The Mayor should keep his original judgment (suspension of Linda Bush) and deny the grievance
43 (97%)
The Mayor should change his original judgment and reinstate Linda Bush and make her whole
1 (2%)
Votes so far: 44
Poll closed
Sunday, February 7, 2010
VIDEO - Wallingford Town Council Meeting - January 26, 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 26, 2010
VIDEO - Wallingford Zoning Board of Appeals - January 19, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals - January 19, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
POLL RESULTS - Should the testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson continue IF it is in violation of Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609?
My recent poll question “Should the testimonial dinner for Mayor Dickinson continue IF it is in violation of Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609” is now closed.
For those of you that have made comments regarding the ability to vote more than once on a poll, I have it set so that it is very difficult for most people to do this. You have to have enough knowledge to manipulate your browser and IP address settings enough for additional votes from the same system to register more than once and actually count.
The system is not fool proof but it does prevent casual voting manipulation.
Additionally, these are not meant to be scientific polls. They are meant to gather the thoughts and opinions of the participants.
There were 50 respondents in this recent poll.
9 of them (18%) felt that the event should be allowed to continue regardless of the ruling on the statute.
28 or 56% of the folks felt that the event should only occur after and ruling and it was found that the event was not in violation of the statute
13 voters (26%) thought the event should just be cancelled regardless of which way the ruling went.
I placed my own vote in the “Yes only if it is not in violation of the Statute” with the majority of the respondents. My thoughts have been if the ruling on the statute shows that it does not apply to the event, then the supporters should be able to have their event.
I also feel that if the ruling goes the other way, the event should be canceled. For all the difficulties in having to do that and some potentially lost monies, that is the right thing to do.
I find it interesting that 9 of the respondents indicated that they were OK with folks breaking a law since the first question stipulated that the event should be allowed to regardless of the Statute or any ruling on it.
The opinion of others is always very interesting to me. I would love to hear the reasoning or the justification on their thoughts on why they would support something like that.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Dinner for Dickinson postponed
By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
As published in the Record Journal Saturday January 30, 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 — Organizers of a dinner to honor Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. say the event will be delayed at least a month, now that a complaint has been filed with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, “We’re giving the elections commission a chance to look at this,” said Craig Fishbein, a Republican town councilor who spoke Friday on behalf of the organizers of the event but is not involved in planning it.
“We don’t think we’re doing anything illegal. We’re giving (the commission) a chance to look at this,” Fishbein said.
Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Avallone filed the complaint Tuesday because he said the dinner violates a state law that bars testimonials for elected officials while in office.
The organizers of the event, a handful of local Republicans, have repeatedly stated that any profits from the dinner would be donated to a local charity, but the organizers’ first choice to receive the money, the Wallingford Center for the Arts, was not registered as a nonprofit charity, complicating the issue.
“I think it’s a good idea,” Dickinson said of the postponement. “I think it’s a wise course, rather than have something occur with some cloud hanging over it.”
When informed of the postponement Friday, Avallone offered little comment.
“I did what I had to do, so I really don’t have any reaction to what they’ve done,” Avallone said. “I’m sure they felt they did what they had to do.”
The $40-a-ticket dinner was originally scheduled for Feb. 6 at Villa Capri on North Colony Road, but has now been postponed to March 13.
Fishbein said the new date was chosen because it was the first date that Villa Capri had available, but the event could be postponed again or canceled if the elections commission has not ruled on the complaint.
“We don’t want to break the law, but we don’t think the event is illegal,” Fishbein said. “You allow the process to occur by law, but if they dismiss the complaint then we’re going to have a grand old time.”
Nancy Nicolescu, a spokeswoman for the elections commission, declined to discuss the complaint Friday. When asked if the dinner’s outright cancellation would negate it, she said, “I don’t know what the commission would do.”
The commission investigates more than 200 complaints a year, according to its Web site, and imposes sanctions in about two thirds of those cases.
The potential fine, according to Nicolescu, 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.
GRAND LIST - No-growth grand lists mean facing up to ‘sobering reality’
Wallingford’s inventory actually declines, a sign of hard timesWALLINGFORD — The town released its 2009 grand list Friday, showing a decrease of $1,676,759, or about 0.04 percent, in the value of the town’s taxable property and real estate.
Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. termed the surprising drop a “sobering reality” of the tough economic times the town, state and nation are facing.
“It’s the first time I’ve ever seen this,” said Dickinson, who has held office since 1984. “I would say it’s a more troubled fiscal situation for the town going into the 2011 budget than it was for the 2010 budget.”
The town’s current budget of $140.3 million grew by less than half a percent from the previous year, but from 2007 to 2008 the grand list grew 1.02 percent, giving the town with an additional $1 million in tax revenue.
Dickinson said the new grand list, at $4.3 billion, means the town will enter the next budget year about $300,000 short in tax revenue, making an already tight budget even tighter.
“The bottom line is there will not be revenues generated beyond what we received in the current year for budget purposes,” Dickinson said. “So every budget that requests an increase, there is no new money generated to cover that increase ... there is no new money except for asking for higher taxes.”
Two of the list’s three categories, real estate and motor vehicles, actually increased, at 0.62 percent and 0.95 percent, respectively; but personal or business property saw a sharp decrease, of almost 8 percent. Assessor Shelby Jackson attributed the drop in personal property to two major factors: more businesses allowing equipment to depreciate without replacing it, and a new state law that exempts some machinery and equipment that had previously been taxable.
“It’s sort of like getting hit double,” Jackson said. “The assets are going down and we’re exempting more of what we would normally tax.”
Among the town’s top 10 taxpayers there was little movement, with Bristol-Myers Squibb far outpacing the other nine on the list with $126.95 million in taxable property and real estate.
The town’s seventh-highest taxpayer, Workstage Connecticut, owners of the 325,000 square foot Campus at Greenhill on Leigus Road, owes more than $750,000 in back taxes and is being foreclosed on by the town. Comptroller James Bowes said it was wrong to assume that the town would not recoup that money. “The law office is all over it,” he said. Dickinson called the grand list a “critical tool” in fashioning the town’s annual budget, which by Town Charter he must complete by April 1.
“This is one of those indicators that really tells you what is going on with the economy and what will have a direct effect on our delivery of services,” Dickinson said, adding that it appears the town will have to face “a lot of tough decisions” in the coming months.
The grand list is not officially accepted by the state until May 1. Before that, the town’s Board of Assessment Appeals will consider appeals from property owners who want to dispute assessments. The grand list will affect tax bills due in July 2010 and January 2011.
FROM WALLINGFORD - A cavalier attitude
JASON ZANDRI – FROM WALLINGFORD
Clearly, quite a bit of interest has spun up over the supporters of Mayor Bill Dickinson, wanting to honor his service to the town.
People that know me well enough know that I give the mayor his credit where it's due and have gone after him on issues where I feel he is not being open, objective and proactive with respect to our fine town.
It's also fair to say I do more of the latter than the former.
If the mayor's supporters wish to collectively pull together their own resources in order to have a testimonial for him and to celebrate his 25 years of service to the town, they should be allowed to do so - provided it is kept above board and does not consume tax dollars, I see no issue.
There is of course the matter of statute 9-609(b) that needs to be ruled on. (It can be found on my blog as cross-posted from the Connecticut General Assembly website.)
One lawyer has viewed it as not applicable to this testimonial and another has. As you can imagine, these views are not without the possibility of bias as one came from the Republican camp and one came from the Democrats.
Personal opinions on this abound, so we'll need an actual, legal ruling to be definitive.
My biggest concern comes from Robert Prentice, the chairman of the Republican Town Committee and his comments as quoted from the Record-Journal regarding cancelling the event:
"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?"
It concerns me when anyone is so full of bravado that they might willing disobey a law/statute/ordinance and boast of it in the newspaper.
To be fair, this hasn't been ruled on yet, so he may not be in violation of anything. If you read the quote, it certainly comes across as if it doesn't matter which side the ruling falls on. He's willing to move ahead, regardless.
People in a the place of public view such as celebrities, sports figures, politicians and so forth should understand that every-day Joe and Jane will hold them to at least an equal, if not higher, standard than themselves.
When they see this kind of cavalier attitude, how do you think they are going to respond? "If the law/statute/ordinance doesn't apply to them, why should it apply to me?"
Why should someone shovel their walk? "All they can do is fine me."
Why should they clean up their property? "The town doesn't self-police on the blight rules."
Why should they mind the parking regulations? "There are town cars illegally parked; they don't get ticketed so I don't expect to either."
I could go on, but my point is made.
You can't expect every-day people to follow laws/ordinances if public figures can't be bothered and are brazen enough to be quoted in the newspaper to that effect.
Laws, statutes and ordinances need apply to everyone equally.
There are two weeks to the testimonial; I would think a ruling could be had by then.
If the ruling on the statute shows that it does not apply, then the supporters should be able to have their event. If the ruling goes the other way, the event should be canceled. For all the difficulties in having to do that and some potentially lost monies, that is the right thing to do.
The mayor has been quoted as saying he is a reluctant participant to this event. I hope he doesn't end up in the category of "guilt by association."
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Avallone files complaint against Dickinson's dinner
Posted: Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:05 am | Updated: 1:19 pm, Thu Jan 28, 2010
Avallone files complaint against Dickinson's dinner @ MyRecordJournal.com
The chairman of the Democratic Town Committee, Vincent Avallone, filed a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) with respect to the testimonial dinner that is being put together by the supporters of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.
The dinner is scheduled for Feb. 6 at the Villa Capri.
Avallone and others have reviewed Connecticut General Statute Sec. 9-609 and feel the dinner violates a state law that bars holding testimonials for elected officials while they are still in office.
Avallone was quoted in the paper as saying "If this isn't challenged, then friends and political supporters of the mayor must feel that he gets special consideration when it comes to compliance with the law."
The article indicated that Robert Prentice was made aware of the complaint and that the dinner would go on as scheduled.
Robert Prentice is one of the supporters that is working on the dinner is also the chairman of the Republican Town Committee.
In prior comments he was quoted saying in response to a question regarding the cancelling the event “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?”
I am authoring the topic for this week’s FROM WALLINGFORD and I will be offering my thoughts on the subject on Sunday.
I also have an opinion poll on the same here on the blog as well.
Please feel free to offer your thoughts.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Some doubt legality but fete for mayor is still on schedule
By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
As published in the Record Journal Wednesday January 27, 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 — Despite being advised that the celebration could violate a state law, organizers of a dinner in honor of Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s 26 years of service say the event will go on as planned. A retired lawyer for the State Elections Enforcement Commission says the legality of the event should be investigated.
A handful of supporters of Dickinson, a Republican first elected in 1983, have organized a dinner in his honor to be held Feb. 6 at Villa Capri on North Colony Road. Tickets cost $40 and include a buffet dinner, music from the Johnny Bass Band, speeches and dancing. The organizers, all Republicans, have said that any profits would be donated to the Wallingford Center for the Arts.
Upon learning of the dinner, however, Vincent Avallone, the Democratic town chairman, sent a letter last week to Robert Prentice, the Republican town chairman, advising him that the event appeared to violate a state law that prohibits testimonials for elected officials while they hold office.
On Tuesday, Prentice said that after consulting several lawyers about the issue, the dinner would go on as planned and he was confident that it would not violate any laws.
“We’ve done some research and there’s no issue here,” he said. “Even though we don’t have it in writing from people on the state level, I’m 99 percent sure that we’ve done everything that we’re supposed to do. I’m pretty happy with what I’ve heard and I’m pretty confident that even if there is a complaint against us it’s not going to go anywhere.”
But Ronald Gregory, a Wallingford resident who was a lawyer for the SEEC for more than 20 years, said he was troubled about the dinner after reading a news story about it. He said it raises a number of potentially troubling questions. “I just think somebody’s going to have to file a complaint, because it deserves it. I think there’s too much confusion when there shouldn’t be,” he said. “The whole situation deserves some scrutiny ... when it gets so muddy, I think it’s best that somebody official look into it.”
Gregory said that he called the attorney general’s office after reading about the event, only to be told that the Wallingford Center for the Arts is not registered as a charity .
An organization “duly organized for charitable purposes” is exempt from the law and can hold testimonials for elected officials to raise money, but Gregory said that he doesn’t intend to file a complaint with the SEEC because of his past association with the agency.
“I’m not going to file a complaint,” he said. “I’d feel awkward because it would be before my own commission.”
Mary Ellen Kingsland-Eckels, director of the Wallingford Center for the Arts, said Tuesday that organizers of the event had contacted the organization about receiving profits from the dinner, but that the organization is still in the process of obtaining nonprofit status and would not be eligible to receive the funds. Nancy Nicolescu, a spokeswoman for the SEEC, said Tuesday that no complaint had been filed regarding the dinner.
If a complaint were to be filed, the potential fine would be $2,000 per offense for any person found to be in violation, or twice the amount of any improper payment or political contribution, whichever is greater.
The law being cited is Section 9-609(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes.
Dickinson, a lawyer, said Tuesday he still plans to attend the event and that he believes the organizers are trying to find a charitable organization to sponsor it.
“I appreciate that people would like to do something of recognition for my time in office,” he said. “But I’m not real anxious of being the center of attention.”
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.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Supporters of Mayor Dickinson are having a testimonial for him – is this in violation of Connecticut General Statutes?
You decide.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap155.htm#Sec9-609.htm
(a) The chairman of each party committee shall designate a campaign treasurer and may designate a deputy campaign treasurer, or in the case of a state central committee, not more than two deputy campaign treasurers. The campaign treasurer and any deputy campaign treasurers so designated shall sign a statement accepting the designation, which shall be filed with the proper authority with the statement of designation required under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 9-602. No state central committee or town committee shall establish a committee other than a single party committee for purposes of this chapter. A party committee or a political committee organized for ongoing political activities shall form no other political committees, except that two or more such committees may join to form a political committee for the purpose of a single fund-raising event.
(b) As used in this subsection, "testimonial affair" means an affair held in honor of an individual who holds, or who is or was a candidate for nomination or election to, an office subject to this chapter. No testimonial affair shall be held without the consent of such person. 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. A testimonial affair which is held for an individual upon his retirement from public office shall also be exempt from the provisions of this chapter unless a deficit exists from any such individual's campaigns for election or nomination to an office subject to this chapter. Any fund-raising affair for any candidate or individual who holds any such office for any purposes other than those authorized in this chapter shall be prohibited. Any person who organizes such a fund-raising affair shall be in violation of this section.
(P.A. 86-99, S. 12, 34; 86-240, S. 5, 12; P.A. 95-144, S. 8; P.A. 96-119, S. 9, 14.)
History: P.A. 86-240 amended Subsec. (a) to permit chairman of state central committee to appoint two deputy campaign treasurers; P.A. 95-144 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting provision that deputy campaign treasurer or treasurers serve only in event that campaign treasurer unable to perform his duties; P.A. 96-119 added provisions in Subsec. (a) to require the designated campaign treasurer and deputy campaign treasurer to sign and file a statement accepting designation, effective January 1, 1997; Sec. 9-333k transferred to Sec. 9-609 in 2007.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wallingford vs. AG’s Office trial delayed
By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
As published in the Record Journal Thursday January 21, 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— Since they waited eight years to try the case, both sides decided they could wait a little longer.
No sooner had the trial between the town and the state Attorney General’s Office gotten under way Wednesday in New Haven Superior Court, than both sides agreed to table the matter for at least another week while the judge reviews the facts. “All this preparation for a delay,” Town Attorney Janis Small said after the proceedings had concluded for the day, a little less than an hour after they began.
Shortly after Alan N. Ponanski, the attorney representing Richard Blumenthal’s office, delivered his opening arguments, he asked that Judge Robert Berdon allow for a legal process known as stipulation to agreed facts.
The process lets the disputing parties come to an agreement about the facts in a case and present them to the judge for review. Ponanski said his intention was to streamline the proceedings and save both parties time and resources.
Berdon and Small agreed to the request, and Berdon told the two sides to contact him Jan. 27 so they could discuss a date to continue the trial.
“In trials where you both can agree on the facts, you submit them to the judge for review,” Small said. “It’s meant to save time.”
Resolving the fate of the 41 S. Main St. structure, however, has been anything but expedient.
The town purchased the building — which is next to Town Hall and listed on the National Register of Historic Places — in 1994 from American Legion Shaw-Sinon Post 73 for $194,000.
At the time, Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. said the intent of the purchase was to gain space for additional parking and a possible expansion of Town Hall.
But when the town attempted to demolish the building in 2002, since it did not want to be responsible for its upkeep any longer, Blumenthal’s office filed an injunction on behalf of the Connecticut Historical Commission.
Since then, the edifice has deteriorated, while the Town Council has rejected a string of interested buyers for a variety of reasons.
Dickinson, a trained attorney, sat beside Small Wednesday as the defendant in the case.
In his opening arguments, Ponanski said that any building listed on the historic registry in Connecticut is protected by state law just like clean air or water, if not more so because of its historical significance and inability to be replaced. He shifted the blame to the town for knowingly purchasing a historic structure with the intent of demolishing it.
“It doesn’t matter if George Washington slept in this building or not, it has the same protection as Mount Vernon; it is a treasure to the United States of America,” Ponanski said. “This building was on the register and (the town) knew it and they bought it and they wanted to take it down.”
When the council discussed possibly selling the building at its Jan. 12 meeting, Small said that Wallingford Center Inc., the nonprofit organization that promotes the town’s central business district, lobbied for the structure to be placed on the historic registry in 1993.
She said the building itself was not historic, but was added because it is considered a part of what makes up the town’s parade ground.
Ponanski said his office was seeking a permanent extension of the injunction and to compel the town to adequately maintain the building until a buyer could be found.
“Make sure the doors are closed, the windows are shut — or if they’re broken, to be repaired — and that any water seepage is closed,” he told the judge. “We’re looking for something low cost until the building can be sold.”
Small said she would deliver her opening argument when the trial resumes and that she expects the case to take only a couple of days to argue. However, it could take Berdon several months to issue his decision, she said.
POLL @ MYRECORDJOURNAL.COM - Should Jerry Farrell Jr. retain his seat on the Wallingford Town Council while campaigning for secretary of the state?
Go online now to the Record Journal to voice your opinion.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Farrell to run for secretary of the state
By Dave Moran
Record-Journal staff
dmoran@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
WALLINGFORD - Surrounded by his family, friends and more than 100 supporters, Jerry Farrell Jr., state consumer protection commissioner and a longtime Republican town councilor, declared his candidacy for Secretary of the State Tuesday, pledging to use the office as a vehicle to promote small business growth and as an avenue toward making government more efficient and accountable.
"When someone approaches the secretary of the state about opening a new business, I want them to walk away with the knowledge they need to accomplish their goals," Farrell said during a lengthy speech. "There is so much that the secretary of the state's office, because it is that initial contact for so many new businesses, can do to get our economy going again."
A handful of prominent state Republicans, including Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, who is seeking his party's nod for governor, and Rob Simmons, a candidate for U.S. Senate, attended Farrell's press conference in the main manufacturing room of Component Engineers on North Plains Industrial Road, as did a number of prominent local Republicans, including Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. and most of the Republican town councilors.
The event was held at the local manufacturer of precision metal components because of the Farrell family's ties to the community, according to Clayton Oliver, Component's office manager.
"They wanted a manufacturing company in the area and they approached us. And we were more than happy to oblige," Oliver said.
Farrell's father, Gerald Farrell Sr., owns a law firm on Center Street and has served as assistant town attorney since 1984. Jerry Farrell serves as an officer for a number of community organizations, including the Wallingford Historic Preservation Trust, and has been on the Town Council since 1996, becoming council vice chairman this month.
"It's somewhat expected, but gratifying," Farrell Sr. said of the large turnout in his son's honor. "He's always been public-spirited. One of the first things I remember him doing is helping to clean out the vault at the old town hall when it moved over to where it is now."
Farrell was appointed consumer protection commissioner in December 2006 by Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Prior to that, he was deputy commissioner for two years and worked as an attorney in his father's firm, Farrell, Leslie & Grochowski, for 11 years.
But Farrell's announcement wasn't simply a partisan affair, as several prominent local Democrats turned out to throw their support behind his candidacy.
"I'm very excited for him," said Iris Papale, a Democrat who left the Town Council at the start of 2008 after more than 30 years. "I think he's going to be perfect. He's qualified, and what a wonderful thing for Wallingford to have someone up there in that position - forget the party line."
Several other candidates are running or considering running for secretary of the state, including Republicans Richard Abbate and Corey Brinson and Democrats Denise Merrill, Jonathan Harris and Gerry Garcia.
Only one town resident, Leverett M. Hubbard, has ever held a statewide office in Connecticut, according to a search of Connecticut State Library records. Hubbard, a Republican who died in 1906, was secretary of the state from 1887 to 1889, according to the library.
But Farrell hadn't even made his announcement official before some in the community began expressing their concerns that with a taxing full-time job, a statewide campaign on his hands and a wife and two young children at home, he might not have enough time for Town Council business.
"I just don't know how he has the time to devote to the council that should be devoted to it, if in fact he's taking on all the challenges of all the positions that he holds," said Vincent Avallone, Democratic town chairman, who did not attend Farrell's press conference. "I just don't know how there are enough hours in the day."
Farrell said he would resign his council position if he is elected secretary of the state, but that until then he does not foresee any time or scheduling conflicts with his other duties.
"I'm going to be there at every meeting this year, making sure that what people elected me for gets done," Farrell said. "I normally get up at 4 a.m. - I got up at 2 a.m. this morning - so if I need to lengthen my day to get everything done, I don't see it as a problem."
Information from The Associated Press is included in this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)