must commend Alderman DePillo for his ability to stay out of the hand-to-hand bare-knuckled fight that developed, and that he was able to maintain a positive message throughout the campaign. While I don’t agree with every policy position he has taken of the past two years as Alderman, I feel he has done an admirable job keeping his head in an unusual election cycle.

Unlike previous municipal elections, where I was one of the candidates for Board of Aldermen, I was only able to make one of the many forums and debates that the Mayoral candidates had throughout the city. The forum that I attended was the Downtown Merchants Forum that was held at the UCONN Waterbury branch on October 20. By attending that one event I was able to clearly decide that the right decision on Election Day would be to re elect Mike Jarjura.

During this particular forum, each of the three candidates for Mayor had an opportunity to address the crowd of merchants and interested citizens for about 40 minutes. Unlike a typical debate, each candidate would be able to present their opinions for downtown on their own. It seemed to me that it was a great chance for each candidate to do their best to ensure that the message they wanted to express was accurately portrayed to those in attendance.

First at the podium was Mayor Jarjura, who seemed to focus his message on making downtown one of Waterbury’s most vibrant communities. Mayor Jarjura admitted that the downtown area would not return to the status it once held. The City of Waterbury has changed, and our vision for downtown must change with it. Instead of a restoration of downtown, Mayor Jarjura seemed to speak of the need to reinvent downtown into something new and exciting. Mayor Mike Jarjura felt that downtown should be transformed into the government and cultural center. With market rate apartments and specialty shops, this would be a place that people want to live. Mayor Jarjura also spoke of the need to recognize the importance of arts and education as an economic driver for downtown Waterbury. Overall, Mayor Jarjura’s comments focused on what had already been accomplished downtown, while recognizing that a considerable amount of work still needed to occur.

The second speaker of the evening was Commissioner O’Leary, who provided a stark contrast to the comments of Mayor Jarjura. While Mayor Jarjura’s talk was mostly positive, Commissioner O’Leary’s comments were extremely critical. During the course of his presentation Commissioner O’Leary stated that the city had abandoned downtown and complained that downtown is both underutilized and underrepresented. Commissioner O’Leary’s comments made almost no mention of the work that Main Street Waterbury has done of the past 7 years, and presented an image of downtown as a place that was completely falling apart. While Commissioner O’Leary did compliment the fact that Waterbury is the safest city in Connecticut, he also referred to downtown as “filthy” multiple times. He also made an ill-timed reference to the fact that he was grateful that all of the businesses that had closed recently in Waterbury were small businesses. While I understand that what Commissioner O’Leary was trying to say was that no one closure had decimated the city’s employment figures, the fact that he made this remark to a room full of small business owners was unfortunate. Finally, during his remarks Commissioner O’Leary compared Waterbury to Providence, RI, but stated that it was unfortunate that we didn’t have as nice a river to capitalize on. This particular comment caught me off guard after all the work that has been done over the past three years trying to get a Naugatuck River greenway built through our downtown. Overall, I found Commissioner O’Leary’s remarks very discouraging and overly critical. He spent so much time telling us what was wrong with downtown, that he never got to tell us much about what his positive vision was for the future of this great city.

The final speaker of the evening was Alderman DePillo, who has (as I mentioned before) done an admirable job keeping a positive message before the voters. Alderman DePillo also expressed an opinion that not enough has been done to market and improve downtown Waterbury, and like any good challenger spoke of how he believed he could do a better job then Mayor Jarjura. However, while Commissioner O’Leary only spoke of the negatives, Alderman DePillo offered some alternatives to the present course of action that he felt would improve downtown. Some of the concepts that Alderman DePillo put before the attendees that night were the establishment of a “legal services” district in the downtown, as well as finding incentives to help new businesses get started, though he did not mention any specifics to support these ideas. Throughout his remarks Alderman DePillo spoke of a desire to abide by the wishes of the downtown building owners and business owners. He seemed like a candidate that truly wanted the input of the taxpayers before making any decisions or changes that would affect them personally.

In the final analysis, I was impressed by both Mayor Jarjura’s understanding of the situation downtown, and of Alderman DePillo’s research in learning and meeting as many of the individual business owners as possible before the forum. I was greatly disappointed by Commissioner O’Leary’s tone and attitude at the forum, and was turned off from even considering voting for him as a result of his comments that night. While I agree that Mayor Jarjura’s tenure has been far from perfect, and sometimes I believe the Mayor should be much more proactive then he currently is, I could not find any concrete reason not to support his reelection campaign. If I had felt a change was necessary for the city of Waterbury, then I would have given my support to Alderman DePillo. However, his belief that an industrial base would return to Waterbury in this national and state-wide economic climate made me feel that he was a close second to Mayor Jarjura.

I’m sure that there are some that will disagree with my opinions and my interpretation of the events at the forum on October 20, and I would welcome any comments from those who were also at the forum. Regardless of who you support, I hope everyone gets out and votes tomorrow, and when the sun rises on November 9, we can put the campaign behind us to work for the future of Waterbury.

After all, as Sen. Edward Livingston of Louisiana said back in 1830:

We undoubtedly think differently of particular measures, and have our preferences for particular men: these, surely, cannot arrange us into any but temporary divisions, lasting no longer than while the election of the man is pending, or the debate on the measure continues.

Preparing to Vote

Well, it looks like the City of Waterbury has finally dug itself out of last weekends freak October snowstorm, and things are slowly returning to normal. Any sense of normalcy will be short-lived however as the three mayoral campaigns gear up for the election on Tuesday, November 8.

In preparation for Tuesday's election, I have prepared a short, non-partisan, primer for those of you that may still have some questions. Some of the questions that focus on how the government of Waterbury operates were covered last month in a post by Raechel Guest. Here in my post I will cover some of the more technical aspects of voting in this years election.

First off, some people may be confused as where they are supposed to go to vote. As is also mentioned on Raechel's page, there are two possible ways to determine this information. You can either go to the Registrar of Voters web page, and see the list of every polling place in the city of Waterbury, or you can go to a web page provided by the Office of the Secretary of State and find your specific voting location. Please remember, though, that the entrance to your polling place may not match the street address of the building. (This is especially true if you vote at Tinker School.)

Secondly, I have often heard some misconceptions about how to use the new ballots. In past elections people have mistakenly believed that you could only vote for one person per column on the ballot. While this is true for the offices of Mayor, Town Clerk, City Clerk, and City Sheriff, this is NOT true for the Board of Aldermen or Board of Education.

As an example, I have two friends that are running for the Board of Aldermen this year. One (Jerry Padula) is a Republican, the other (Ron Napoli Jr.) is a Democrat. This year, both gentlemen wound up in column 12 on the Waterbury ballot. Fortunately, I do not have to choose which of my friends I am going to vote for, I can (and will) vote for both of them.

The only way a ballot will be rejected is if you vote for more then 9 Aldermanic Candidates or more then 3 Board of Education candidates. If you are someone who votes along a party line, then you have nothing to worry about. However, if you are like me and split your ticket, then you just need to make sure that you don't go over the limit.

For those who are interested, the Secretary of State has posted a PDF of the Waterbury ballot online.

Finally, whoever you support in this years election, I encourage everyone to get out and vote. As I mentioned after the 2009 election, the City of Waterbury has shown an alarming drop in voter turnout over the past 10 years. This is a trend that needs to be reversed and soon.

If you still have any questions, feel free to leave a comment and I will do my best to answer it.

This is Leadership? - Part 2

On Thursday I posted about Commissioner O'Leary's surprise verbal attack on fellow Board of Education Commissioner and Democratic candidate Pat Hayes in the Wednesday Republican-American. It seems that, after reading Wednesday's paper Commissioner O'Leary realized that he made a rather large mistake, and issued an apology to Commissioner Hayes, both personally and in writing. While I admire Commissioner O'Leary's willingness to admit he made a mistake and apologize for it, unfortunately I felt his apology left a lot to be desired.

Primarily I found it rather distasteful that O'Leary felt it necessary to make his apology as public an affair as he made his excoriation of Commissioner Hayes just three days earlier. As I've mentioned before, I don't feel it is appropriate for any group, campaign, or similar organization to air all of its personal squabbles in public. Some may disagree with me, but even Commissioner Hayes was disappointed in the public nature of Wednesday's events.

From Friday's Republican-American:

"I thought this would be a personal thing, not part of the campaign," Hayes said.

The other aspect of Commissioner O'Leary's apology that I found lacking was his explanation of why he said what he said. In his apology he claims that he mis-spoke due to the "frustration" he had been enduring as a result of the "ugly campaign". I find it extremely difficult to consider a statement as blunt as "Pat Hayes? Can't stand him." something that you could mis-speak.

Furthermore, if you're frustrated at the personal bickering between Commissioners, as Commissioner O'Leary claims to be in his apology, then why not say "I can't stand those meetings," instead of singling out the Board President.

While I understand that emotions can sometimes get the best of people, it's different when you're talking specifically about an individual. I remember when I was on the Charter Revision Commission back in 2010, and one of my Thursday night posts from Twitter wound up in print the following Monday. It was embarrassing for me to see something that I wrote in frustration printed in the paper, but I also did not single any individual member of the Commission as the target of my anger.

All in all, I'm glad to see that Commissioner O'Leary apologized, but I feel that his apparent penchant for speaking without considering the consequences of his words leaves serious questions regarding his ability to lead the City of Waterbury.

O'Leary Playing Favorites?

As I mentioned yesterday, Commissioner O'Leary seems to have no problem ripping apart a member of his own ticket, sometimes even without provocation.

On the other side of the spectrum, it also appears that Commissioner O'Leary is playing favorites among the candidates on his under ticket. While I was driving around Waterbury, I noticed a sign that said "O'Leary Mayor / Harkins Board of Education" in the standard blue and white pattern of this years campaign.


However, at the same intersection I also saw a sign that was designed solely to promote Mr. Harkins's candidacy to the Board of Education.


It appears, from looking at the second sign, that Mr. Harkins has taken it on himself to establish his own campaign committee with his own treasurer (Mr. Kevin Marano), lawn signs, and website. He has even made a point of securing endorsements for his candidacy, separately from anyone else on the O'Leary ticket.

I find this behavior both unprofessional and upsetting. When I ran for Board of Aldermen in 2007 and 2009, I made every effort I could to remind people that I was part of a team of candidates that were working together for the betterment of Waterbury. At no point did I ever consider setting up my own campaign committee and running a blatant bullet campaign at the expense of my fellow Republicans.

(In fact, I cannot recall any time in the last 26 years that a member of either party's under ticket ran such an overt campaign of self-promotion. Yes, there have been slates that have devolved to bullet campaigning before, but not to this level.)

What is equally disturbing about Mr. Harkins's actions this year, is that they seem to have the implicit endorsement of Commissioner O'Leary. If you go to the bio that Mr. Harkins posted on the O'Leary for Mayor website, you can see a link to his seperate campaign page at the bottom.

I feel that Mr. Harkins's actions, as well as Commissioner O'Leary's inaction, raise serious concerns about their ability to lead the City and the School System.

If Mr. Harkins cannot work as a member of a team during the campaign, I have serious doubts that he will be able to work with his fellow Board of Education Commissioners for the benefit of Waterbury's 18,000 students.

If Commissioner O'Leary is unwilling, or unable, to ensure that his candidates can work together as a cohesive unit, how can we be sure that he will be able to bring together all of the different departments and boards that comprise the City of Waterbury, and keep them all moving in the same direction?

I realize that some may not hold the same weight to these matters as I do, but I feel they show an important aspect of the O'Leary campaign. Someone who truly wants to lead the City of Waterbury should be able to keep the 15 candidates on his slate moving as a single unit. Someone who truly wants to lead the City of Waterbury would not use the press to air out "in family" fights. These actions are not the way I believe someone who wants to lead the City of Waterbury should behave.

This is Leadership?

Over the past week I have seen quite a few disturbing signs out of the O'Leary for Mayor camp that makes me feel that Commissioner O'Leary would not make a good Mayor for the city of Waterbury.

In my opinion, the Mayor of any city, especially as one as large as Waterbury, needs to be able to work with a wide range of people to solve the myriad of problems facing it. Quite often, you are going to have to deal with people that you don't always get along with. There may be people who actively work against you, there may be people who have personality quirks that you consider annoying, and there may be people who just don't get things done in a fashion that you feel is appropriate.

A true leader knows how to handle these differences of opinion in a quiet, professional matter that doesn't wind up on the front page of the local paper. If a candidate for Mayor cannot handle these inevitable personality conflicts when they arise within a campaign slate of 16 people, how can we expect that person to deal with them among the city government?

The first example of questionable leadership arose back on the 20th when Ruben Rodriguez decided to end his campaign for Board of Aldermen. While I don't agree with Mr. Rodriguez's decision to exit the campaign so close to election, I find it very disturbing that Commissioner O'Leary's response was to openly accuse a fellow Democrat and State Legislator of organizing the departure.

From the Republican-American:

O'Leary claims state Rep. David Aldarondo engineered Ruben A. Rodriguez's defection after O'Leary refused to put Aldarondo's friends and relatives on his campaign payroll.

"I don't pay for political support," O'Leary said. "I'm really disappointed about Ruben. He's a good guy. David is taking advantage of him to get back at me."

Regardless of whatever may have happened between Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Rodriguez, and Rep Aldarando, the local section of the newspaper is not the place to air these grievances. It is my opinion that an appropriate response from Commissioner O'Leary would have been to discuss these issues privately, and provide a simple statement expressing regret over Mr. Rodriguez's decision, without involving Ms. Overton.

Another example of questionable leadership from Mr. O'Leary is the fact that just two days ago he decided to openly insult a member of his own ticket without provocation.

On Tuesday I was both shocked and appalled to see the headline "O'Leary 'can't stand' Hayes" plastered on the front page of the local section.

I'm sure there are people who would like to believe that this headline was a result of the Republican-American taking editorial liberties with a minor disagreement, however Mr. O'Leary completely dispelled that myth when he said:

"Pat Hayes? I don't like him," he said. "Can't stand him."

He went on to say: "He's no leader. We need one."

While I have not always agreed with Commissioner Hayes regarding education policy, and I do not feel he is the best leader the Board of Education has ever had, there is no reason for him to be treated in such a callous and crass manor. If anything, I believe that Commissioner Hayes showed more leadership then Commissioner O'Leary when he refused to sink to O'Leary's level.

These blatant attacks on people that most would assume are Commissioner O'Leary's allies makes me worry about how he would treat those who openly disagree with him if he happens to be elected.

Nothing Endures But Change.

The following letter was sent to the officers of the Waterbury Republican Town Committee as well as the 71st District officers on August 8, 2011:

For most of my life I have been involved in Waterbury politics on a range of levels, from stuffing envelopes, to serving on boards and commissions, to running for elected office. My involvement in the political process was a way for me to serve the citizens of Waterbury to the best of my abilities. This desire to serve my hometown culminated in my brief run for Mayor earlier this year.

After ending my campaign for Mayor, I took some time to consider what the future held for me. After all, there is an old saying by Heraclitus, “Nothing endures but change.” With that in mind I have decided to make a change in my life and end my involvement in Waterbury politics.

I have reached a point in my life where personal fulfillment and professional stability have become more important than the fleeting happiness of a victorious campaign; so much so that politics no longer holds the importance that it once did.

Therefore I have decided to resign my seat on the Waterbury Republican Town Committee, effective immediately. This will allow me to focus on my professional studies as well as my community service efforts with Main Street Waterbury and the Knights of Columbus.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity to serve the citizens of Waterbury, and wish you all the best of luck in the future.

Saving Money in the Registrars Office

During the budget process this past spring, I took the opportunity to attend the meetings between the Board of Aldermen's Budget Subcommittee and the various Department Heads throughout Waterbury. For the most part these meetings were quick and painless, a discussion of what had been cut from the budget to try and make ends meet, and if there was anything else that could be cut. However, the discussion between the Registrars of Voters and the Budget Subcommittee gave me an interesting idea for how the city could save a little money in the future.

Currently in Waterbury, the Registrar of Voters spends $90,000 per year on "Temporary Salaries". When Mr. DeCarlo and Ms. Mulhall were asked why their office used so much temporary help, it was revealed that the State of Connecticut requires that each polling place be staffed by a certain number of individuals.

These are the people that sit at your local polling place and check your ID against the voter lists, hand out the ballots, make sure the machines are working properly, and so forth. Considering the fact that a person who applies to work on Election Day has to commit to the entire 14+ hour shift, I can understand the need to compensate them for their time.

However, this discussion reminded me of a post I had written back in November, 2009 discussing the dropping voter turnout in Waterbury. In my research for that post I noticed that some of the polling places in Waterbury had several thousand registered voters, while others only had a few hundred. This disparity in the number of voters made me wonder if it would be possible to consolidate some of our voting districts, thereby saving the Registrars Office some money?

To illustrate my point, below is a list of registered voters at each precinct, as of July 26. (Information provided by the Registrar of Voters)

DISTRICT	LOCATION	VOTERS
71-1	Kennedy High School	3128
71-2	Portuguese Sport Club	2366
71-3	Tinker School (Congress Avenue Entrance)	3895
72-1	Mount Olive AME Zion Church	2229
72-2	WOW/NRZ Community Learning Center	3112
72-3	Woodrow Wilson School	534
72-4	Regan School	2670
72-5	Edward D. Bergin Apartments	1770
73-1	Our Lady of Loreto Church Hall	3786
73-2	Silas Bronson Library (Branch)	972
73-3	Kingsbury School	2706
73-4	Waterville Recreation Center	2675
73-5	Blessed Sacrament School	1152
73-6	Chase Park School	646
74-1	Chase School	3732
74-2	Crosby High School	4141
74-3 / 74-4	St. Peter and Paul School Gym	3823
75-1	Willow Plaza Community Center	3212
75-2	Washington Park Community House	1808
75-3	Maloney School	3172
75-4	Hamilton Park Pavilion	1135
75-5	Washington School	1772

Using the numbers above and this map from the Waterbury website as a starting point, I see three areas where we can consolidate polling places and save some money. (The map is a rather large [5.56 MB] PDF file.)

The first area of consolidation is in the 73rd District. At the moment the 73rd has six polling places, ranging in size from 3786 voters at Our Lady of Loreto Church (73-1) to 646 voters at Chase Park School (73-6). I feel that 3 of these 6 polling places can be consolidated into 1.

If we combine the Silas Bronson Library Branch (73-2), Blessed Sacrament School (73-5), and Chase Park School (73-6) into one voting district, the resultant district would have 2770 voters. This new district would still be smaller than Our Lady of Loreto, and would be less than 100 voters larger than Kingsbury and the Waterville Rec Center.

Furthermore, the three districts I recommend for consolidation are contiguous, so the remaining 3 districts could remain unaltered. As an added bonus, all three districts are in the 15th State Senate District as well as the 5th Congressional District, so there would be no need for separate ballots or voting machines.

The second area of consolidation is in the 75th District. At the moment the 75th has 5 polling places ranging from 3212 voters at the Willow Plaza Community Center (75-1) to 1135 voters at Hamilton Park Pavilion (75-4). I feel that 2 of these 5 polling places can be consolidated into 1.

If we combine the Washington Park Community House (75-2) and the Hamilton Park Pavilion (75-4) into one voting district, the resultant district would have 2943 voters, which would still be smaller than both the Willow Plaza Community Center and Maloney School.

Furthermore, the two districts I recommend for consolidation are contiguous, so the remaining 3 districts could remain unaltered. Unfortunately, the consolidated district would be split between the 3rd Congressional District and the 5th Congressional District, however, the 74th district has two voting districts (74-3 and 74-4) that both vote at the Sts Peter and Paul Gym despite being in separate State Senate districts. Even if the districts themselves cannot be consolidated, the voting locations can be merged.

The third and final area of consolidation is in the 72nd district. At the moment the 72nd has 5 polling places ranging from 3112 at the WOW/NRZ Learning Center (72-2) to 534 at Wilson School (72-3). Unfortunately, in this situation the two districts that are the best candidates for consolidation are Wilson School (72-3) and the Bergin Apartments (72-5). These two districts do not connect with each other, but I still managed to find a way to reduce number of voting locations in the 72nd from 5 to 4.

My solution for the 72nd District involves consolidating the WOW/NRZ Learning Center (72-2), Wilson School (72-3), and the Bergin Apartments (72-5), and then splitting this consolidated district into 2 voting locations. By combining 72-2, 72-3 and 72-5 you wind up with a district with 5416 voters. (This is obviously too large to be an effective voting district.) However, if we then split this consolidated district in half, we wind up with two voting locations of approximately 2700 voters each.

These 2 new districts would match up quite nicely with Mount Olive AME Zion Church with its 2229 voters, and Regan School with its 2670 voters. Also, as with the 73rd District, the three locations I have marked for consolidation all are in the 15th State Senate District and the 5th Congressional District.

As an added bonus, by splitting up the current 72-2 voting district, you could remove the WOW/NRZ Learning Center as a polling place. Having been to that building several times this summer, I realize that while it's a very nice facility, it does not have the parking that I believe is necessary to accommodate the 3112 voters that are currently registered there.

I realize that this is not a perfect solution, but I hope it will give people something to consider as we look towards future budgets. Even this small reduction on voting locations (from 22 to 18) may help the City finances in the future.

Also, when you consider that the State Legislature is currently drafting new maps for our State House, State Senate, and Congressional districts, now may be the perfect time to petition our leaders in the General Assembly to reduce the number of required voting districts for the city of Waterbury.

If you have any thoughts, or ideas on this issue, please let me know.

I Shall Not Seek...

Since the end of my campaign for Mayor, I have been contemplating what form my community service would take going forward. The number one question before me was whether I would run for a different elected office this year, or if I would sit this election out and possibly return to politics in 2013.

After much careful deliberation, I have decided not to seek the Republican Party’s nomination to elected office this year. Instead, I have chosen to focus my time and energy on the many other organizations with which I am involved.

I know that some of my friends will be disappointed by this decision, but I feel that this is the best option available to me at the present time.

I have found that I can have as much of an impact on my hometown through my involvement in the Human Rights Commission, Main Street Waterbury, the Knights of Columbus, and Shakesperience Productions, as I can serving on the Board of Aldermen.

Politics is an unusual game; it is as much about timing as it is about persuasion. And when talking about timing you have to consider not only when to step forward, but also when to step back. As I have become more familiar with the political landscape here in Waterbury, I realized that it was time for me to take a break from the game.

So for now, I shall focus on my professional and personal endeavors, as well as continuing to work with the organizations I previously mentioned. For those who are chosen to run on the Republican ticket, I will offer what support I am able and I wish them the best in the upcoming campaign. My goals and ideals have not changed; I have simply decided to take a different direction at this time.

The Final Act of the Baker For Waterbury Campaign

Bryan P. Baker today announced the distribution of his surplus campaign funds to two local non-profit organizations. In accordance with SEEC regulations, any surplus funds that remain when a campaign committee or an exploratory committee is dissolved, may be distributed to any non-profit organization with a 501(c)(3) designation. Therefore, Bryan has decided to donate the surplus funds to two Waterbury based organizations, Shakesperience Productions and Main Street Waterbury.

“I am proud that I can use these surplus funds to help two worthy organizations,” Bryan said. “Both Shakesperience and Main Street Waterbury have provided a tremendous benefit to the city of Waterbury. Through my dealings with these two organizations, I have learned just how valuable they are to both the present and the future of our city.”

Bryan has been a member of the Main Street Waterbury Design Committee since December of 2004, and was named co-chair of the committee in October of 2008. Bryan has spent his years with Main Street advocating for Downtown Waterbury. Some of the projects that he has been involved in include assisting the research and organization of guidelines for Outdoor Dining, as well as being a vocal proponent of the restoration of City Hall. For his efforts, Bryan was named the Main Street Waterbury Volunteer of the Year in 2009.

The money donated to Main Street Waterbury will support the Second Annual Steven R. Sasala II Community Partnership Award. This year’s event will be held at the Palace Theater on June 23 from 5:00 to 7:30 PM.

Since the fall of 2007, Bryan has volunteered his time with Shakesperience Productions. During the past four years, Bryan has appeared as a guest artist in five shows produced by Shakesperience. Bryan is currently scheduled to appear in the role of Egeus in this year’s production of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”.

The money donated to Shakesperience Productions will be used to support the 2011 Shakespeare in Library Park production of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. The performances are scheduled for June 23 at 7:00 PM, June 24 and 25 at 8:00 PM, and June 26 at 2:00 PM.

Stepping Down

With Mayor Jarjura's decision to switch his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican today, there has been a massive shift in the political landscape as we close in on the November 8 election. Below is a copy of my prepared remarks at this morning's press conference:

Three months ago I submitted my name for consideration as a Republican Candidate for Mayor in this year’s municipal election. When I announced my intentions, the response I received from my fellow Republicans ranged from tepid to extremely enthusiastic. Nevertheless, I committed myself to bringing a positive message to the voters of Waterbury.

On May 19th, I was informed by Waterbury Republican Town Committee Chairman Bill Harris of the Mayor’s impending switch to the Republican Party. At that meeting I was asked to end my campaign for the mayor’s office and join my fellow Republicans in supporting Mayor Jarjura.

In politics, I have learned that one must be willing to put the best interests of the city and of the party before personal ambitions.

For this reason, I have consented to the request of the Town Committee, and am ending my current campaign for mayor. I step aside confident in the knowledge that I have given this campaign everything I could, and that the citizens of Waterbury have benefited from my involvement in the political process.

Throughout my adult life, my dedication to the City of Waterbury has been constant, and even though I am drawing my current political endeavor to a close, that dedication will not waver. I will continue to serve the community as best I can.

I have spent many years serving the citizens of Waterbury on a volunteer basis, as a member of Main Street Waterbury, as a member of the Knights of Columbus Sheridan Council #24, and through my service on several city boards and commissions, including the Environmental Control Commission, the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Truancy and Drop-Out Prevention, the 2010 Charter Revision Commission, and currently as a member of the Human Rights Commission.

Presently, I have been deep in thought about what today’s developments mean for my future in politics. At this time I am still consulting with my family and friends regarding my plans for this November. However, any decision about my political future will not dampen my desire to serve the city and citizens of Waterbury.

Getting Sworn In

As I mentioned yesterday, I was sworn in as a member of the Human Rights Commission this afternoon.

The oath of office was administered by Deputy City Clerk Liz Ferrer, who is on the right of the attached picture. (Picture courtesy of Debi Schatzle-Baker)

I am looking forward to my first meeting as a Commission member tonight at 6:30 in the Mayor's Conference Room.

Human Rights Commission

This afternoon I was honored to receive a letter from the Mayor’s office appointing me to the Human Rights Commission, effective immediately. I will be sworn in to the Commission on Wednesday, March 2 at 1:30 PM in the City Clerk’s office.

As most of you know I have spent the past six years working for the best interests of the city. Between my work on the Environmental Control Commission, the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Truancy and Drop-Out Prevention, and the Charter Revision Commission of 2010, I have had a chance to work with many different areas of city government. Each project and commission that I have worked on has brought with it new challenges and new opportunities to learn. I know that my time on the Human Rights Commission will be no different.

I look forward to serving the citizens of Waterbury in this new capacity.

Setting Up For The Campaign

Since I filed the paperwork forming my exploratory committee last friday, I've been keeping myself busy getting the word out that I am in the race.

So far I've set up my own webpage, my own Facebook page, and my own Twitter feed. Take your pick and follow along as the campaign gets rolling.

Website

Facebook

Twitter

Throwing My Hat Into The Ring

The 2011 election cycle promises to be one of the most interesting campaigns the city of Waterbury has seen in a long time. With 3 Democratic candidates already having declared their intentions to run for Mayor, there is sure to be an intense fight for the Democratic nomination.

When you add the Republican and Independent parties to the mix, there is a strong chance that the November election will be a four person contest, with the Democratic endorsed candidate on Row A, a Republican on Row B, an Independent candidate on Row C, and possibly a Petitioning Candidate on Row D. When a Mayoral field gets this crowded, anything can happen.

Some people look at this situation and assume that the Republican and Independent candidates will have little to no chance of accomplishing anything meaningful. I look at the political landscape, and I see a tremendous opportunity. I see an opportunity for the Republican Party in Waterbury to pick itself up off the mat and take a bold step into the future. I see an opportunity for the Republican Party to usher in a new era of leadership with new voices bringing Waterbury to the 21st century.

For us to capitalize on this opportunity, however, someone needs to be willing to step forward and brave the rough and tumble world of Waterbury politics. For this reason I have decided to form an exploratory committee to seek the Republican nomination for Mayor in the 2011 election.

I feel that I have the experience to be a formidable candidate in the upcoming campaign. While other candidates are talking about helping downtown, I’ve actually been working at it, having been a member of the Main Street Waterbury Design Committee for over five years. For over four years I served as a member of the Environmental Control Commission, discussing various ideas for improving the environmental health of the City. My years as a teacher at Wilby High School and Waterbury Adult Education have also shown how important our students’ education is to the future of Waterbury. Finally, as a member of the Charter Revision Commission in 2010, I’ve shown that I am willing to stand for what is in the best interests of the citizens of Waterbury and the city as a whole.

I have also been involved in many apolitical aspects of the community, having been a dues-paying member of the East Mountain Neighborhood Association since 2002, a member of the Sts. Peter and Paul Church Choir since 2005, and a 3rd Degree member of the Knights of Columbus Sheridan Council #24 since 2010.

When you consider my years of political experience and community service, I feel that I can make an impact in the future of Waterbury politics. I hope that you will feel the same way, and join me on the campaign trail this year. Together we can continue working for the betterment of our city.

Joe Turner's Come and Gone

Over the past week there has been a considerable amount of controversy generated by the August Wilson play, "Joe Turner's Come and Gone". The debate erupted last week when it was discovered that students at the Waterbury Arts Magnet School were rehearsing the play despite the objections of the Superintendent, Dr. David Snead. Dr. Snead's objection to the play was based on the fact that a rather offensive racial pejorative (commonly referred to as the N-word) is used repeatedly in the text.

This debate has produced five different articles on the Republican-American website, each with their own lengthy set of comments, as well as an editorial in Saturday's paper.

There have also been articles and comments in the Hartford Courant, and the New York Times. Furthermore, opinion pieces have been written by the American Theatre Wing and my friend Raechel Guest who runs her own Waterbury blog.

Articles on the Republican-American website:

School superintendent trys to cancel school play over "N-word".
Play's racial slur has school officials at odds.
Board considers need for school play policy.
Censored 'Finn' interests member of school board.
Teens prefer positive spin on slur, but school chief wants play halted.

Several of the articles also broach the topic of censorship in general, adding the latest sanitized version of "Huck Finn" to the mix.

Considering all the controversy that had been created, I decided to head out to the library and find a copy of the play in question. After reading the play, I feel comfortable offering my opinions on the content of the play, the role of language in the play, and whether or not the play is appropriate for high school students to be performing.

"Joe Turner's Come and Gone" focuses on the struggles of several black individuals to find their identity in 1911 Pittsburgh. This struggle reveals, through three characters, several divisions within the African-American community of the time.

The first character that brings these divisions to light is Seth Holly. Seth is in his fifties, and was born in the north. Despite being born in to pre-Civil War America, he shows very little understanding of the Southern way of life. He is not happy with the number of African-Americans coming North, and considers many of them backwards. His character uses the pejorative almost exclusively in the script, and employs the word to demean these Southern blacks.

The counterpoint to Seth is an older character called Bynum. He is an older gentleman from the South. The play refers to him as a "conjure man", and my best guess is that he was raised in the backwoods areas of the South. Though it is not explicitly mentioned, I would assume that he was from the Appalachia region of eastern Tennessee or Kentucky.

Lastly, you have the character of Herald Loomis. Herald is a younger man, in his early thirties, who has been forced to work in a Tennessee chain gang after being kidnapped by the titular Joe Turner. During his seven years of captivity, his wife leaves Tennessee and heads north, depositing their daughter at her mother's house on the way. Harold is extremely disoriented in terms of personality and his place in the world. At the end of the play, through an act of self-mutilation, Herald is able to find himself, and regain his sense of purpose in the world.

By bringing these and the other characters together Mr. Wilson shows the hardships that many in the African-American community had to face a century ago. I found the play very powerful and especially moving, and have come to the conclusion that the play can be a teaching tool for the students of Waterbury.

However, the discussion of content has, sadly, been lost among the concerns over the language in the play. As I mentioned before, the pejorative in question is not used in the text by a Caucasian character to demean an African-American character. It is used by one black character to demean another who the first considers beneath him. If we were to sanitize this play, the best analogy that I can think of would be "hick" or "hill-billy".

That is not to suggest that I feel the word is an appropriate word to use in modern society. I feel, like many who have commented before, that there is no place for such a racially charged pejorative in 2011. However, I am fully aware that among the African-American youth of today, the word is common in their vocabulary. Many of the students involved in this production have no appreciation for the power, the anger, and the hate that this word can evoke. While some may see that as a good thing, if people truly want to erase that word from 21st century vocabulary, they need to ensure that our youth know why it should be struck.

Furthermore, as has also been mentioned before, we have to respect our history, as ugly and unpleasant as it may be. While it might be nice for people to forget things that the United States has done wrong in it's 235 year history, we cannot ignore the phrase, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." There is a time and a place for an intelligent, respectful, and appropriate discussion of where we've been as a culture, where we are, and where we're going.

So, to the crux of the issue, is a production at the Waterbury Arts Magnet School the appropriate venue for such a discussion? After reading the play, and thinking about it over the long weekend, I feel I have to say no.

My reason for not supporting a production of this play is not based on censorship, or even on the language used in the play. I am uncomfortable with the final scene of the play being performed on a High School stage. Despite all of the potential for learning, and all the benefits that could come from this play, I cannot condone a performance where a character cuts himself across the chest with a kitchen knife, and rubs his own blood on his face on a high school stage. If this production was being done at Post University, or any other local college, I would have no problem supporting it. However, I just do not feel that it is age appropriate.

I realize this discussion and debate is far from over, but I wanted to share my concerns. Let me know what you thing, and we'll see how this all plays out at the Board of Education meeting on the 18th.

Early Thoughts on Election 2011

Tuesday nights announcement that Wolcott Police Chief Neil O'Leary is resigning, effective January 29, has sent ripples throughout the political circles in the city of Waterbury.

As was mentioned in the article, the conventional wisdom is that Chief O'Leary will announce his candidacy for Mayor of Waterbury sometime in February. Any announcement will have to wait until then, due to federal laws that prevent law enforcement officials from actively campaigning.

If the conventional wisdom holds, Chief O'Leary will be the second Democrat to throw his hat into the ring for the 2011 election cycle. He will be joining former Board of Aldermen President J Paul Vance Jr, who declared his candidacy back in December.

This would set up a very interesting situation for Waterbury Democrats this summer. A primary campaign between Vance and O'Leary would be guaranteed, and the primary could turn into a three way contest if Mayor Jarjura decides to seek a sixth term.

A three way primary within the Democratic party would be extremely intense and could quite possibly turn ugly. Whoever came out on top would either be severly damaged politically, or would be so strong that a victory in November would be almost certain. If the primary turns and stays nasty, Waterbury may experience even lower voter turnout in November as supporters of the two vanquished Democrats stay home.

I must admit that I am hoping that the primary campaign that would develop (if the conventional wisdom is correct) remains focused on the issues, and does not sink into personal attacks. The 20% voter turnout in the 2009 primary was apalling, and the City of Waterbury is in serious trouble when that many registered voters stop caring.

This is not the first time that I have mentioned the dropping voter turnout in Waterbury, and I feel this will become an extremely important issue as the 2011 election draws closer.

Moving down from the Democratic line, things are still quiet. There has been no public discussion yet regarding potential candidates on either the Republican or Independent Party lines. However, I do not think this silence is any reason for concern. We've just wrapped up the 2010 elections, and the 2011 elections are still over 300 days away. There is still plenty of time for things to change, and I'm sure that things will change.

It is obvious, though, that the municipal election campaign has started. It's going to be an interesting summer.

City Hall Rededication

Yesterday afternoon the City of Waterbury held a rededication ceremony and ribbon cutting for our newly restored and renovated City Hall.

Originally built in 1915 and designed by famed architect Cass Gilbert, City Hall had been the crown jewel of Waterbury until recently. Decay, and an act of vandalism, forced the City to act in 2007.

Now, after almost three years of work, the building is complete and the results are fantastic.


In this picture you can see one of the newly restored lamps outside of the main entrance to City Hall.


Here you can see some of the detailed woodwork that has been added to the different offices throughout the building.


Here you can see the entrance to the new Aldermanic Chambers, with one of the original quotes that Cas Gilbert added to the building. It has some good advice for those looking to serve the City of Waterbury.


Here you can see the newly restored brass chandelier that hangs over Aldermanic Chambers.


Here is the stained glass window that sits at the top of the grand staircase between the first and second floors.


In this last picture you can see me sitting behind the Mayor's desk in his new office. Mayor Jarjura was gracious enough to encourage people to have their picture taken yesterday.

Overall I found the ceremony very uplifting for the City of Waterbury. It showed how great things in Waterbury can be when people put aside their petty differences and work together for the common good. It also reminds the citizens what this city was, and what it can be again. Hopefully this start to 2011 brings some positive changes to the Brass City.