YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Latest Round of Historical Commision Action


by turfgrrl


April 24th, 2008 · 37 Comments

The historical commission Meeting last night was relatively mundane until it came to the subject of what to do about the Rogers Rich Merrit House. To refresh our collective memories, this is the house that was disassembled, stored in trailers, and initiated a project to rebuild it at Mill Hill. Unlike your typical episode of the Six Million Dollar Man, where they rebuilt Steve Austin for 6 million,–a bargain at today’s prices– better, stronger, faster, the house was intended to be part original part reproduction. Er, back to the show.

So the project was to add the Rogers Rich Merit house, which represents the typical maritime family type home of the pre industrial age. If you think about Mystic Village, then you get the idea of the types of homes built to accommodate the families who worked the Sound waters over the years. Rebuilding the house at Mill Hill, keeps Norwalk down the path of collecting various types of buildings needed to depict the early ages of Norwalk’s industrial growth, nicely compacted into a walkable and visitable area. That the site overlooks the river is a good one, since much of the industrial growth of Norwalk centers on waters as highways, since much of Norwalk was pastoral and farming.

So the house was dismantled, the frame of it was kept and stored and the fund raising started, sort of. Somehow, because this is Norwalk, momentum fizzled, focus shifted, and several years later the project languished despite the $150k city money and private donations raised to fund the rebuilding. Trying to follow the who said what on this is like watching a tennis tournament where all the players are in the same court hitting balls at each other. Who could possibly keep score? But score, is apparently the measure that most of who are involved in this are keeping, despite the rest of us.

Peter Bondi summed up the problem well last night. “We have all failed,” he said, “every Historical Commission since 2002 has failed on this project.”

The current crop of Historical Commissioners are really just trying to secure funds to fix the current buildings at Mill Hill, which everyone basically agrees should be fixed. At some point it doesn’t matter how they go to state of disrepair because things are only getting worse. So the idea to use the funds to do that doesn’t seem that far fetched, if, and oh what a big if, everyone understands that it is the whole of the Mill Hill Historic Park that the commission must focus on, rather than the individual buildings driving the funding.

Yet, the enthusiasm for raising money form a variety of sources to add the Rogers Rich Merrit house to Mill Hill indicates that there is the ability, even in Norwalk, to fundraise to accomplish specific projects and goals. The arbitrary way in which the whole issue of what to do and how to do it, without going through the messy process of public discussion only serves to add fuel to the idea that Norwalk somehow is always one step from adding to the legend of the grassy knoll.

The good thing though, was that Kelly Straniti added an important amendment to the resolution the commission ultimately passed. The original resolution was to request that the capital funds set aside for the Rogers Rich Merrit House be moved to an account they could tap it to fix thing now. The amendment acknowledged that the project was still viable and that the ciommission intended to keep at it. Even Charlie Yost said that the effort to secure more money should be stepped up. Which brings us to the point that brings us here, about the historical commission, on a regular basis.

The historical commission, all version between 2002-2008,  may have failed to act more aggressively in pursuing grants and fund raising opportunities, but the lack of a professional staff to delegate the day to day administration of a functioning cultural organization is the problems. We can all sit back and complain that Norwalk doesn’t get its fair share of ECS funding, but that is part of the global picture. Norwalk under performs when it comes for a systemized way in which Norwalk’s city and private non profits go about securing grants, and funding for civic projects. The Mayor made an important step in the right direction by creating the position of a grants coordinator, but the rest of the cities boards and commissions, and non profits need to do a better job in pursuing the dollars that the State of Connecticut readily allocates to other towns because of the lack of asking on our part.

That the curator was again not at the historical commission meeting, and offers no framework of the business of the commission at these meetings is a huge part of the problem. Accreditation, professional qualifications and documentation. These are bits and pieces of the infrastructure the historical commission needs. They would be well served by working more closely with the state’s department of Culture and Tourism.

Tags: History · Norwalk

37 Responses so far “Norwalk: Latest Round of Historical Commision Action”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Should have been a public hearing.

  • 2 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    The Historical Commission has failed because it has no memory. It has been stacked to cater to this incompetent staff person. She is the one who fizzled fund-raising momentum for the RRM house by telling all the black ministers in town that there were slaves buried in the spot that the house was to be rebuilt.

    This ficticious whisper campaign caused the ground to be re-probed 2 more times by the State and City. The site (that was approved by the Mayor’s Historic Sites committee before the HC ever existed) was built from fill (dirt) moved from the new construction site for Norwalk High School on Strawberry Hill and moved to Mill Hill only after 2 probes were done before moving it.

    The HC has failed because of their incompetent staff person who took 8 years to get 3 quotes to fix the squirrel damage at Mill Hill, among many other caretaking projects. There was no excuse except incompetency.

  • 3 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    The Mayor made an important step in the right direction by creating the position of a grants coordinator,

    its like defending the Alamo

    whats fair to say here is not how many grants were received how many were never applied for and how many were written by others than the coordinator?

    Take for instance the Rowyaton fire dept 0 applications for how many years? They were in line for many grants why not file?

    Now we will see legal bills for more than 150K when others decide to push this in court then still have to give back the money.

    Peter is right half right

    “We have all failed but just not this project or commission the city lives on its past while the future is being sold for a couple of beads and a blanket.

    This HC meeting was a great red herring for the city, another one last night showed more interest in a pool than our polictics we get what we deserve don’t we?

  • 4 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Turfie didn’t mention the former president of the Kiwanis Club asking for their $10k donation back and saying they’d have to do whatever they needed to in order to make sure the City didn’t spend it on something else. Sounds like a veiled threat of legal action to me. Way to go HC!

  • 5 turfgrrl // Apr 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    anonymous 4: I didn’t mention it you are right. However, the $150k in the capital funds is City money. The donations apparently are in a separate fund and I am tracking down that bit of accounting to verify it. I should have clarified it better.
  • 6 turfgrrl // Apr 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    anonymous 3: Subject experts need to determine appropriate grant opportunities themselves. That would be what we call in the real world, work. I’m somewhat amused that you would plant the disingenuous and counterproductive idea that the city would be sued over grant funding. Maybe you meant something else, but unless a grant, or a donation for that matter, has a stipulated agreement attatched to it, there is no method of ensuring that funds get allocated to a specific line item.
  • 7 anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Correct me if I’m wrong but most grants do have that sort of stipulation. When applying, you have to give a pretty detailed plan for how you will spend the funds — and then track to account for that. At least that’s how the grants have worked for our 501 3c. Does the city just dump grants into a slush fund?

  • 8 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    $150k city money and private donations raised to fund the rebuilding #3 was only pointing to this example.

    Now if you want to talk federal grant funding used by the DPW that didn’t go for a particlar grant or misused funds that could warrant court involvemnet maybe that is a thread for some other time to consider.

  • 9 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    your correct number 7 when the Homleland grants were first given to ensure this accountability cities and towns were using the money where needed not where it was given and faced penalties from payback to losing all federal grants to ensure money was actually getting to is receipants.Like him or not Shays did a lot to make sure where money goes for the grants.

  • 10 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    #4 Turfie missed the arrogance and nastiness by the Chair when the President of Kiwanis asked if he was David Parks when the meeting started and if Mr. Parks had received his letter. He was told he couldn’t speak, and it wasn’t “a public meeting”. This rudness wasn’t reported by Koch (fair and unbiased) and Turfie was a late and missed it.

    The same thing happened last month to the President of the Friends, who also want their money back. Did Parks ever respond to the president of the Historical Society? After the treatment that three presidents of local non-profits have received, why would anyone want to work with this Historical Commission, who got these groups to give money for the RRM House and now want to take the money for something else. The HC hasn’t been able to do their work since this curator “got” the job.

    In the past guests were always respected and welcomed. Respect is earned, NOT given and this group hasn’t earned a speck of it. This commission is the worst one ever and it is time the Mayor starts asking for some resignations and put people on there who know their stuff, not cronies. Or better yet, let the non-profits do their jobs, give their reports to the Land Use Committee and de-commission the Historical Commission and defund their staff’s job.

    As for grants Turfie, they ARE given for specific projects. Very few are given for bricks and mortar projects or to pay for employees or staff. And why don’t you aske Sue-you Gunn how she spent the $100K in grants on hiring her friends without having to go through the Personnel Department? What other City NMEA employee gets away with this? She will tell you they are “donations” but what other NMEA employee gets to accept $100K in “donations”? And please Turfie, don’t drink that rancid koolaid going around.

  • 11 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Grant writers sometimes assist City Departments and agencies to identify funding sources and to apply for grants already identified.Thats what Norwalks writer does correct? How would some departments know the grants exist unless the grant writer tells them.

    Point in case Norwalk’s churches had an opt to receive grant money for shelter and supply needs during an emergency in the city but no one in the churches knew this until april 6 the day of the deadline.The paperwork sat at city hall.

  • 12 turfgrrl // Apr 24, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    anonymous 10: As I understand it, so far, the $150k was city money, meaning common council allocated money to the capital fund from the good taxpayers of Norwalk. Not grants, not donations etc. Hey, it might not be. I would think that there’s an accounting somewhere, something like oh, the financial reports from any historical council since 2002 to present could provide. I’ll post it. You all know how to reach me.

    I of course could do a post on how a commission meeting should be run, I’ve certainly experienced enough of them on both sides of public/appointee divide, to wax poetic on public participation, free speech, agendas and process. However, my post was more about the issue than play by play coverage.

    I think the issue itself is worth discussing enough that we don’t need to go down a very petty path of who said what to whom and how. The decision to let the public speak is at the discretion of the chairman, unless a motion to suspend the rules is voted on to accept public comment, or more generally anything not on an agenda. You may not like it, but it is what it is.

    I suspect that the chairman would gladly have added items to the agenda prior to the meeting, because that is the right thing to do.

  • 13 turfgrrl // Apr 24, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    anonymous 11: The grant co-ordinator does pass through info where its available, but as one person with no staff it is to be expected that she has to rely on the departments themselves. More so than a city like Stamford which has 2 people in its grant department, or Bridgeport which I think has 5, but its been awhile since I checked that out.

    Government is what you make it to be. So if you want change, just do it. Otherwise its just woulda, shoulda, coulda . . .

  • 14 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 5:28 pm

    Bridgeport spent $345,000 to get 200 million in grants but their success rate was only over 52% in getting almost 60 grants.It was proven to be helpful to have a financial manager so maybe thats what Norwalk needs to assist our 1 grants writer.So suggesting a change after the budget process would be futile.Maybe next year.

  • 15 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    The Common Council would be foolish to give a blank check to the Historical Commission which probably has the worst record as far as any City Commission. Especially to spend $30K for air conditioning for a 16′ 1/2 x 34′ room in a rental unit.

    This would be a bad procedure. Where are the bids or estimates? Since an air conditioning unit would be less than $500, I wonder where the rest would go. Speaking of procedure, isn’t it City procedure to put monies left over or not used on a project back into the General Fund where all City Departments can apply for it?

    I guess we don’t need no stinking procedures in City government anymore in Norwalk. That’s since we have moved from a democracy to Fascism!

  • 16 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 11:10 pm

    General Responsibilities:
    A professional administrative position working under the general direction of the Mayor in cooperation with City Department Heads in the area of grants coordination and development. Actively seeks out and obtains new grant sources and funds. Plans, organizes and supervises programs and activities related to specific grant programs and coordinates activities of City Departments in monitoring, applying for and receiving intergovernmental assistance

    thats what was agreed upon with a starting salary of 80 k back in 2006 for Norwalk.Now if she needs help we should of been told this at budget time to create another position.

    To rely on departments that have clouds over them like we have seen can’t be very effective.

  • 17 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27 pm

    Building Stabilization Projects
    CLG grant funds may be used to help pay for stabilization repairs to National Register-listed buildings (excluding churches and church-owned property). Examples of eligible projects include replacing a leaking roof, repairing the structural framework of a building, and repairing deteriorated doors and windows to make a building watertight. Routine maintenance, climate control, and plumbing/electrical are not eligible for funding. Interior work is not eligible unless it is structural. All work must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

    They say there is a climate control issue at the mueseum maybe this would be a grant lead.

    Can’t always have redevelopment grants when the rest of the city is falling down.

    this might help the HC

  • 18 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    OBJECTIVES
    To help museums assess their strengths and weaknesses, and to plan for the future. The Museum Assessment Program is supported through a cooperative agreement between the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the American Association of Museums.

    TYPES OF ASSISTANCE
    Project Grants; Direct Payments for Specified Use.

    no application received from Norwalk Ct.

  • 19 Anonymous // Apr 24, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    AUTHORIZATION
    National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994, Public Law 103-451, 108 Stat. 4769, 16 U.S.C. 5401.

    OBJECTIVES
    The National Maritime Heritage Grants program helps State and local governments and private nonprofit organizations carry out their maritime heritage activities by funding Maritime Heritage Preservation Projects and Maritime Heritage Education Projects designed to preserve historic maritime resources and increase public awareness and appreciation for the maritime heritage of the United States.

    no application to date from Norwalk Ct

    lets be clear from this year so far but there could be a reason its not recorded records open again at 9 am it can be checked then.

  • 20 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 7:31 am

    How about a link to the source where your’re getting these? The HC needs as much help as it can get.

  • 21 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 9:23 am

    The museum is a RENTAL. The City paysd for heat, air conditioning, electric, parking etc… in their lease. If there is a problem with any of these services, the Croporation Counsel should be dealing with the LANDLORD. How stupid can you get?

  • 22 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 9:25 am

    And the landlord would be whom?

  • 23 anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Wow - you guys are so smart! The climate control money is for the archives, which requires very precise humidity and temperature. Only in Norwalk would you have a bunch of morons recommending an a/c window unit for the city’s historic archives…

  • 24 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 10:40 am

    #15 and #23 - your posts are confusing and refer to a conversation that the rest of us aren’t privy to. Are you talking about climate control for the RRM House? The Norwalk Museum? What 16-1/2′ x 34′ room in what rental unit?

  • 25 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Its funny we have experts who know the city,experts who know the deparments can we please get experts who know how to run a city?

  • 26 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    #24 I am talking about the vault at the Norwalk Museum, which has been reduced to rubble. I am NOT talking about a window air conditioning unit but a room air conditioner with humidity controls. I think that $30,000 dollars for air conditioning for a small room in a rental (which the landlords of the builing have been trying to sell out from under the museum for years) is too much money and a waste of taxpayer money. I personally would rather see the roads paved or the money put to better use for services for ALL taxpayers, not a usless Hysterical Commission.

    The city has been wasting $60K a year not including benefits, on the salary for the Historical Commission’s staff person (the only staff person at City Hall who actually doesn’t have to attend meetings for which they are the staff) for years. This person is part of a collective bargaining unit but treated like she isn’t. Too bad Hal Alvord isn’t her supervisor.

  • 27 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    when I posted the grant item this morning I was wondering if it was going to create some conversation.It has so where from here anyone call the grants office?

    G

  • 28 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Please give us a link so we can see where you got the info for those.

  • 29 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    1 202 395 3080 gets you into the office
    . Its part of the GSA and could be part of the NY base office for the GSA.

    AUTHORIZATION
    Museum and Library Services Act, codified at 20 U.S.C. Section 9101 et seq.

    OBJECTIVES
    To support projects and activities that strengthen museums as active resources for lifelong learning and as important institutions in the establishment of livable communities.

    TYPES OF ASSISTANCE
    Project Grants; Direct Payments for Specified Use.

    USES AND USE RESTRICTIONS
    Funds can be used for ongoing museum activities, research and other behind-the-scenes activities, planning activities, new programs or activities, purchase of equipment or services, or other activities that will support the efforts of museums to upgrade and integrate new technologies into their overall institutional effectiveness.

    Applicant Eligibility
    All types of museums, large and small, are eligible for funding. Eligible museums include aquariums, arboretums and botanical gardens, art museums, youth museums, general museums, historic houses and sites, history museums, nature centers, natural history and anthropology museums, planetariums, science and technology centers, specialized museums, and zoological parks. Federally operated and for-profit museums may not apply for funds. An eligible applicant must be: (1) either a unit of state or local government or a private nonprofit organization that has tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code; (2) located in one of the 50 states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau; and (3) a museum that, using a professional staff, (i) is organized on a permanent basis for essentially educational or aesthetic purposes, (ii) owns or uses tangible objects, either animate or inanimate, (iii) cares for these objects, and (iv) exhibits these objects to the general public on a regular basis through facilities which it owns or operates. An organization uses a professional staff if it employs at least one professional staff member, or the full-time equivalent, whether paid or unpaid, primarily engaged in the acquisition, care, or exhibition to the public of objects owned or used by the institution. An organization “exhibits objects to the general public” if such exhibition is a primary purpose of the institution. Further, an organization that exhibits objects to the general public for at least 120 days a year shall be deemed to exhibit objects to the general public on a regular basis. An organization that exhibits objects by appointment may meet the requirement to exhibit objects to the general public on a regular basis if it can establish, in light of the facts under all the relevant circumstances, that this method of exhibition does not unreasonably restrict the accessibility of the institution’s exhibits to the general public. Please note that an organization which does not have as a primary purpose the exhibition of objects to the general public, but which can demonstrate that it exhibits objects to the general public on a regular basis as a significant, separate, distinct, and continuing portion of its activities, and that it otherwise meets the museum eligibility requirements, may be determined to be eligible as a museum under these guidelines. A museum located within a parent organization that is a state or local government or multipurpose nonprofit entity, such as a municipality, university, historical society, foundation, or cultural center, may apply on its own behalf if the museum: (1) is able to independently fulfill all the eligibility requirements listed above, (2) functions as a discrete unit within the parent organization, (3) has its own fully segregated and itemized operating budget, and (4) has the authority to make the application on its own. When any of the last three conditions cannot be met, a museum may apply through its parent organization. Prospective applicants that cannot fulfill all of these requirements should contact IMLS to discuss their eligibility before applying. IMLS may require additional supporting documentation from the applicant to determine the museum’s autonomy. Each eligible applicant within a single parent organization should clearly delineate its own programs and operations in the application narrative. A parent organization that controls multiple museums that are not autonomous but are otherwise eligible may submit only one application per grant program; the application may be submitted by the parent organization on behalf of one or more of the eligible museums.

    Beneficiary Eligibility
    Public and private nonprofit museums.

    I trust all the grants are current there was no indication they had expired.

    sorry

  • 30 Anonymous // Apr 25, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    I pulled these grants off of GSA documents and not a web site sorry.When I go back to work monday I’ll find more details. It showed who applied for some of them Norwalk hadn’t been listed .That doesn’t mean they didn’t until a full search can be made.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply