VIDEO – Wallingford Town Council Meeting - November 24, 2009

The regular meeting of the Wallingford Town Council November 24, 2009 meeting is now available.

Since the mayor has given the order to stop providing the council meetings online I have decided that, in light of fact that other towns coming online to do this and due to the fact that the election season is upon us, that I will provide the meetings as I am able to.

It’s your town – get informed and get involved.

Wallingford Town Council Meeting – November 24, 2009 – PART 1

Wallingford Town Council Meeting – November 24, 2009 – PART 2

Wallingford Town Council Meeting – November 24, 2009 – PART 3

Technorati Tags: meeting,Town Council,video,Wallingford

Additional Thoughts on the Wallingford Charter Revision

There was an article in the Record Journal this morning written by Dave Moran titled Dickinson had big financial role in PAC opposing charter change which is cross posted over on my other blog.

After reading this some thoughts come to mind regarding the recent election in addition to some others that I have shared before:

• I supported some of the proposals - I voted YES on those
• Others I didn’t and I voted NO
• There was plenty of information available regarding the proposed changes
• There was ample time and opportunity to get the facts
• Some of the people that turned out to vote made choices based based on their knowledge of the subject matter (whatever level that may be)
• Some voted the way they were told to vote
• Some were scared into voting a certain way
• The majority of registered voters - 64.4% - simply didn’t show up
• The majority of the 35.6% of the voters that showed up wanted no changes made.

So I make a lot of different things of these facts but the bottom line is – the people that wanted to have a say had their say and they said “let’s keep things the way they are.”

There is no arguing around that and there is no point – that is why the process is set up the way that it is. It is set up this way so that everyone has an equal say in their vote – all they need to do is exercise that right.

There has been some additional discussion around who donated what, where, and how much. There is a reason all of this information is recorded and why the paperwork is filed locally and with the state. It gets a review and some additional scrutiny when someone questions something but generally things that are in plain sight are on the up and up which is why I am such a proponent of making sure that what is public information gets put out more broadly and openly.

It would seem to me that Mayor Dickinson is well within his rights to contribute to a PAC.

At the same time, it seems that it is within legal boundaries for PACs to donate up to $2,000 a year to other PACs so when the Com­munity Initiative PAC made the donation to the Save Our Charter PAC it was above board.

Additionally when the Mayor’s campaign committees paid their surpluses into the Com­munity Initiative PAC, it is also allowed under Connecticut election laws.

So these are my thoughts – tell us, what are yours?

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,PAC,Election

FROM WALLINGFORD - Ordinances and outrage

As published online at MyRecordJournal.com for print publication in the Record Journal on Sunday December 6, 2009

The Wallingford Ordinance Committee is tasked at their meetings to review the ordinances in place and to discuss new ones. The next meeting is Tuesday, December 8, 6:30 PM at Town Hall, Room 315.

I understand the need for local ordinances - not everyone will govern themselves near what most would consider baseline behavior of a citizen on their own; you need to have rules that set and explain what those baseline expectations are.

Some people will not break rules while others do whatever they please because they assume they won't get caught (or they simply do not care).

The recent parking enforcement issue at the Carini Bowl is one example. I'm not happy people got ticketed that day, but I am gratified that the rules are getting enforced as it vindicates those of us that follow them when the rule-breakers get pinched.

Many people that got ticketed, even after being told to move, said, "Well, I saw the sign - was told to move, but I just didn't think I'd get a ticket."

And that is actually the crux of the issue; generally the ordinances are not enforced. When we start everyone is up in arms because they are caught off guard that we're "suddenly" doing something we should be enforcing unilaterally and consistently.

Take the sidewalk obstruction ordinance that requires residents to clear sidewalks around their homes or businesses within 18 hours after a snowstorm . . . I see many sidewalks that NEVER get cleared by anyone - so all this talk about how the ordinance works is interesting, but do we use it in practice? I am not asking: have we ever used it? I am asking: do we enforce it regularly as the infractions are reported? When was the last $25 ticket issued for not clearing the sidewalk? When was the last time a resident had their walked cleared by Public Works and then billed for it?

So what's the answer to all this? That is a tough question.

The ordinance committee will tell you they create and review the ordinances but they are not in charge of enforcement. Those that are responsible for enforcement (often different groups; it is not always the police department) will often tell you why they are not successful - no real enforcement power (no ability to fine or take action), not enough manpower, etc.

My thoughts are we should put all the ordinances up on the town website.

If someone breaks a specific ordinance in a 12-month rolling period from the time of the infraction, they should get a written warning, a printed copy of the specific ordinance and it should be cataloged. If the infraction occurs a second time, they should be fined.

Fines should be dramatically increased - a huge deterrent. If I park illegally 50 times and pay just $15 once, I can justify the cost. Not that I want to throw away $15, but it can cost more to park in a New Haven garage. Fines have to grow to the cost of the times, and then some - they need to be a burdensome expense to stop causal infraction of the law by people who don't care in the first place.

If responsible enforcement divisions are understaffed, then contract out the position to enforce the ordinances; with heavier fines, we can justify the cost against that revenue. If there isn't enough work, then allow the departments to take the work back on and end the contract position.

We should be enforcing ordinances unilaterally and consistently. If the argument is that we do not need to have that kind of iron fist mentality, then I suggest that ordinance doesn't need to exist and we should take it off the books.

Technorati Tags: FROM WALLINGFORD,Opinion,Wallingford,Ordinance