Comments on: Local 2405 Tries To Get On Norwalk Council Agenda

By: Bacigalupe

Bacigalupe — Mon, 24 May 2010 15:23:34 +0000

Thank you for your leadership here Mr. Mayor.

By: OLD TIMER

OLD TIMER — Mon, 24 May 2010 01:35:53 +0000

My guess is he wanted to talk about pending grievances that went to the state and they are embarassed by those grievances. How do you defend, even to your own caucus, allowing that grievance to go to the state, about Alvord writng to the motor vehicle department, trying to get a handicap placard revoked ? How much will be wasted on outside lawfirms, by the hour, dealing with that one ? Nobody at City Hall able to manage the managers ?
It is not the Repubs covering up, just the Mayor, with a few very loyal supporters who believe everything he tells them. That union contract expired last June. What is the problem ? Anybody on the council have the courage to ask ? Will the “rule are rules” crowd prevent asking ?

By: Rules Are Rules

Rules Are Rules — Sun, 23 May 2010 23:55:23 +0000

Seems like the repubs have their whitey tighties showing. Why are they so afraid of three minutes of sunlight?

By: New Timer

New Timer — Sun, 23 May 2010 21:51:33 +0000

If there are rules in place, voted on by the Council members how do one or two rogue Council members decide what’s good for everyone else on a particular night?? A newbie at that! Simms got his proverbial you-know-whats handed to him that night an Mr. Hilliard got shut up too. I’m no fan of this Mayor, seems like a bully, but RULES ARE RULES.

By: Dem In The Know

Dem In The Know — Sun, 23 May 2010 17:05:04 +0000

Anyone of the council could have made a motion to suspend the rules to add an agenda item. But frankly, the union rep should have been allowed on the agenda or not when the written request was forwarded to any committee chair. It is apparent that even the Republican chairs are being bamboozled by the Mayor.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 22 May 2010 20:48:35 +0000

Old timer, I respect your opinion but I think you read me wrong. Of course it is the counsel’s business to listen to its constituents but it is also our job to hold to policy. The labor negotiations were not on the agenda because they are just that…negotiations and are as you said at an impasse and the grievances filed were sent by the Local 2405 union to the state labor board therefore taking it out of our hands. Each and every council person is very much aware of what is in that packet and yes, we do have concerns and as I told them as soon as I have a legal opinion of what the council can and cannot get involved in I will set up a meeting on the Personnel Committe level to discuss what we can discuss. I am not uninformed about procedure and therefore would like to do things properly. If an item for whatever reason is not on the council agenda then it cannot be spoken on. The procedure to get something on the agenda is to send it to the proper subcommitte for their perusal and at the subcommittee level we vote on whether or not to send it to the full committee if we feel it is the proper venue. This was not the procedure taken in this case. As I said to the gentlemen, dropping the packets in our home mailboxes is not the proper procedure. I would have been happy to go over those packets in my committee and have myself and fellow committee members go over them, discuss them and then make a recommendation. Please don’t misconstrue the meaning of my words as I am not someone who pushes others problems by the wayside.

By: OLD TIMER

OLD TIMER — Sat, 22 May 2010 18:05:26 +0000

And that rule about nobody ever speaks about anything this is not on the agenda, is always strictly enforced, right ? Or is it selectively enforced, depending on who signs up to speak. I have been there when people spoke about subjects that were not listed on the agenda. The rule limiting speakers time is generally enforced when the speaker is talking about a non-agenda item, just as it is strictly enforced when the council majority is opposed to the speaker’s position.
I do not necessarily agree with the union strategy in this case, because taking an issue public makes it harder to get compromise later. Nobody wants to look like the one compromising, once an issue goes public. Nevertheless, I believe nobody would have been harmed letting the man speak for his three minutes. That would not have obligated the council to anything beyond listening.
Joanne, I am not blaming you for anything. I think this was mishandled and you, and others, are being deliberately misled. Of course, under the contract greibance procedure, the City makes the decision to either resolve a greivance locally or take it to the State. Why would we need the State to order Alvord to mind his own business about how the State issues handicap parking placards ? Don’t hold your breath waiting for a legal opinion pointing out the law that would have been violated by showing the Union rep a little courtesy.
In our form of democracy, council people have enormous power to allow anyone you choose to speak anytime you decide, without letting the Mayor or anyone else make the decision for you.

By: Joanne

Joanne — Sat, 22 May 2010 03:53:00 +0000

Old Timer, again you are not understanding…nobody in the city government told them to take their grievances nto the state. they and their union leaders made that decision way before deciding to bring it in front of the council. As far as the privitization goes, it has not yet been brought to the council so therefore I have no idea what to speak on since I do not have all the facts and figures as yet. It is my understanding that it is still in the thinking stage and when and if it comes beforwe the council you can be sure that we will all have opinions about it. I’m not sure I understand how you are not getting my point. I offered to meet with them as soon as I know all the legalities of doing so and then they turned it over to the newspapers. In all fairness here, I was doing my job ( you know, the one I got elected to do) and they chose to take it to the newspapers rarher than go through the suggested avenues. I am still willing to address whatever is legal to discusswith them but have not heard one word from them since that night. So, who’s wrong here? I followed procedure. Please ask anyone who has ever wanted to get somethging on the council agenda and they will tell you what the procedure is and has always been.

As far as “To the union members, their paid state rep was refused a chance to speak at a council meeting when anybody else gets that opportunity” This again was against written council rules ..once more for clarification, If an item is not on the agenda it cannot be discussed. I didn’t make these rules but as an elected official I adhere to the rules as presented to me and these rules have been in place for way longer than I have been in politics and thats a pretty long time.

By: Secondhand Rose

Secondhand Rose — Sat, 22 May 2010 02:12:46 +0000

Old Timer, what part of “ethics violation” don’t you understand?

By: JC

JC — Sat, 22 May 2010 00:42:31 +0000

Old timer = know it all.
Do you ever listen to anyone else? I’m not defending the council, the mayor or the union but you always have such an ax grind when it comes to unions. America would be so much better off without them and this current god forsaken administration that continues to increase our debt by the second!