Norwalk: Common Council Meeting

by turfgrrl

July 24th, 2007 · 33 Comments

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

33 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Common Council Meeting”

• 1 Mr Greenpeace // Jul 25, 2007 at 5:05 am

  Stabbing in Norwalk last night,,not sure didn’t seem to be much just the thought of all those emergency personal rushing to Fort point made some of wonder if it was real …caught your attention didn’t it?

  what not a word on the two fuel spills we had that ended up in the river? No one said anything about them?

  No comments on why the new pollution prevention drain pods are not catching the contamination? some say they heard from DPW employees there a mess..

  comments like poor design by local merchants tired of chasing fuel not theirs..

  Now if memory serves me when fuel was found in the old days we would go an dig out the storm drain barrel it and dispose of it as hazardous waste..the papers did say officials are seeking the source to pay for it,,if they don’t find a source who pays for it the city?

  as redevelopement projects keep coming pollution still flows from the previous spills that usually go undetected so are we planning on any preventative actions when something may be found?

  Wants the public to have maximum participation, what about fixing what we have before we build anything else new,,I know this is a big deal for those who have been waiting,,like my kids and xmas it will be here soon enough.

  A plug for the Hour great shot of the firefighters trying to contain a spill without the right kind of booms,,pathetic I would say for a city on the water,,can’t we give them something else to wrok with,,next they will use dishwashing detergent it cuts the sheen and makes it go away..again lets give the depts some equipment,,

  so if the fuel was found coming from a half mile away does that mean we now clean out each basin and dispose of it as haz mat debris? This might cost us a few dollars,,

  This was explained a while ago that we may have to look at this, revisit the program we all slapped ourselves on the back for,,it was noted months ago we may have a problem,,I guess they may of found a source where an accident happened a month ago with a fuel spill but what did they do then?

  I guess the oil change over the storm drain meant nothing when reported out here it was just a rant by I don’t know someone?

  so what about our river and beaches i suppose anyone in shorefront park can rest assured the water is fine to swim in later today,,I’m sure we don’t use the river for anything else ..

  This will be a great dstination for spill crews in the morning anther spill was reported on Osborne st, made it to the storm drain took the DPW and a load of sand for the street, reports said it made it into a storm drain where do they go?

  What about the spills that have gone unreported do we just forget those and go on and build what on top of what,,yes the beat goes on doesn’t it…

  does anyone think we should worry about anything anymore ,,check your storm drains in the morning see if there is any blue sheen like the ones behind the old police station that are still ignored,,that was from the fluid leaking out of the demo cars,,they have been removed correct?

  so my rant for today is just that pollution in the river pollution in the harbour some say all the time I seriously doubt that but what do i know,,I’m sure no one got stabbed it sounded like a red herring..

  good story just the same by the Hour and now if they can report in depth we all can rest assured the city has a handle on it..the storm drain project seems to be an issue or is it?

• 2 Mr Greenpeace // Jul 25, 2007 at 5:10 am

  hey do I get a hat too?

• 3 Anonymous // Jul 25, 2007 at 7:58 am

  Hey Mr. Greenpeace. Sure you can have a hat, one like mine. I’m proud of it. It says “Miserable 25″ on it.

• 4 Anonymous // Jul 25, 2007 at 8:41 am

  Mr. Greenpeace writes too much- hey, dude slow down!

• 5 Norwalk4Life // Jul 25, 2007 at 8:48 am

  Reed Putnam is exactly what this town needs. It will be good to see that empty space filled. I hope they plan to fill it with viable eateries and retail stores. We dont need anymore banks, subways, dunkin donuts or dollar stores in town. J Crew, Brooks Brothers, Gap, etc would look good there. Oil spills happen. We have to move on. Can anyone explain why 3 out of 15 council members were not present? This is what they were elected for to attend these meetings. If you can not be there please dont aspire to the post. Another example of lame political leadership in the City.

• 6 Mr Greenpeace // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:05 am

  Jed Clampat for mayor

• 7 Anonymous3 // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:09 am

  Greenpeace is in his own Idaho…therefore I don’t read anything he writes. Too much blah, blah, blah, too disjointed, all over the map and mostly incomprehensible.

• 8 Watchdog // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:16 am

  Mornin, Turfie!

  I’d like to respond to number 5:

  I agree that Reed Putnam is a long awaited project that will be a “positive” for Norwalk.

  With regard to attendances at Council meetings, please consider that council members attend council meetings every other Tuesday, with 2-3 committee meetings per week, as well. These people also have regular jobs and the council service is on the side. Council members may have the odd work commitment, or - as expected during the summer - a summer vacation with the family. It would be a serious matter if a council member habitually skirted meetings, but this is not the case here. Generally members plan time away during a session involving a vote on a controversial or important issue. Remember… candidates are NOT lined up at the door. When you start taking their livelihoods away or… their families, as it is… we can count on NO volunteers for a sitting council. I suppose that deserves a cynical, “that would be a great impprovement,” but realistically speaking, it is moot point.

• 9 Watchdog // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:18 am

  Addendum:
  Forgive my stuttering p’s this morning.

• 10 Norwalk4Life // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:31 am

  You make some good points here Watchdog. I agree they are pretty much volunteers and I respect them all for their willingness to serve. But we are talking about the making a difference for 80k people. I hope you made a typo by saying in your comments that “Generally members plan time away during a session involving a vote on a controversial or important issue.” I hope we do not have any elected representative that is avoiding important issues with time away. Perhaps the Council should consider taking summers off or at least August to allow for personal vacations. Whats wrong with holding 1 or 2 public hearings or committee meetings on Saturday Mornings every couple months to allow normal folks that can’t make meetings a chance to voice their opinions. Maybe we should consider cutting the council size down or condense the amount of committees? Yes personal time is valuable as is time at the job that actual pays a salary. But when 3 members are missing which equals 20% does not look good. Maybe the council can work out a system where votes can be held open for 24 hours to allow everyone to be on the record.

• 11 Mr Greenpeace // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:49 am

  sorry posting number 7 guess you don’t know who Jed is.

• 12 Sal Warren // Jul 25, 2007 at 10:14 am

  First, let’s let the facts get in the way of this thought. If you want political office, and especially in a small city like Norwalk, you know what is going to be expected of you. Lots of nights wasted in meetings, days showing up at boring events, and a lot of headaches. I envy no one who wants to get into that game. Politics has become a Blood Sport, and there is no big monetary reward for this service. With that said, lets look at some of the reasons people want to go into politics.

  1. Some want to make connections which will enhance their reputation or make them money in some way by grants, donations, business ideas and tips etc.

  2. Some want to get out of the house at any cost

  3. Some people have no hobbies so they choose politics

  4. They crave attention, and the power no matter how small, that the job provides

  5. The political stage gives them an adrenalin rush and becomes habit forming.

  6 They enjoy spending time and exchanging ideas with like minded people

  7. They have no life outside of politics

  8. They are lonely and need a constant debate to add spice to their lives

  9. They are masochistic and enjoy being yelled at and called names

  10. They really believe that they can help their districts, but sometimes fail miserably.

  11. They really care for their districts residents and will help them at any personal cost.

  For one politician to say that another person has a political agenda is kind of silly. A politician without a political agenda as just a LAYMAN. I never knew that there existed a politician without a political agenda. A politician without a political agenda is like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest….

  Noun: politician (Webster)
  1. A leader engaged in civil administration
  2. A person active in party politics
  3. A schemer who tries to gain advantage in an organization in sly or underhanded ways

• 13 turfgrrl // Jul 25, 2007 at 11:36 am

  watchdog: Good points you raised. Another thought on this is that our expectations of what the council does deserves some revisiting. When Norwalk was a small town, a volunteer elected council that meets nights made some sense. But if Norwalk is too become a larger city, then management of its government should be more in line with the needs to do that. Aging infrastructure whose maintenance gets short changed due to constant “management changes” and political expediency isn’t the way to build for the future.

• 14 anon // Jul 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm

  #12-How about some just want to make a difference if they can? some people sit and complain about the way things get handed and do not want to get involved but want things done to their expectations, then there are those who don’t like the way things are being handled and prefer to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem. Elected officials (some anyway) apparently want and need to be attacked, ridiculed and bashed while thinking that someone really notices what good they are doing. Then there are those who lack what others call a life, now their’s is pretty simple reasoning, they need a life and this fits their agenda, then there are those who have a need for the almighty power to control and rule,they are actually the ones that need to get a life.

• 15 Anonymous // Jul 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm

  Do I detect a call for a 4-year term, at least for mayor? Or a stipend of more than $50/month?

• 16 Sal Warren // Jul 25, 2007 at 12:17 pm

  I am against a 4 year term. That can lead to a whole generation of people growing up under one administration.

  In the event we get a good mayor it is fine. In the event we get a bad mayor we are stuck with him twice as long. The last 2 election proved the will of the people still changes very rapidly, and voters can become very fickle very fast.

• 17 longtimer // Jul 25, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  A two year term means that you lose a year due to “politics.” The election year curse if you will. I would support a four year term.

• 18 Watchdog // Jul 25, 2007 at 2:28 pm

  Response to #10:

  Quote: “I hope you made a typo by saying in your comments that “Generally members plan time away during a session involving a vote on a controversial or important issue.”

  LOL!! That was indeed a typo. However, it may not apply to everyone at all times.

  Turf: YOU raise a good point. Perhaps it is time to reassess the requirements of elective offices – council AND mayoral. However can we expect quality from candidates if we do consider their motives for running? If scouting for the brightest and the best, an employer recognizes the need for an attractive salary. Apparently, even a stipend of fifty dollars (before taxes) is not attractive enough to bring in those volunteers we so desperately need for candidates.

  Begging people to run is not an ideal situation. Some years ago, you may remember the Independent Party of Norwalk ran an open invitation in The Hour asking any and all citizens of Norwalk who wished to run as candidates for council, or otherwise, to submit their names. The intent was to give the opportunity to anyone of any affiliation to run without the partisan red tape of the major political parties. There were no takers.

  It’s been my contention that the mayoral office also lacks the draw needed to attract qualified individuals away from their good-paying jobs. If we, as voters, are happy with lawyers and realtors and retirees, as mayors, then fine. If we continue to expect much more from our candidates, then we need to provide the bait. We know the mayoral salary is not in sync with the CEO of a major corporation, but why is it that the critics still expect competitive management skills from mayoral candidates? At what point do we finally recognize that the mayoral position does not require prerequisite skills or degrees from higher institutions?

  As for the council, it should show a cross-section of our diverse citizenship (in various venues) in our city. Basically, it is a volunteer position with a fifty dollar monthly stipend. All that is required is that one be able to read the information packets prior to each meeting, and to attend meetings faithfully. Do we wish to impose greater demands upon the council, and in effect, lessen the chances of widening an already narrow pool of takers? Whatever the motives are for those volunteers to come forth… does it matter? In the end, the public is able to vote out the slackers if they wish.

  So, at the sake of rambling as it is, I’d welcome some solutions to this problem: how do we attract quality candidates who attend all meetings and hold public hearings on all issues, and vote to please everyone? Do we increase the draw by offering a greater stipend? Do we require degrees of higher learning to address quality issues? Do we abolish the council seats, or perhaps mandate citizenry to serve, much like a jury is pooled? That, I fear, is where we’re headed, if we continue to make the role so thankless, demanding, and restrictive.

• 19 Watchdog // Jul 25, 2007 at 2:30 pm

  LOL

  I’ve done it again!

  “However can we expect quality from candidates if we do consider their motives for running?”

  should be:

  “However can we expect quality from candidates if we do NOT consider their motives for running?”

• 20 Mike Lyons // Jul 25, 2007 at 2:50 pm

  Watchdog, your #12 pretty much covers the gamut of reasons people run for office (though I think with a bit too much emphasis on the negative reasons). I served 4 years on the Common Council, 4 years on the Zoning Commission and am now 2 years into 4 years on the Board of Estimate and Taxation. I’ve found that most of the people I’ve dealt with on these agencies are pretty good people and want to do the right thing (though their conception of what’s right obviously differs based on their philosophy / ideology).

  One caution on the ‘pay enough to make it attractive enough to get better people’ theory, however. What you often get with good pay is not good people, but people highly motivated to seek office to get the good pay. In this case, “motivated” may bear little relationship to “good”. Once “keeping the paycheck” becomes the primary concern of an elected official, you find that advancing good public policy becomes less important than pandering to special interest groups in order to raise money or get campaign workers to help you get re-elected (this critique applies to members of both parties). There is a GOOD aspect to having citizens who serve for the reasons you list in #12 (hopefully you get enough of them running for the good reasons), RATHER than serving just so they can get a good government paycheck. Anyway, the Founding Fathers thought so; they would be aghast at the well-paid “political class” in Congress that replaced the citizen-legislators they imagined serving.

• 21 Sal Warren // Jul 25, 2007 at 2:55 pm

  Mike, I hope that you realize that post was mostly being facetious.

  But in fact partially true.

• 22 Anonymous // Jul 25, 2007 at 2:58 pm

  #20 while I agree that setting the stipend too high would attract some just because of the stipend, $50 is too low given the amount of time each member must spend on council, committee, and subcommittee meetings.

• 23 Watchdog // Jul 25, 2007 at 3:06 pm

  #20 Mike:

  Thank you for your thoughtful response. I’m with you all the way… I want to see that open door for all the “right reasons.” Sadly, the critics expect so much of volunteers with no intent of putting in that time themselves. It’s a wonder we get people to run, as it is.

• 24 Anonymous // Jul 25, 2007 at 3:14 pm

  What matters here is we have a debate going. I want to encourage all and everyone to join in. Someday I plan on I seeking an elective office in Norwalk and will applaud anyone who choses to do the same. The City has great potential. I strongly agree in reform though. I have lived here for almost 28 years and still feel that many citizens want this remain a “cute” New England town. Those days are over. Who wants to join in creating a new vision?

• 25 anonymous // Jul 25, 2007 at 3:25 pm

  Anon 24, “someday” is now. What’s your political affiliation and district? What office interests you?

• 26 anon // Jul 25, 2007 at 4:58 pm

  It would seem as if some on here are already in office and others belong there. Imagine if the posters here were to take all the energy of constructive and negative critism that is posted daily and somehow put it altogether and come to mutual understandings and visions, this would make one hell of a slate.

• 27 Edward Levine // Jul 25, 2007 at 8:01 pm

  When are the Norwalk Pubs going to get their website up and running. It is embarrassing to go to the Connecticut Republican site and see town committees for these towns

  Avon
  Bethany
  Bethlehem
  Bolton
  Bridgeport
  Brookfield
  Chester
  Cromwell
  Danbury
  Easton
  Enfield
  Farmington
  Granby
  Guilford
  Killingworth
  Madison
  Manchester
  Marlborough
  Monroe
  North Stonington
  Old Saybrook
  Oxford
  Redding
  Somers
  Stamford
  Stratford
  Torrington Teenage Republicans
  Vernon
  Wallingford
  Weston
  Westport
  Windsor
  Woodbury
  Woodbridge
  Woodstock

  What is going on in Norwalk? Lets get going gang…

• 28 Edward Levine // Jul 25, 2007 at 8:05 pm

  The state Republican websites listing of Republican Town Committee’s.

  Avon
  Bethany
  Bethlehem
  Bolton
  Bridgeport
  Brookfield
  Chester
  Cromwell
  Danbury
  Easton
  Enfield
  Farmington
  Granby
  Guilford
  Killingworth
  Madison
  Manchester
  Marlborough
  Monroe
  North Stonington
  Old Saybrook
  Oxford
  Redding
  Somers
  Stamford
  Stratford
  Torrington Teenage Republicans
  Vernon
  Wallingford
  Weston
  Westport
  Windsor
  Woodbury
  Woodbridge
  Woodstock

  Isn’t Norwalk in Connecticut?

• 29 Norwalk4Life // Jul 25, 2007 at 9:15 pm

  Anon #25 I wrote at Anon 24 earlier not sure why i lost my little code name here. “Someday” is not now for me not yet at least. I am targeting 2009 to get going. There are some personal things career wise I have to take care of first. My party affiliation is opposite of the incumbent Mayor yet I am quite the conservative Dem. I can not comment on a office I am seeking in particular but I plan to be involved in elective politics again in the near future.

• 30 turfgrrl // Jul 26, 2007 at 9:24 am

  Mike Lyons: While there’s always a danger of setting the pay for government positions too high, and therefor attract people looking for the good paying job, instead of more civic altruism, the opposite holds as much danger too. One of the reasons many people stay in a job for long periods is because of health insurance coverage. That goes for the private sector too. Maybe term limits acts as a counterbalance to that. Or maybe pay needs to be more performance related.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply