The Hour has a cornucopia of political stories today, ranging from council member Nick Kydes announcing he’s going to run for re-election to the horse race analysis of the mayoral race, Moccia $20k and counting, Briggs $0 and he hasn’t officially announced yet. The horse race is the more interesting of the topics since Patrick Linsey reports that in 2005, 8 of Norwalk’s 15 Common Council seats were decided by less than 200 votes. District A being the most hotly contested where 20 votes separated the 4 candidates. That’s why neither party knows what to do in A, since party’s think along the lines of winning a majority of council seats so that they can pat themselves on the back, and candidates are the ones who think along the lines of what might actually be the issue that will get their neighbors out to vote for them.
On the Republican side, Diana Palladino has announced that she intends to run for a council seat. She is getting some push back from Republicans in her district, who eye the seats as easily winnable since Democrats have been unable to hold on to the seats the last few elections.
Dissatisfaction with Democrats who have promised one thing and delivered another is the wild card that will shape the council races.
Robert Koch’s article spins the Galen Wells preferred b.s. that the Norwalk outers represent some sort of liberal stalwart against Republicanism. As Doug Hempstead is quoted in the article, “”Ninety-five percent of the business of the city is on the local level. When you’re on the local level, you’re just trying to solve local problems. It should not be about party.”
Oh but let’s entertain Wells for a moment with a review of what the so-called Liberal 5 on the Common Council stood for.
The big issue of this past year, was of course holding the line on property taxes. The Norwalk-outers were against that. They instead tried every trick in the book, instead of actually following their own rules and procedures, to somehow get Sal Corda the extra $6 million he claimed he needed based on all these new enrollments that mysteriously disappeared once the budget was formally adopted by the council. Big speeches about supporting education, instead of outrage over Corda and Opdahl mismanaging millions of dollars is Wells’ definition of the liberal position. Bruce Kimmel, lifelong Democrat, left the party over the negligence of Democratic leadership in taking a more constructive role on the Board of Education budget.
Once it became clear Corda was making up his budget numbers, padding line items to create slush funds so he could maneuver money for unanticipated expenses, you would think the liberal position might be to do something about getting more dollars into the classroom by providing that thing called oversight. Ah well, oversight, investigative committees, questions, these are all things that national Democrats in Congress do. Locally, people like Rick Fuller claim that its better not to ask any questions of Corda and Opdahl because they are professionals and know what they are doing. Jodi Bishop-Pullan in fact believes that providing any oversight, unless it has something to do with bake sales, is counter productive since it is micro-managing the school administration. So Well’s liberal position is don’t ask any questions. If only she had paid attention to school house rock, then she’d know all about how checks and balances work, but I digress.
Democrats in general, like to point out how corrupt Republicans are. They usually like to point out that they stand for the people, instead of big business. With Republicans like Rowland, Silvester and DeLuca providing evidence in this direction, you would think that they would take the high road on supporting ethics reform. Alas, perhaps the taint of Newton and Ganim hit a little close to home, because the so-called liberal position pushed by the so-called liberal 5 was to oppose ethics reform. Now, let’s circle back to what the promise was, the outers said they wanted stronger ethics reform, yet over the 18 months they had to actually propose any stronger language, they chose not too. Wells actually did suggest stronger language, and amazingly it was incorporated, so in this issue, the outers were out on their own on this one. In the end, they all voted for the new ethics code, because, in the end, that was the right thing to do.
Unions are to Democrats what the NRA is to Republicans. Which is why its an odd liberal position for the outers to have voted against the labor contracts that benefit the unionized city workers. Even Kevin Poruban, a member of a union, voted against the contracts. Sure seems like a liberal position to take there.
Koch’s article says:
The council’s five “bipartisan” Democrats were often chastised by their party leaders for siding with Republicans on education funding, historic preservation and appointments to city boards and commissions. The council’s other five Democrats, including Matthew T. Miklave, have stood true to party principles expressed by voters in the 2005 election, according to Democratic leaders.
Of course, the Norwalk Demorats have made it easy for us all to figure out what the voters were voting for in the 2005 election. Over at the Norwalk Democratic web site, the Democratic party principles were duly recorded:
Ordinance Committee
In the Ordinance Committee, Chair Michael Coffey looks forward to the adoption of a new and strengthened Code of Ethics for Norwalk. “Our Code of Ethics hasn’t been revisited since its adoption over 38 years ago,” he noted. “It is of the most fundamental importance, and I intend to concentrate on it this year.”Public Works Committee
Public Works Committee Chair William Krummel announced that he will concentrate on the adoption of a workable five-year plan for the city’s infrastructure. “Not only do we need to speed up the repaving of our roads, which everyone notices, but we also need to address the condition of our sewer system and other critically important but less visible parts of the infrastructure,” he stated. “In the past four years, we have rebuilt our schools, which is a most important accomplishment. Now we must move on to the many unmet needs in public works.”Planning Committee
Planning Committee Chair Matthew Miklave wants to see the Council – together with the Planning Commission, the Zoning Commission, and the Redevelopment Agency – adopt a Citywide Housing Plan. “Housing for working families in the city is a priority on which most people agree, but we have to go beyond mere declarations. Without a practical overall plan,” he continued, “we won’t make much progress, and what we do on a piecemeal basis is not apt to be what it could be.”Recreation and Parks Committee
Recreation and Parks Chair Fred Bondi will push for first-stage planning of an amphitheater in Veterans Park. “I recognize that this is a project which will take many years for completion,” he remarked, “but I want to start now. Veterans Park should be a showcase for Norwalk.”Personnel Committee
Personnel Committee Chair Herbert Grant expects his committee to develop objective review criteria for realistic personnel qualifications and evaluation. “Particularly in the area of compensation for managers on the Ordinance List, we have not had our act together in the past,” he observed. “As a new member with a background in personnel policy, I hope to change that.”Land Use and Building Management Committee
Douglas Sutton, Chair of the Land Use and Building Management Committee, wants to focus on final decisions for the use of the Fodor Farm property. “This has been unresolved for too long,” he stated. “It will be my first task. If we could also acquire the White Barn property for the public, that would be desirable, also.”Health, Welfare and Public Safety Committee
Jeanette Olmstead-Sawyer, Chair of the Health, Welfare and Public Safety Committee, has set as her committee’s primary project a teen center program. “This is vitally important for dealing with many of the problems of the young people of our city,” she explained. “It will not be an easy project, but I mean to address it.”Finance Committee
Finance Committee Chair Carvin Hilliard has set as his committee’s Number One goal a new and more constructive approach to education funding. “I realize that we have only an indirect effect on the school budget,” he noted, “but the Common Council has had a poor relationship with the Board of Education in recent years, and I want to be a part of changing that. I believe that the Board of Education does as well.”
So did Norwalk-outer Krummel come up with a 5-year infrastructure plan? Nope. Did Norwalk-outer Matt Miklave adopt a citywide Housing plan? Nope. Did Norwalk-outer Doug Sutton get a final decision on Fodor Farm? Nope. Is historic preservation on this list? Nope.
Carvin Hilliard in fact is very up front about what he hoped to accomplish with the Board of Ed. A more constructive approach is exactly what he supported.
Here’s Bruce Kimmel in April of 2006 worrying about increased property taxes and infrastructure.
Norwalk has a number of pressing capital needs that must be addressed in the near future. It would be premature, some might say irresponsible, to push ahead for a new central fire station without first forming a consensus regarding the city’s capital priorities. Several years ago, when the Matrix Group was hired to analyze the needs of the fire department, they were provided a four million spending limit on construction because Norwalk had a host of other capital needs, and money needed to be allocated accordingly.
This of course was something that the Norwalk-outers refused to consider when it came time to balance the pressing needs to fix infrastructure issues and address education spending.
After this mini review, I’m having a hard time finding those “liberal” positions that Norwalk Democrats stand for. I’m sure today’s comments will offer some additional insight.
