I agree with those who think this blog has turned too much into a feud between Mr. Freda and myself about the past. So I'm running Mario's comment again, including the comments made to it, and let's focus on these and other issues. Of course, anyone else who wants to keep up the conversation with Mr. Freda is welcome to in comments to the blog entries dealing with his candidacy and comments.
Mr. Freda,
Many of us are willing to read about and debate your unique vision and novel plans for the future. However, so far there hasn't been much to debate. Since nobody stands for bad schools, taking a position in favor of schools simply isn't a distinguishing issue.
By contrast, we already have some interesting and probably controversial visions on the table. Is it time to revisit the town charter (as required by law)? In the process, should we move to a more modern form of government (as Mr. W has suggested)? Has the political process served us well or might we benefit from professional management?
While pondering some large issues, such as this one, there is no shortage of smaller and easier ones to tackle. Should high-ranking town employees get medical benefits for themselves and family for life? Should they receive a huge retirement pension?
Should the audit be continued? What should be its scope?
Regarding the school budget, is there a better way to vote and decide? Specifically, can changes be made to prevent politicians from pitting education against other interests?
How can we make officials more responsive? One good change is Janet M will be holding meetings at times when more people can attend. I suggest that all elected officials have an email that is available to the citizens. I know that Janet M and Steve F have done so for some time and they are always quick to respond. I am not aware that Mr. Freda ever made available his email. For those officials who have office phones, those too should be available. We need to minimize the secrecy tendencies of future politicians.
Then there's the matter that an independent raised. Roughly, the point was that independents can/do determine the outcomes of the elections and yet they are ultimately given no voice in the government. Should we try to change that? Any ideas on how to do it? This issue could be pressing if Janet M chooses not to accept Mr. Freda.
For those interested in the issue of independent participation in North Haven's government, here's a North Haven Post column on the subject, which I wrote several months ago. Independents interested in being appointed to a board and commission should let First Selectwoman-elect Janet McCarty know: 239-1913, janet.mccarty@usa.net. Tell your Independent friends.
Charlotte said...
Mario,Yes, I agree that there are too many important and potentially transforming issues to allow Mr. Freda to set the debate agenda on this blog. Thus far, he has taken no novel stands, offered no novel solutions, and offered no novel perspectives. Let's debate progressive issues, not tired republican positions.
Big Al said...
Open question to anyone who might be able to answer.Is there a specific reason why an unaffiliated voter cannot serve on one of the more important boards such as P&Z,ZBA,BOE, and so on?I would be very interested in doing just that but always thought that there was something in the town charter that prohibited it.
Jim Leahy said...
Nobody sets the agenda on this blog. Mr. Freda is entitled to his opinion and you can debate with him at any time. I happen to think a lot of what he says makes a great deal of sense. You may not agree with him, but he raises soem interesting points.Let's forget about the mudslinging which occurred during the election and move forward, helping North Haven grow and prosper. Keep in mind that Mr. Freda is the only person from the previous administartion to have the guts to discuss issues openly on this blog.
Robert Wechsler said...
In response to Big Al's question: Connecticut's election laws make it hard for independents or minor party members (e.g., Greens or Libertarians) to run for office. Of course, either major party may nominate an independent, but they tend to ask the independent to join the party.Across the country, most towns our size are nonpartisan. That is, no one can run as a member of a party. This makes it easy for anyone to run.
To help independents interested in running, earlier this year I put up on the North Haven Info website a link to the state guide to campaign finance laws, so people can see what has to be done in order to run (the link is at the end of the first section on the page).
Think about it for the next time, and you might even be able to swing an endorsement from a party. Go to meetings of the board, ask good questions, write letters to the editor, build your candidacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Big Al-
What's your affiliation? Pls consider throwing you hat into the ring.
Mr. Leahy-
I knew you had a conventional republican mind, but your post is simply blind party obedience.
Please enumerate concisely the good "points" that you believe that Mr. Freda advanced!
In the process, pls explain what's new and important about them and what distinguishes them from everyone else's views.
Sourpus,
Mr. Freda has made some excellent suggestions regarding tax revenue, our declining manufacturing base and a host of other issues. I did not vote for him, nor did I support any former member of the BOF.
North Haven needs Republicans (like me) and Democrats, all working together to help make the future bright for all of us. It's time to stop the personal attacks on Mr. Freda. He is honestly, I believe, trying to be a member of the team.
Mr Leahy-
My challenge to you was to "enumerate concisely the good "points" that you believe that Mr. Freda advanced!"
Your non-answer that he "made some excellent suggestions". What were these great ideas/plans? I have still not found them.
Dear Mario,
I apologize for the delay in responding to your excellent analysis and series of questions regarding other issues and visions.
I will offer my opinion on a few of the concepts and areas that you referenced:
1) The Town Charter
2) Professional Management
3) The Forensic Audit
4) The School Budget
The Town Charter has served us well but I do think that it needs to be revised, but not totally rewritten. I think that it currently serves as fine foundation for our town but it does need to be both augmented and expanded in certain areas.
The idea, in my mind, would that that it needs a little more specificity in some areas and some changes in others.
The issue of professional management may very well be a non-issue under the administration of Ms. McCarty. My understanding is that she would be looking to hire two additional positions in the area of a town manager and economic development planner.
I am skeptical as to whether the significant cost of these positions, which will be borne by the tax payers, will produce an analogous return on that investment.
My skepticism is also irrelavant because Ms. McCarty deserves to prove that her plans can be effective, and this plan very well may be effective.
During my last BOF meeting, the analysis of the Forensic audit was one that started out as provocative but it quickly lost steam due to the lack of clarity and specifics as to what really happened in this town.
The analysis produced by the auditor only heightened the speculation and led to more questions without providing more significant findings.
There certainly was an identification of the total dollars in question, roughly $70,000, but there was a great deal of ambiguity as to what exactly,precisely and specifically was misappropriated. This was also told to us by the auditor himself.
We were all somewhat frustrated as to what the findings were because we expected more precise and specific analysis for the $60,000 that was spent.
We were also frustrated because we wanted to file an insurance claim for the entire $70,000, and we did, but the auditor felt that we would be rejected in recouping the total amount.
As a result of what I just said, I would be in favor of expanding the audit backwards for another 3 to 5 years.
I would be in favor of this because it would provide the people with a more precise view of what went on over a larger timeframe and would hopefully eliminate speculation and provide specifics.
There certainly would be a cost to this but the cost is not as important as the elimination of doubt, suspicion and additional facts for the general public.
You might be interested to know that I have already discussed this with a few of my Republican collegues and they also agree with my point of view on this.
After having gone through the budget season this past year and seen all of the interest in this process, the opinions on education and the various opinions on the dollars dedicated to education as a percentage of the total, I now have a different opinion on this than I once did.
My Republican collegues might disgree with me on this but I now think that the budget should be bifurcated so that each half, town government and education, could be voted on separately.
I now think that this is the only way to do this in an effort to give everyone a chance to voice their opinion and vote on EACH segment.
I think that this would eliminate a lot of animosity and ambiguity in North Haven in the future.
Mario, I hope that this gives you some insights from my point of view.
Sincerely,
Michael Freda
Mr Freda,
Thanks for volunteering your views on some of the issues that have been raised in this blog.
I support your proposal to "bifurcate" the budget. However, I suspect the the devil may be in the details of this plan. Could you elaborate on how to make this process more bullet-proof?
Regarding the town charter, you suggest that it needs to "be both augmented and expanded in certain areas" and that "it needs a little more specificity in some areas and some changes in others."
With no disrespect, Sir, let me opine that this critique might equally apply to the first draft of a new theatrical production or a proposed lecture series on global warming. Could you be a bit more specific about the proposed expansion, augmentation, specificity, and changes?
In regard to town management, I don't think it's moot to consider now, since the next election is not that far off. Now is a good time to begin debating the ideas for the next election, since many ideas need time to "marinate".
Regarding the continuing forensic audit, should it be directed to the activities of the former first selectman, former members of the BOF, and other key department heads?
Specifically, was there a criminal conspiracy to cover up illegal activity (beyond the known shredding)? Is it unreasonable to ask what Mr. Kopetz knew and when he knew it?
What about Mr. Swinkowski? Did he not have a clear and obvious conflict of interest regarding the auditing firm? Perhaps unfairly, some view him as the "crook's apprentice".
The purpose of investigating is NOT simply to recover money. Most of the squandered money can never be recovered. Instead, the real goal should be to flush out the cockroaches and to prevent a new infestation. The goal should be to set an example for future office holders.
At the moment, the lesson to future office holders of high office seems to be that crime, corruption, and cronyism do in fact pay. The lesson to future selectmen is that the worst that can happen is loosing an election (vs jail time).
IMHO, to suggest that Mr. Kopetz was a naive and innocent bystander is absolutely untenable. The only remaining question is whether there was criminal wrong-doing by him and his republican associates.
Santa,
Get a grip.
Dear "Santa",
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule this Christmas season to join in on the issues that were posed by Mario.
Let me try to be more specific and answer some of your questions:
As far as the town charter is concerned, there are several sections of it that say "In 1981 and quadrennially thereafter..."
I believe that this language should be eliminated to say that the charter will be updated every 3years, not 4.
Secondly, there are several sections of the current town charter that attempt to state a rule or edict and then go on to say "the procedure set forth in the Connecticut State Statute shall be followed". My opinion here is that the "procedure" that the charter is referencing in that section should be listed in it's entirely within the charter.
This would eliminate us asking ourselves the question, "What does the Connecticut State Statute say?".
By listing the actual statute for any section of the charter that the charter references, this would help us not have to search through the statutes themselves to find out what the charter is actually referring to. This would add a great deal of substance and clarity to the town charter document itself.
There are other things that I would like to see updated, I think that Section 406 regarding bidding procedures should be increased from $1,000 to $2,500.
I also think that Section 604 should actually list what the requirements should be for the town assessor.
In Section 801, I would include that all town employees should sign a code of conduct and in order to be hired, should submit to drug testing before being hired.
I also think that the charter should specifically list within the duties of the Board of Finance what is the exact amount of budget transfers that they can move on a line by line basis.
The State Statute here says that for towns that have a grand list over $20M, the BOF can transfer money, on a line by line basis, up to $20,000. I believe that a SPECIFIC number,under that $20,000should be listed in the town charter to eliminate any controversy over this issue in the future.
One other thing that I never understood is why is the Selectmen term only 2 years when all other boards and commssions are 4 to 6 years.
As far as professional town management is concerned, although the new administration seems to be leaning towards hiring 2 new "professionals" my personal feeling is that the Selectmen should be the "professional management" of the town.
As far as the expansion of the audit is concerned, I have stated that I think that it should be expanded for an additional 3-5 years going backwards and it is currently scheduled to include all departments of our town government.
Mr. Swinkowski did work for the previous auditing firm that the town had but he has demonstrated time and time again that he has conducted himself with the highest level of integrity so I am surprised to read your description as to what is being said.
I hope that I have answered your questions, Santa, have a very merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Sincerely,
Michael Freda
Here we go,here we go, AS PREDICTED, the Republicrooks wasting no time jumping right in and trying to gum things up! Antonetta Carmody YOU LOST!!! Get over it. Elinor Pedalino, YOUR DAUGHTER LOST !!! Get over it! Your sour grapes petty partisan nitpicking is so transparent it's practically laughable. Good way to watch out for the WELL BEING of the TOWN by throwing jabs at the new administration before they even get started. Your behaviour just reinforces who's backs you're really watching out for, just as when you were in power. Taxpayers take notice cause NOW you will see certain people's real nature without the smokescreens. Pay attention VOTERS and beware of false claims of watching out for your best interests.
Mr. Freda:
Excellent suggestions!
Post a Comment