For the past month now there has been a rather heated exchange in the “Letter To The Editor” section of the Republican-American regarding the “accomplishments” of the Independent Party of Waterbury.
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2008/12/14/letters/385931.txt
City's Independents are 'petty people' who pretend to lead. – Jason Van Stone
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2008/12/29/letters/388568.txt
Critic overlooked many achievements of Independents. – Frank A. Burgio Sr.
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/03/letters/389291.txt
City's Independents unable to show any accomplishments. – Jason Van Stone
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/08/letters/390281.txt
Alderman's personal attacks on critic were untoward. – Allyson Modica
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/14/letters/391317.txt
Hypocrisy manifest in Republican's political critique. – Frank M. DePaola
Of the two responses from supporters of the Independents, Mr. DePaola’s in the most informed, providing examples of the Independent Party’s so-called “accomplishments”.
Unfortunately these “accomplishments” are also riddled with numerous inaccuracies that need to be addressed. Many of the projects listed in Mr. DePaola’s letter are mis-represented, mis-priced, or both. If the Independent Party wishes to serve the citizens of Waterbury, then it needs to make sure that everyone has the correct facts. Here are the facts, in no particular order.
First, with regards to the school-bonding project, there are several things that need correcting. There was no time where the city was considering spending $1 Billion dollars in one bonding package. The $1 Billion price tag that Mr. DePaola holds up was actually the proposed price of twelve phases of work, to be bonded in individual sections, over a decade or more, IF the city needed all of those projects. Some of these twelve phases have been scrapped, others have moved forward since the initial referendum of 2004. There was no $900 Million in savings, because there was never a single $1 Billion dollar bonding package.
In fact, the package that was approved by the Board of Aldermen in June of 2004, and by the citizens of Waterbury in that November’s referendum, was only slightly different from the package that was originally approved by the Board of Education. Mr. Theriault may have saved the city some money with his ideas, but those savings were negated by the Independent Party creating a delay in the construction process by forcing a referendum, and were nowhere near the $900 Million that Mr. DePaola suggests.
Secondly, there are numerous inaccuracies with respect to City Hall. Once again, there was never a time when the city of Waterbury was proposing a $60 million budget for City Hall alone. In fact, the closest that the city came to a $60 million price tag for any project that involved City Hall was a combined package that included City Hall, and a new firehouse, AND a training center. If these proposals had been adopted, the results would have been a long-term benefit to the city, as our ISO rating would have been reduced from a 2 to a 1, saving us all money on our homeowners insurance. It also could have saved the city money in the long run, by allowing the city to move several of its offices out of space that it is currently leasing.
In his letter, Mr. DePaola also tries to take two bites of the apple when he mentions the $17 Million firehouse on East Main Street and the so-called $60 Million City Hall project. The firehouse was part of the City Hall project that Mr. DePaola mentions, NOT a separate expenditure. Furthermore, the $5 Million firehouse on West Main Street was a proposal by the city in an attempt to compromise with the Independents.
Finally, with respect to First Light and the Mixmaster, Representative Noujaim (a Republican) was involved in the discussions regarding First Light, before Mr. DePillo tried to rally the citizens of Waterbury around the issue. Also, the Mixmaster is a project being run by the State of Connecticut DOT, not the City of Waterbury. Furthermore, there are members of the Republican Party on the steering committee.
Mr. DePaola is welcome to tout the accomplishments of the Independents. After all he was paid by the Independent Party to stand at the polls for them this past November. However, with the number of errors in his letter, most of them perpetuated by Mr. DePillo and Mr. Telesca of the Independent party, the “accomplishments” he mentions seem to be nothing more than hype.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Disgusting Editorial
In today's Republican-American there was an editorial regarding the Board of Alderman's recent 12-2 approval of a new contract for the Waterbury Fire Department.
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/08/opinion/390286.txt
As I read, and reread this editorial, I couldn't help but feel hurt and angry at the treatment my "local" paper gives to "Waterbury's Bravest". While I can understand the editorials concerns about the cost of the contract, and their opinions about whether or not the contract was in the best interests of the city, I couldn't help but feeling that this particular piece was nothing more then a pathetic cheap shot.
What disgusted me the most about this editorial was the newspaper's opinion of the Waterbury Firefighters work conditions. Through their repeated use of quotes around the word work [...a longer "work" week...this "work" schedule...they "worked" 24 hours], the editorial board of the newspaper makes it very clear that they consider the Waterbury Firefighters nothing more then a bunch of lazy slobs who waste the taxpayers money.
"In fact, firefighters serve 24-hour shifts during which they prepare meals, play cards, sleep, gripe about their pay (average: $57,000) and working conditions, and yes, answer an average of one call a day."
While I cannot argue the validity of the newspapers claims regarding the activities that take place during a normal day in the Waterbury Fire Department, the tone of this article is one of unbridled arrogance and ignorance.
Firefighters, are by their very nature a unique breed. They rush into the buildings that everyone else is rushing out of. They put their lives on the line for the citizens of Waterbury, and while they may only answer one cal a day on average, during that one call they could encounter any number of situations, from a simple kitchen fire, to a fully engulfed three-story apartment building. As the city of Waterbury was sadly reminded in May of 2007, any call has the potential to be a firefighters last.
Regardless of what you think of unions, binding arbitration, the state oversight board that ran the city of Waterbury from 2001-2006, or the Board of Aldermen in Waterbury, our Firefighters, and Firefighters around the world, deserve a lot more respect. They do a job that I know full well I could not.
I'm pretty sure the members of the Republican-American's editorial board could not do their job either. Therefore, unless the editors of the Republican-American are ready to put on the gear and risk their necks pulling someone out of a burning building, they have no right to treat Waterbury's Bravest in such a crass and disgusting manner.
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2009/01/08/opinion/390286.txt
As I read, and reread this editorial, I couldn't help but feel hurt and angry at the treatment my "local" paper gives to "Waterbury's Bravest". While I can understand the editorials concerns about the cost of the contract, and their opinions about whether or not the contract was in the best interests of the city, I couldn't help but feeling that this particular piece was nothing more then a pathetic cheap shot.
What disgusted me the most about this editorial was the newspaper's opinion of the Waterbury Firefighters work conditions. Through their repeated use of quotes around the word work [...a longer "work" week...this "work" schedule...they "worked" 24 hours], the editorial board of the newspaper makes it very clear that they consider the Waterbury Firefighters nothing more then a bunch of lazy slobs who waste the taxpayers money.
"In fact, firefighters serve 24-hour shifts during which they prepare meals, play cards, sleep, gripe about their pay (average: $57,000) and working conditions, and yes, answer an average of one call a day."
While I cannot argue the validity of the newspapers claims regarding the activities that take place during a normal day in the Waterbury Fire Department, the tone of this article is one of unbridled arrogance and ignorance.
Firefighters, are by their very nature a unique breed. They rush into the buildings that everyone else is rushing out of. They put their lives on the line for the citizens of Waterbury, and while they may only answer one cal a day on average, during that one call they could encounter any number of situations, from a simple kitchen fire, to a fully engulfed three-story apartment building. As the city of Waterbury was sadly reminded in May of 2007, any call has the potential to be a firefighters last.
Regardless of what you think of unions, binding arbitration, the state oversight board that ran the city of Waterbury from 2001-2006, or the Board of Aldermen in Waterbury, our Firefighters, and Firefighters around the world, deserve a lot more respect. They do a job that I know full well I could not.
I'm pretty sure the members of the Republican-American's editorial board could not do their job either. Therefore, unless the editors of the Republican-American are ready to put on the gear and risk their necks pulling someone out of a burning building, they have no right to treat Waterbury's Bravest in such a crass and disgusting manner.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
The True Colors of the Independents - Green
Tonight on his cable access show, State Representative Selim Noujaim (R-74) finally took the gloves off against the Independent Party. While the Independents in Waterbury have long been known for their constant griping and moaning about the state of affairs in Waterbury, their most common refrain is that they are looking out for the interests of the citizens of Waterbury. That is their justification for running endless campaigns that have no chance of winning. Of blasting the current administration at every possibility, including in front of a state panel looking at changing the ethics laws, about issues that are mostly politics.
And yet, despite all of this pontificating, the Independents have just been exposed as hypocrites. With the new campaign finance laws, Alderman Frank Burgio (who ran for the 74th district against Rep. Noujaim) made some very interesting financial moves, that while legal, are definitely not in good form.
First and most glaring is the fact that Alderman Burgio paid his Tresurer $4500 during the last two weeks of the campaign. $3000 for being the treasurer and $1500 for other consulting fees. Now, in all my experience in politics I have never seen a treasurer get this much money. In fact I don't know if the treasurer gets ANY money in most campaigns. What makes this especially interesting is that the Treasurer in question is one Larry DePillo, Vice-Chair of the Independent party and eternal candidate for city office.
Furthermore, Alderman Burgio paid the Chairman of the Independent Party in Waterbury, Mr. Mike Telesca, $2000 for Video Production services. This seems to be a prime example of the Independents looking out for themselves, not the citizens of Waterbury.
Lastly, and most disturbingly, is the fact that Alderman Burgio paid people to stand at the polls for him on election day. I have been involved in several campaigns, and I have stood at the polls for candidates and issues, and I have never even CONSIDERED taking money for my time at the polls. I consider it almost an obligation to stand there and voice my support for the candidate I truly believe is best. If I was willing to sell my services to the highest bidder I would be little more then a political mercenary, and that is not what democracy in America is about.
Elections should be about what people believe in, not who is willing to pay them. Maybe this is idealism, but it is what I believe and what I stand by. By using their campaign finance laws to line their own pockets the Independents of Waterbury have shown their true colors. Sadly they are not the red, white, and blue of American democracy, but the green of money.
And yet, despite all of this pontificating, the Independents have just been exposed as hypocrites. With the new campaign finance laws, Alderman Frank Burgio (who ran for the 74th district against Rep. Noujaim) made some very interesting financial moves, that while legal, are definitely not in good form.
First and most glaring is the fact that Alderman Burgio paid his Tresurer $4500 during the last two weeks of the campaign. $3000 for being the treasurer and $1500 for other consulting fees. Now, in all my experience in politics I have never seen a treasurer get this much money. In fact I don't know if the treasurer gets ANY money in most campaigns. What makes this especially interesting is that the Treasurer in question is one Larry DePillo, Vice-Chair of the Independent party and eternal candidate for city office.
Furthermore, Alderman Burgio paid the Chairman of the Independent Party in Waterbury, Mr. Mike Telesca, $2000 for Video Production services. This seems to be a prime example of the Independents looking out for themselves, not the citizens of Waterbury.
Lastly, and most disturbingly, is the fact that Alderman Burgio paid people to stand at the polls for him on election day. I have been involved in several campaigns, and I have stood at the polls for candidates and issues, and I have never even CONSIDERED taking money for my time at the polls. I consider it almost an obligation to stand there and voice my support for the candidate I truly believe is best. If I was willing to sell my services to the highest bidder I would be little more then a political mercenary, and that is not what democracy in America is about.
Elections should be about what people believe in, not who is willing to pay them. Maybe this is idealism, but it is what I believe and what I stand by. By using their campaign finance laws to line their own pockets the Independents of Waterbury have shown their true colors. Sadly they are not the red, white, and blue of American democracy, but the green of money.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Children - Not Cattle
With all the work that is being done on the schools here in Waterbury, there has arisen a need for some interesting changes to serve the best interests of the students. This has become especially apparent with the renovation/construction of Gilmartin school getting underway. It is obvious that keeping the students at Gilmartin while the construction is underway would be impossible. The disruption to the learning process and the risk (however minimal) of having grade school students around construction equipment is unacceptable. The $64 question then becomes "Where do we put the students?"
The current plan being proposed by the Education Department, and supported by the Board of Education, is to move the students to the former St. Margaret's School. This move will cost Waterbury $228,305 over the life of the 19-month lease. Understandably, with the dire economic predictions, there has arisen some opposition to this move. Not surprisingly, this opposition has come from the Independent Party.
The Independents in Waterbury have opposed this particular school construction initiative from the start. On this particular issue the dispute focuses on whether or not the Board of Education can find a cheaper way to house the students of Gilmartin. While I am all for debate and would like to see the City save as much money as possible, the need to save money is less important then the need to serve the best interests of the students.
This is where the Independents and Board of Education Commissioner John Theriault have lost their focus. Commissioner Theriault feels that the best option for the city is to move the students of Gilmartin to the school that the city is currently leasing for its alternative education program. The Commissioner feels that the 80 students that are currently at St. Lucy's should be scattered throughout the district. While the Commissioner is right in assuming that the students from Gilmartin would fit at St. Lucy's and that the students at St. Lucy's could be distributed throughout the city, he blatently ignores the fundamental rule of serving in education. Do what's in the best interests of the students.
The alternative education programs that Waterbury has are designed specifically for students that are not succeeding in a regular education setting. These are students that thrive in environments of stability and need the individual attention that the alternative programs provide. These are students that will not adjust well to being seperated from the friends and teachers that they have become comfortable with, and shipped randomly to whatever school has space for them. This is further compounded by the fact that some of these students are not comfortable in schools of 1000-1500 students. They need the stability, they need the attention, they need the quiet environment that the City provides. What the students do NOT need is to be treated like heads of cattle and moved wherever is deemed convienient for the moment.
What is especially galling about this situation is the man at the vangaurd of the opposition. Commissioner Theriault has a long career of serving the students of Waterbury, as a teacher and as a principal, ironically of the same Gilmartin school that is being renovated. As a man who has spent a considerable portion of his life in a job where serving the best interests of the students is priority one, I would have expected better of him. The fact that this gentleman, who touts his experience in the educational field, would suggest ignoring the needs of the students in such a obvious manner is shocking. He should know that the students in the alternative education programs do not deserve to be treated in this manner. He should know that what is in the best interests of the students is not always the cheapest option. He should know that the school system is made up of 18,000 young men and women with individual strengths and needs. He should know that these young men and women cannot be moved around like cargo. In short, he should know better.
Thankfully the democratic majority on the Board of Aldermen will probably support the proposal from the Education Department, but it still saddens me to see someone who should know better act in such a manner. It makes one ask, if Commissioner Theriault really feels this way, what's he doing on the Board of Education?
The current plan being proposed by the Education Department, and supported by the Board of Education, is to move the students to the former St. Margaret's School. This move will cost Waterbury $228,305 over the life of the 19-month lease. Understandably, with the dire economic predictions, there has arisen some opposition to this move. Not surprisingly, this opposition has come from the Independent Party.
The Independents in Waterbury have opposed this particular school construction initiative from the start. On this particular issue the dispute focuses on whether or not the Board of Education can find a cheaper way to house the students of Gilmartin. While I am all for debate and would like to see the City save as much money as possible, the need to save money is less important then the need to serve the best interests of the students.
This is where the Independents and Board of Education Commissioner John Theriault have lost their focus. Commissioner Theriault feels that the best option for the city is to move the students of Gilmartin to the school that the city is currently leasing for its alternative education program. The Commissioner feels that the 80 students that are currently at St. Lucy's should be scattered throughout the district. While the Commissioner is right in assuming that the students from Gilmartin would fit at St. Lucy's and that the students at St. Lucy's could be distributed throughout the city, he blatently ignores the fundamental rule of serving in education. Do what's in the best interests of the students.
The alternative education programs that Waterbury has are designed specifically for students that are not succeeding in a regular education setting. These are students that thrive in environments of stability and need the individual attention that the alternative programs provide. These are students that will not adjust well to being seperated from the friends and teachers that they have become comfortable with, and shipped randomly to whatever school has space for them. This is further compounded by the fact that some of these students are not comfortable in schools of 1000-1500 students. They need the stability, they need the attention, they need the quiet environment that the City provides. What the students do NOT need is to be treated like heads of cattle and moved wherever is deemed convienient for the moment.
What is especially galling about this situation is the man at the vangaurd of the opposition. Commissioner Theriault has a long career of serving the students of Waterbury, as a teacher and as a principal, ironically of the same Gilmartin school that is being renovated. As a man who has spent a considerable portion of his life in a job where serving the best interests of the students is priority one, I would have expected better of him. The fact that this gentleman, who touts his experience in the educational field, would suggest ignoring the needs of the students in such a obvious manner is shocking. He should know that the students in the alternative education programs do not deserve to be treated in this manner. He should know that what is in the best interests of the students is not always the cheapest option. He should know that the school system is made up of 18,000 young men and women with individual strengths and needs. He should know that these young men and women cannot be moved around like cargo. In short, he should know better.
Thankfully the democratic majority on the Board of Aldermen will probably support the proposal from the Education Department, but it still saddens me to see someone who should know better act in such a manner. It makes one ask, if Commissioner Theriault really feels this way, what's he doing on the Board of Education?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
And The Circuis Begins Again
We are only one week removed from a tiring and historic presidential campaign, but the political machine of Waterbury never stops running. We are 357 days from the next round of municipal elections and the fundraising and campaigning is already in full swing.
Board of Aldermen President J Paul Vance Jr. is holding a fundraiser tomorrow night at the Ponte Club. It is Alderman Vance's intention to seek the Democratic nomination for Mayor for the 2009 race. The biggest issue with this is that the current Mayor (Democrat Mike Jarjura) has said that he's planning on running for a fifth term. This puts the Democratic party in line for another primary fight in August, the third time out of five that Mayor Jarjura has face a primary.
Meanwhile people are still waiting for word regarding the Republican and Independent parties and who they will nominate this year. The fun has already begun, and the election is a year off! Only in Waterbury.
Board of Aldermen President J Paul Vance Jr. is holding a fundraiser tomorrow night at the Ponte Club. It is Alderman Vance's intention to seek the Democratic nomination for Mayor for the 2009 race. The biggest issue with this is that the current Mayor (Democrat Mike Jarjura) has said that he's planning on running for a fifth term. This puts the Democratic party in line for another primary fight in August, the third time out of five that Mayor Jarjura has face a primary.
Meanwhile people are still waiting for word regarding the Republican and Independent parties and who they will nominate this year. The fun has already begun, and the election is a year off! Only in Waterbury.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)