Search This Blog

Sunday, January 24, 2010

MY TAKE on testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson; next week’s FROM WALLINGFORD

So I have posted the article from the Record Journal written by Dave Moran; the post is Statute a sticking point for Dickinson dinner

I have a POLL question up this week regarding the same here on the blog. Please consider weighing in.

Additionally, I have the actual statue - Sec. 9-609. (Formerly Sec. 9-333k). Party committees; designation as campaign treasurer. Limitation on multiple committees. Fund-raising events and testimonial affairs – posted from http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap155.htm#Sec9-609.htm on the blog as well at Supporters of Mayor Dickinson are having a testimonial for him – is this in violation of Connecticut General Statutes?

I am planning to do my next FROM WALLINGFORD article on this topic as well.

Somewhere between the desire for the supporters to have a celebratory event for the Mayor, the statute itself and its interpretation, what is legally binding (or not), and political bravado, there are three simple sayings that keep going through my head:

 

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

“No one is above the law”

“No good deed goes unpunished”

 

Be sure to check out FROM WALLINGFORD next Sunday.

Statute a sticking point for Dickinson dinner

By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224

As published in the Record Journal Friday January 22, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

WALLINGFORD— Would a $40­per-ticket dinner to honor Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s 26 years of service violate a state law that pro­hibits testimonials for elected offi­cials while they hold office?

It depends whether you ask a De­mocrat or a Republican.

And with the two parties contest­ing the issue, it may come down to the state Elections Enforcement Commission deciding whether to levy fines if the Feb. 6 dinner is held. Democratic Town Chairman Vin­cent Avallone sent a letter to Republi­can Town Chairman Robert Prentice on Wednesday, advising him of Connecticut General Statute 9-609(b).

The statute, a copy of which was included with Avallone’s letter, says in part: “No testimonial affair shall be held for a candidate, or for an indi­vidual who holds any such office dur­ing the term of such office, except to raise funds on his behalf for purposes authorized in this chapter. A testimo­nial affair which is held by an organi­zation duly organized for charitable purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter.”

Avallone, an attorney with a local practice, said his intention was not to intimidate Prentice into cancelling the event, to be held at the Villa Capri on North Colony Road, but merely to make him aware of a potential viola­tion of state law if it is held.

“I’ve made the chairman of the party aware of this statute and that, I believe, if it goes on it will be a viola­tion,” Avallone said. “There’s no threatening tone in it. It’s just a cour­tesy extended to Mr. Prentice.”

Avallone said he had spoken with state elections officials earlier in the week, and after the conversation he said he felt comfortable that his inter­pretation of the statute was correct.

“I discussed it” with the officials, he said. “I stated that I thought that this constituted a violation, and noth­ing that was said discouraged me and made me feel that my interpretation was wrong.”

Nancy Nicolescu, a spokeswoman for the commission, confirmed Thursday that Avallone did call the agency earlier in the week, but said policy prohibited her from comment­ing on specific situations.

“I can acknowledge that we re­ceived an inquiry; however, a complaint has not been filed,” Nicolescu said. “We don’t comment on third­ party activities.”

Avallone, who has served as Demo­cratic chairman since early 2008, denied having a political motive in sending the letter, but some of the event’s organizers, all of them Republicans, disagreed. Dickinson is a Republican.

“I think it’s sour grapes,” said Rosemary Rascati, a Republican town councilor and dinner or­ganizer. “I’m not happy be­cause I think this is being done deliberately. If you don’t want to come to a party, then don’t come, but to try and throw a monkey wrench into some­thing as innocent as a party” is­n’t right.

She noted that when local Democrats organized a retire­ment party for Iris Papale, a De­mocrat who left the council at the beginning of 2008 after more than 30 years, no Repub­licans kicked up a similar fuss. The statute, however, lists re­tirement dinners as an excep­tion.

Prentice, one of the organiz­ers, said Thursday he had not received Avallone’s letter and could not comment on it specifically, but that the party would likely go on because of the has­sle associated with cancelling. “It would be very difficult to do that. Plus, the money we put out to Villa Capri already for down payments, that’s money out of our own personal pock­ets,” he said. “We got 200-plus tickets sold. You know what? We’ll go through with it be­cause what are they going to do to us, fine us?”

Nicolescu said the potential fine, if a complaint were filed, would be $2,000 per offense against any person the com­mission finds to be in violation, or twice the amount of any im­proper payment or political contribution, whichever is greater.

However Craig Fishbein, a Republican councilor and local attorney, said he had reviewed Avallone’s letter Thursday and the statute and does not think the event constitutes a viola­tion. He said that since the din­ner was organized by individ­uals, it was the equivalent of throwing a birthday party.

“I feel comfortable that his in­terpretation of the statute is wrong, based upon the fact that it is my understanding that there is no money going to Bill Dickinson,” Fishbein said. “Any money left over from this din­ner is going to the Wallingford Foundation for the Arts, so that totally exempts it from the statute. ... Let’s say the Walling­ford Foundation for the Arts has a fundraiser and he was their guest of honor. Is that any dif­ferent?”

The event organizers, about a half dozen local Republicans, have said that any profits left af­ter all costs are paid will be do­nated to the arts group.

But Avallone is sticking to his guns.

“This is the situation: If it’s against the law, they shouldn’t do it. Whether he’s been there for 25 years — people may think he’s the greatest guy in the world — the mayor’s sub­ject to the law just like everyone else,” Avallone said.

Dickinson was sworn in for his 14th consecutive term ear­lier this month and is the sec­ond longest-serving mayor in the state, behind only Prospect’s Robert Chatfield.

A copy of Avallone’s letter was faxed to his office Thurs­day afternoon by a reporter, but by the close of the business day Dickinson, who is an attorney, said he had not had time to re­view it, was unfamiliar with the situation and could not comment.

Dickinson said last week that he was not too enthusiastic about the dinner.

“I guess I’m a reluctant par­ticipant,” he said.

VIDEO – Wallingford Town Council Meeting - January 12, 2010

Since the mayor has given the order to stop providing the Town Council and other meetings online, I have decided that in light of fact that there are other towns coming online to do this that I will provide the meetings as I am able to.

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

Wallingford Town Council Meeting - January 12, 2010 - PART 1

Wallingford Town Council Meeting - January 12, 2010 - PART 2

VIDEO – Wallingford Planning and Zoning - January 11, 2010

Since the mayor has given the order to stop providing the Town Council and other meetings online, I have decided that in light of fact that there are other towns coming online to do this that I will provide the meetings as I am able to.

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

Wallingford Planning and Zoning - January 11, 2010 PART 1

Wallingford Planning and Zoning - January 11, 2010 PART 2

VIDEO – Wallingford Inland Wetlands, January 6, 2010

Since the mayor has given the order to stop providing the Town Council and other meetings online, I have decided that in light of fact that there are other towns coming online to do this that I will provide the meetings as I am able to.

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

Inland Wetlands January 6, 2010 - PART 1

Inland Wetlands January 6, 2010 - PART 2

FROM WALLINGFORD – Process and reason

This edition of FROM WALLINGFORD is written by my counterpart on the column, Stephen Knight

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in mo­tion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbal­anced force.” Newton’s First Law of Mo­tion.

Congress shall make no law . . . abridg­ing . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment 1, U.S. Constitution.

Please keep these two concepts in mind as you read how Wallingford School Su­perintendent deals with the reaction to his proposed 2010-2011 Education budget. Dr. Menzo came to Wallingford a few months ago. Surely he liked what he saw — a successful school system in a suc­cessful community. The temptation to continue with business as usual must have been strong. But Dr. Menzo also saw that his administration could not kick the financial can down the road any longer. The severe fiscal constraints at hand fi­nally had to be dealt with. There is a po­litical version of Newton’s First Law of Motion, and the resulting proposal is at­tempting to overcome it, and I applaud him for his effort.

As a consequence, he is now dealing with the inevitable pushback by all those whose lives will be affected by these changes. We read about the various meet­ings and forums and workshops being held to discuss how these changes would be implemented. This is all good, and is in recognition of the bedrock American tra­dition spelled out in the First Amendment quoted above. I truly believe that the re­sult of all of this will be a school budget in line with today’s financial reality paired with a constituency (parents, students, teachers, administrators, employees) that will have impacted the final design and implementation of these changes.

There are those, including my counter­part Jason Zandri, that hold that the process should have been reversed; that the administration should have convened a series of focus groups and workshops that included all the “stakeholders,” out of which proposals would have been devel­oped. Hence the process would have been a more transparent and cooperative one and thus easier for people to accept.

With all due respect, does anyone think that such a process would have resulted in anything other than protecting the status quo (See Newton’s Law above)? Would recognition of the fiscal corner we are painted into triumph over the under­standably limited albeit legitimate aim of preserving the existing jobs, programs and school system structure? Who would have developed any proposal to honestly confront the serious budget shortfall the town faces if they had no real responsibil­ity for mitigating it? Only Dr. Menzo and the BOE do, and we have to accord them the authority to carry out that responsi­bility. In exercising that authority, he has brought forth a proposal. Now it is being vetted by the public.

That is at the heart of a representative democracy. We elect people, therefore handing over power to do the govern­ment’s business. We do so recognizing that a municipal government of 43,000 people would devolve into anarchy if we all demanded input on every matter com­ing before it. We expect them to act, but if we take issue with those actions, the First Amendment empowers us to confront those public servants. That is the purpose of all the meetings. The result will never satisfy everyone, but it is the correct process being carried out in the correct order.

To quote Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Our oftentimes messy, noisy chaotic political system has at its foundation a constant search for that perfect definition of “consent of the gov­erned.” That is what is playing itself out in Wallingford with regard to the BOE budget. The process will not have been easy or pain-free, but it will have been fair.

Testimonial tussle

As published in the Record Journal Sunday January 24, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

Editorial

Wallingford Republicans are holding a $40-a-ticket testimonial dinner for Mayor Bill Dickinson on February 6.

Some 200 tickets have been sold to date, yielding $8,000. The money will cover the cost of dinner and anything left over, accord­ing to Republican town Councilor Craig Fishbein, will go to the Wallingford Foundation for the Arts. None will go to Dickinson, who, in his characteristic way, has said he is a “reluc­tant participant.”

This is all well and good, but there happens to be a state law, General Statutes sec. 9-609(b). It defines a “testimonial” as being “an affair held in honor of an in­dividual who holds . . . an office subject to this chap­ter.” Then the section adds [with some significance given Dickinson’s “reluc­tance”] “No testimonial af­fair shall be held without the consent of such per­son.”

The section then forbids testimonials for anyone during the term of his or her office, except to raise funds as defined in the rest of the chapter.

What is a testimonial din­ner, anyway? It may mean merely a dinner at which tribute is paid to someone. More likely, especially in sports, it’s a fund-raiser. Hence, in the chapter of state law applying to elec­tion campaigns and ex­penses, it comes as no big surprise to find testimonial dinners regulated.

On the other hand, if no funds are to be given to Mayor Dickinson but will go instead to the Arts Foun­dation, a bona fide charity, is there any reason for a prohibition? There would seem not to be.

But there is a statute. The law is the law. Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Avallone, an attorney, has sent a letter to his counter­part, Republican Chairman Robert Prentice, referenc­ing the law in question. He has also been in touch with the State Elections Enforce­ment Commission, but has not filed any complaint.

Councilor Fishbein, who is also an attorney, has said he doesn’t think the dinner constitutes a violation of the law any more than a birthday party would. A birthday party could actu­ally be more of an issue since it results in gifts which are not condoned under the ethics rules.

So it boils down to con­flicting legal views of the situation, and that’s why our society has attorneys. Most laws and rules are ca­pable of multiple interpre­tations, and it is tough to be sure all the time. Perhaps the SEEC will be asked to rule, perhaps not.

One cannot live in the shadows of possible viola­tions, and one can only ad­mire Chairman Prentice’s approach: “You know what? We’ll go through with it be­cause what are they going to do to us, fine us?”

Exactly.