YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Four Year Terms


by turfgrrl


March 10th, 2008 · 51 Comments

Supposedly tomorrow’s night’s common council meeting will include a vote on whether to create the charter revision committee. The reason for revising the charter would be to extend the term of mayor at the very least and common council members possibly to four years. As with most change in Norwalk, sticks in the mud are planting fast and furiously.

Chief stick in the mud is former mayor Alex Knopp who has been advising Democrats that the four year term is a bad idea. No one on that side of the aisle is asking the obvious question about the conflict inherent in someone who keeps lurking about with intentions of running for mayor yet again. There’s some political calculation going on there about toxic half life and how long hate and loathing stays in voters minds before he reveals his master strategy, but Democrats would be foolish to think that they are getting anything but self serving advice from him.

Another stick in the mud Doug Hempstead, has mayoral aspirations too.  His problem is the waiting game. Should the term go to 4 years while the current Mayor is in office he’d have a long wait for another shot at running for mayor.

Meanwhile council members don’t want to be left behind on a recommendation of four year terms, and so there’s all sorts of positions on the merits of how the elections would actually work. Considering that neither political party can find enough candidates on a two year basis, you’d think that having four year terms would make things easier.

They could look at the federal level and say Mayor and at-large council and BOE candidates are all 4 year terms and in-district BOE and council candidates are 2 year terms.  It seems to work for Congress and the executive branch okay.

Meanwhile, no one apparently, will spend much time talking about the long term here. Norwalk has not been known for its long term strategic thinking, even when various people have laid claims to thinking exclusively long term and strategic.  A perfect example is how this years operating budget is being handled. Decisions are being made totally on short term “this year” thinking instead of a hard look at how the regional economy is going to affect Norwalk’s ability to grow revenues should the financial markets continue long term panic.

If the talk here in Norwalk is still on the sub-prime meltdown, then someone is not paying attention to the real problems in economy. Oil prices, can we say $125/barrel this summer, a non functioning bond market, and commercial credit essentially frozen will lead to the very real operational price hikes that we’ve already been seeing. Think asphalt, cement, electricity and food prices spiraling. This translates into potential across the board increases for  all sorts of line items that will be impacted.

Political leaders need to stop worrying about elections and start worrying about the business of governing. While it may be expedient to think that  having elections every two years is some sort of report card on the job the elected are doing, I’d argue it has been one of the main contributing factors for a failure to execute long term revenue policy. For some reason, when it comes to spending tax money, long term spending manages to squeak through. But without accountability. Witness the school renovation plan, started in 2000, and still underway with huge cost over runs, half the schools untouched by renovation and much finger pointing as to who dropped teh ball.

Four year terms for the mayor and the council is the right thing to do. Let’s hope that the political election thinking takes a backseat to what should be a lively discussion about the real powers and operating functions of our form of government.

Tags: Norwalk

51 Responses so far “Norwalk: Four Year Terms”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 Mike Dempsey // Mar 10, 2008 at 8:50 am

    Two things are necessary. A serious discussion on
    setting up a plan on Impeachment or “Throwing the Bums Out”, If they are inept or corrupt. NO DEVINE RIGHT OF KINGS CRAP. Also a 1-2 term limit. I have seen GOOD MAYORS GO BAD, BUT NEVER SEEN A BAD MAYOR GO GOOD. If the politicians are wetting their pants to get 4 year term limits, then IT HAS TO BE BAD FOR US.

    I keep seeing that WESTPORT AND STAMFORD have 4 year terms. HOW MANY OTHER city’s in Connecticut have them? Just because Stamford & Westport have them, does that mean they are GOOD FOR THE VOTER, or good for the politicians.

    Are we lap dogs, and butt boys for Westport and Stamford?

    “WAIT, WE ARE.”

    Since when did they become the almighty masters of political judgment?

    Four year terms take away power from the people.

    Thinking in this vein then the president should have a 12 year term……..

    Hell if the President of the United States the leader of the free world and heads the most powerful country on Earth, a man who could end civilization as we know it with a press of a button only needs 4 years, then how the hell can you justify local yokel politicians getting the same terms.

    In that context it sounds kind of silly does it not?

  • 2 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 9:15 am

    your right Mike give them more time to screw us shouldn’t be an option.

    Retail vacancy rate rose to 8 percent this month.We have about 160 million sq feet of vacant space accross the country thats almost 6 square miles but our mayor thinks it may be a great idea to let our developer add some more space to his project for some wheeling and dealing.

    meanwhile Rome burns

    Just what Norwalk needs more empty storefronts.With all the money to be spent maybe a new mayor every so often will lesson the chance we get sold out by city hall.

  • 3 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 9:22 am

    “Next year at this time I’d have to start running for office again in the middle of budget Hearings, appointments and projects. It gets political,” Moccia said. “When I received the nomination in July, it changed the dynamics a little bit.”

    so what is he saying get it done now or forget it for two years?

    With all the photo ops lately with Rell and working with the other mayors outside of the city one would think he was running but not for mayor.

  • 4 turfgrrl // Mar 10, 2008 at 9:32 am

    So let’s see, as usual, all development is bad, the mayor is responsible for leasing out commercial buildings and low voter turnout every two years is preferable? Talk about short sighted thinking in these comments.
  • 5 anon // Mar 10, 2008 at 9:49 am

    I understand what many of the above posters are worried about. But remember, those developers are adding taxes, BIG TAXES, to our grand list. Norwalk is growing, wheather you like it or not. Those developers are not building to have “empty” store fronts. They have to pay the taxes on them either way. As we grow, these developers of say 95/7, Poko, or in SoNo are adding to our tax base in large numbers, especially when you compare them to what individual homes would bring on those same lots.
    Before the Crown Movie theatre came to SoNo, North Main Street was a hangout for drug pushers & prostitutes. Once Millions was spent (invested)on building a Movie theatre, the others followed and SoNo has been on the rise since then. Like every thing in life, we just need to have a good balance.

  • 6 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 9:55 am

    The new policy if adopted would not go into affect until this mayoral and council term is over. So there should be no question as to whether it would affect the sitting Mayor or council and should be looked upon as a long term goal to insure that projects started or not started can go to fruition at the seating of the council or Mayor. Many times projects are started and not completed as planned because of change of guard. Those sitting on the charter revision need to take into account long term goals of the city and not political garbage that so often clouds decisions.

  • 7 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 10:21 am

    Before the Crown Movie theatre came to SoNo, North Main Street was a hangout for drug pushers & prostitutes. That is correct we know have that on Washington street instead but only during the late night draft drinking crowd hours of course.

    Spending taxpayers money on connecting the empty storefronts throughout the city when money can be spent on parks and rec towards the quality of life should be a priority.

    If you can’t lease out buildings because they are of less desirable areas along the coast look at the reasons first that would be what a mayor would do as in Bridgeport and Stamford.

    Until the buildings are on the grand list they are only taxing the depts that run the city.With 34 million sq feet of retail space being completed by the end of 2008 accross the nation will only ad to the spike in empty stores its not like everywhere else sits at a standstill while Norwalk builds.

    Malls are still the big tickets the way gas is larger destinations are more likely to prosper until gas goes back to 2 dollars a gallon.Insight in planning is half the battle isn’t it?

    Development is great when you take care of what you already have the next round of budget talks will let us know where we stand on taking care of what we have correct?

  • 8 MGeake // Mar 10, 2008 at 11:18 am

    It’s no secret that I frequently disagree with Alex Knopp, but on this point he is right on target (whatever his motivations may or may not be).

    There is absolutely no need to rush to change something so fundamental to our local government; this has to be done only after a thorough analysis of the pros and cons.

    If TG’s suggestion were accepted, it would certainly make my life easier, since I have to campaign to everyone a mayoral candidate does, but with a fraction of the funds and media attention. But frankly, I am leaning against this proposal for the simple reason that having to run every two years makes you pay attention to what the people want and need.

  • 9 turfgrrl // Mar 10, 2008 at 11:40 am

    MGeake: Ahem, the question actually before you tomorrow is whether you want to empower a charter revision committee to even look into the matter. You won’t know what you get to vote on till after they submit their recommendation. And then you would vote on whether that recommendation should go to a referendum, at which point all of the voters, at least the ones who bother to show up, get to vote on whether that recommendation is a good one.

    So Knopp’s point is, as usual, missing the key details of what the process actually is. Since he managed to call for a charter revision committee in his term, he should know better.

  • 10 Al Morton // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Re #6 TG just what the heck is the statement all development is bad,etc., have to do with 4 year terms? With 4 year terms we will have 100% turnout? Or will the turnout be bigger because the voters waited an extra 24 months to throw the bums out? In your case might you be a BIT biased on this? You are saying we should let the fox tell the chicken farmer to take down the fence to make it safer for the chickens? Yes it is short sighted, because the LONG TERM thought of how bad things can get is a nightmare

    Here is a list of Connecticut towns, how many have 4 year terms?

    Andover
    Ansonia
    Ashford
    Avon
    Barkhamsted
    Beacon Falls
    Berlin
    Bethany
    Bethel
    Bethlehem
    Bloomfield
    Bolton
    Bozrah
    Branford
    Bridgeport
    Bridgewater
    Bristol
    Brookfield
    Brooklyn
    Burlington
    Canaan
    Canterbury
    Canton
    Chaplin
    Cheshire
    Chester
    Clinton
    Colchester
    Colebrook
    Columbia
    Cornwall
    Coventry
    Cromwell
    Danbury
    Darien
    Deep River
    Derby
    Durham
    Eastford
    East Granby
    East Haddam
    East Hampton
    East Hartford

    East Haven
    East Lyme
    East Windsor
    Ellington
    Enfield
    Essex
    Fairfield
    Farmington
    Franklin
    Glastonbury
    Goshen
    Granby
    Greenwich
    Griswold
    Groton
    Guilford
    Haddam
    Hamden
    Hampton
    Hartford
    Hartland
    Harwinton
    Hebron
    Kent
    Killingly
    Killingworth
    Lebanon
    Ledyard
    Lisbon
    Litchfield
    Lyme
    Madison
    Manchester
    Mansfield
    Marlborough
    Meriden
    Middlebury
    Middlefield
    Middletown
    Milford
    Monroe
    Montville
    Morris
    Naugatuck
    New Britain
    New Canaan
    New Fairfield
    New Hartford
    New Haven
    New London
    New Milford
    Newington
    Newtown
    Norfolk
    North Branford
    North Canaan
    North Haven
    North Stonington
    Norwalk
    Norwich
    Old Lyme
    Old Saybrook
    Orange
    Oxford
    Plainfield
    Plainville
    Plymouth
    Pomfret
    Portland
    Preston
    Prospect
    Putnam
    Redding
    Ridgefield
    Rocky Hill
    Roxbury
    Salem
    Salisbury
    Scotland
    Seymour
    Sharon
    Shelton
    Sherman
    Simsbury
    Somers
    South Windsor
    Southbury
    Southington
    Sprague
    Stafford
    Stamford
    Sterling
    Stonington
    Storrs
    Stratford
    Suffield
    Thomaston
    Thompson
    Tolland
    Torrington
    Trumbull
    Union
    Vernon
    Voluntown
    Wallingford
    Warren
    Washington
    Waterbury
    Waterford
    Watertown
    West Hartford
    West Haven
    Westbrook
    Weston
    Westport
    Wethersfield
    Willimantic
    Willington
    Wilton
    Winchester
    Windham
    Windsor
    Windsor Locks
    Winsted
    Wolcott
    Woodbridge
    Woodbury
    Woodstock

  • 11 turfgrrl // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    Al Morton: My sarcasm was directed at the comments above mine, in general. Clearly I think development is good.

    But why are you posting a list of all 169 towns? How about winnowing them to towns that have mayors and a population greater than 45k and then we can start comparing things that are more alike than less. Stamford of course being not only more alike but nearby.

  • 12 Al Morton // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    I don’t think that citizens of towns with less than 45K population are any dumber or smarter than those with 80,000+. They may not have the problems of a city or our size, on the other hand those cities with populations of above Norwalk’s estimated 86,000 and do not need 4 year terms, to produce good work.

    As someone posted earlier, with that line of thinking the President of the United States should have a 12 year term. He has to have AT LEAST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TO WORRY ABOUT AND DEAL WITH THEN A CITY THE SIZE OF NORWALK, STAMFORD AND WESTPORT.

    It seems silly to give the president of the U.S.A. a 4 year term and say that the local yokels of city government need more than 2 years to prove if they were promoted to their level of incompetency.

    To me it just will just incite some politicians to be even more UN responsive to the needs of the voters of their respective cities. Does Waterbury have 4 year terms? If so their politicians must spend the last 24 months in jail.

    Do our politicians have such fear of their service to their constituents that they FEAR AN ELECTION.

    Saying that 4 year terms will let politicians get more work done, is ridiculous, expecting that an extra 2 years will make a silk purse out of a sows ear is daydreaming. Using the excuse that more time will make elected officials prove themselves and move ahead their agendas is for those politicians have no confidence in their ability to remain in the voters good graces, and fear getting dumped.

  • 13 MGeake // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Yes, what’s on the agenda is do we empower a Charter Revision Committee to look into the questions we submit to them — plus anything else they damn well feel like looking into!. In other words, they are not limited to what we submit; they are just required to look at everything we submit.

    That is not something I intend to start until I am comfortable with the need.

  • 14 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    # 2, I could not have said it better. Smart development is good over development is bad and that is the difference with norwalk it’s over development.

  • 15 turfgrrl // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Al Morton: Town that don’t have mayors or councils are simply organized a different way and so what is the point of comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Sheesh.

    Considering how few people actually vote in municipal elections, it would seem that most people don’t exhibit this fervent need to have elected officials “FEAR” elections. In fact I doubt that any elected official fears any election even if they are the most incompetent official elected.

    Elections do change the focus of what government officials should be doing, which is governing. Instead they resort to campaigning and posturing and maybe they even put off decisions because it might become an “election issue.”

    A four year term seems a reasonable amount of time (3 years) to see what an official is capable of rather than the effectively one year terms we get now.

  • 16 turfgrrl // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Mgeake: Yep a charter revision could look into other things, but in the end you get to vote on the recommendation. They could theoretically suggest that the council be abolished, and than then presumably you would all vote on that. I see nothing wrong with opening the process of examination.
  • 17 MGeake // Mar 10, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    State law requires a super majority to create the commission, but only a simple majority to accept its recommendations, so unless and until I am comfortable with both the need and the make-up of the commission, I’ll not vote to approve one.

  • 18 anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    McGeake, your attitude is depressing. Who do you want on the commission? Moreover, who don’t you want on it and why? I thought you were above the political fray….

  • 19 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    The developers of an eight-story residential structure near Seaside Park, approved two years ago, want to raise the project’s profile even higher.They want another 200 feet to their first planned 8 story building they now want 28 stories.

    lawyers for Bernat and Gold, said the new plan would allow the developers to be more “competitive and consistent with the other projects in the area.”

    Whats not to think that Norwalks developer won’t say the same thing and use Bridgeport as an example to build bigger here in Norwalk?

    Mayor Bill Finch’s press secretary, Kaitlin Lesnick, said that although the city now has no high-rise structures, the city’s Fire Department would be capable of dealing with any emergencies at the proposed structures in the South End.

    Is Norwalk as comfortable in our planned construction? Yes we will get taxes and our grand list will swell but will our public services grow at the same time?

  • 20 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    ————————————————————————————
    Re TGAl so what is the point of comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Sheesh.

    SPOKEN LIKE A REAL POLITICIAN

    SHEESH! You damn will know what I was actually speaking about. I would like to see YOUR LIST of cities with populations, and local government like ours that have 4 year terms. I only know of Westport and Stamford, so how many are there. You should have these facts as you are in favor of it and you KNOW that it will be an issue with the voters before it is put on the ballot. Maybe the list of other cities that have not gone with 4 year terms are all filled with a bunch of voters who are idiots that do not know any better, as you seem to think.

    Considering how few people actually vote in municipal elections, it would seem that most people don’t exhibit this fervent need to have elected officials “FEAR” elections. In fact I doubt that any elected official fears any election even if they are the most incompetent official elected.

    First the only politicians who fear elections are bad ones. The fact that there is a low turnout has absolutely no bearing on the fact that maybe the voter are so damned sick of the politicians that they say “Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves’ TAKE THE ELIOT SPITZER PROSTITUTION DEBACLE. He was one of the most unethical governors NY had in the last 3 decades, want to give he 8 years in office.

    You can’t take this power from the hands of the people, and tell them they are not politically sophisticated, enough to know when a politician is a looser.

    You could make politicians have LIFE TERMS, and they still could manage to screw up a free lunch.

    The whole country thinks that Congress is a bunch of pompous jerks, so what do we do give them 8 year terms to prove it even further.

    The council had better be damn sure they listen to the citizens of this town before doing something stupid.

    If it goes on the ballot and is defeated they will all look like self absorbed power grubbers.

    BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, YOU MIGHT JUST GET YOUR WISH.

    You can put perfume on a turd, but it will always be a turd.

  • 21 question // Mar 10, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    who are the proposed people that will sit on this commission? Are they people who will look at the questions and make the right decisions or are they just going to do whatever the powers that be tell them to do. MGeake, I hope when the commission is made up its of people that have Norwalk taxpayers in mind and that they truly look at this from all angles.

  • 22 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    Not all developement is bad didn’t we open the door to a company who bulldozed virtually all of Stamford’s decrepit downtown 25 years ago. And it was F. D. Rich that erected many of the high-rise office buildings that came to symbolize Stamford’s rebirth as a corporate capital.

    There goes downtown scenic Sono seaport in the name of developemnet of course.

    F.D. Rich Co.
    Abstract: Cites the lawsuit filed by a partnership involving key members of the F.D. Rich Co. against the Stamford Urban Renewal Commission for… these guys love to go to court on the drop of a dime what if they buy washington st whats next?

    I thinks we should leave the term limit alone and make sure we save parts of the city worth saving for right now. Baby steps is only a suggestion.

  • 23 MGeake // Mar 10, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    #18 and #21 — that is precisely my point. I won’t support a commission that is filled with political flunkies who have their own agendas. If we do, indeed, do this, let’s make it as free from political considerations as possible.

    Again I ask, what’s the rush here?

  • 24 anon // Mar 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    Hey Mr. Morton, I not sure about charter revision, But I certainly do like your Salt!

  • 25 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    A charter revision commission to change the terms to 4 years stinks! You can bet it will be filled with political a$$ kissing flunkies. Some of these politicians are so in your face disgusting. They can’t do a damn thing for the taxpayers, except raise taxes.

    I’m glad that Mr. Geake and Mr. Hempstead are against this. I can’t stand Alex Knopp, but I have to agree with him on this one.

  • 26 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    hey#25-you elected them!
    I disagree with you that all of them are as you say “political a$$ kissing flunkies” There are actually some independant people who would do well on this commission and, I disagree with you about Alex Knopp. All Alex is doing is setting it up so that this 4 year term does not cover a Republican Admin. If you think he is doing this for any other reason than to see if the next Mayor is a Dem that he can control then you are sadly mistaken. Mark my words, if the next election cycle brings in a dem Alex will be leading the charge for a 4 year term. I commend Hempstead and Geake for questioning the reasons and drawbacks of a 4 year term but you are only reading into this whaythe newspapers are saying. There are other council members who want to weigh all the options before making a committment as well.

  • 27 anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    Who are the tax raising in your face politicians ?

  • 28 voter // Mar 10, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Note that almost 1/2 of towns/cities in ct have four year terms for Mayor/Selectman, Town clerks and registrars of voters. All are elected not appointed. It makes sense to most of us.Maybe we could get the correct numbers.

  • 29 Anonymous // Mar 10, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    The good ole boys need to be weeded out , the longer the term less gets done for the taxpayer and more for the developer. Developers as it stands now target the upper ECHELON and it shows.We did well this last round of elections now lets see what we do next time I agree what is te rush w have what Millions on the table and what if the funding or financial backing gets interupted here in Norwalk like other cities it would be wise to have more than one sitting mayor work things out over see for the residents.We find a mayor we really can count on offer him more money for a second term if not keep looking until we get it right. Four years is too long to wait for a change.Who is in line if the sitting mayor has problems who gets the job next until the term has run its course. With the way things are going in Ny maybe we should look more closely at the number two seat in Norwalk as well . Who is next in line Briggs? Figure you want four years who fills in if the first choice doesn’t work out?

  • 30 anonymous // Mar 11, 2008 at 6:05 am

    I agree with you 29, four more years of Moccia would be a waste!

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply