Political fundraisers
The Ordinance Review Committee discussed this topic tonight... and no... as far as I know, this was not "pursuant to section 3-11..." of the Town Charter... this was an informal Q&A with the Town Manager. And as I raised several questions during the June 26 Council meeting, here's a repeat of those questions:
Q: Did you or anyone in your administration have contact with any party officials about changing the rules regarding the prohibition of political fundraisers on town property?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was the party official?
A: The Democratic Town Committee Chairman.
Anyway, those were the two main things I was wondering about.
Beyond that, I voiced my concern about the TMs proposed remedy to this situation. That is, the TM thought an acceptable remedy would be to extend the offer of a political fundraiser on town property to the Republican Party. And by their silence, it seemed to me as though many Council members also considered this an acceptable remedy. But this remedy doesn't work for me.
See, IMO, that remedy strikes me as disenfranchising over half the voters in town... the voters who are not affiliated with either of the two major political parties. And I don't accept that as fair. And why any elected official would sit silent on the issue of fairness is puzzling to me. Yet that is what most have done since I first raised this issue during the June 12 Council meeting.
Regardless, the item was for discussion only and I got the answers to the two questions I asked at the June 26 Council meeting. So I left when the discussion was over, noting that I saw no reason why this prohibition was created in the first place and that, IMO, political fundraisers should be allowed on town property... for a fee, like anyone else.
Finally, I should note that I voted on the current building use policy in Jan 04, along with... most other current Council members. But that gets into another discussion... regarding "interpretations" of wording and such... perhaps I'll upload that tomorrow so that you can judge for yourself whether the Council voted to prohibit political fundraisers on town property.
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
27 comments:
Tim, who cares...I mean really, what is the fall festival? A fundraiser, campaign all rolled into one....And that is on town property.........
Money is the difference at the fall festival. None is raised. Go Tim.
A rule is a rule.
Let's change the rules just like the developers can. Let's ask the TC. What the heck it works for them and we live here.
What's the big deal? Why couldn't Milone answer your two simple questions on June 26, he was sitting just 10 feet away and like you said it would only take 5 minutes. And, Estey just sat there while Hall took 10 minutes to pushed you into getting the questions answered in Ordinance.
I guess they don't like to answer questions in the light of day before a television camera. Keep the public in the dark just like the P&Z meetings.
I guess it's O'K when the Dems bend the rules. It's O'K for the Democratic Town Chairman to go to the TM and ask to have the rules twisted, tweaked, and compromised. And, this really happened. Where is the outrage by Hall, Estey and Visconti? It looks like things are totally out of control and a total review of all TM office practices should be made so that the public has confidence that rules are justly inforced.
Do you think that something wrong was done? Do you think someone was hurt? If so who and why?
"Do you think that something wrong was done"
Yes. the Republicans were denied the use of town property for their fund raiser.
I'm a registered Democrat and I vote for the person that I think will serve the town the best, regardless of party. I mentioned Hall, Estey and Visconti who accused the Town Clerk, who I voted for, of shenanigans, but did not seemed concerned about the fund raiser on town property.
This is such a big non issue
Tim if you think the public is at all concerned about this you are dead wrong
Get on to more important stuff
Accountability, transparency, even-handedness, non-favoritism ARE "the important stuff".
Wow Tim you should have asked him this question:
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party
Keep it up buddy we are watching you and we are not happy!!
10:24, are you now or have you ever been happy with anything Tim White does?
Asking the Town Manager about his (changing) policies on political use of town property is hardly McCarthyism.
10:24 seems very bitter about nothing. He needs to get a life.
Has there been any consideration of establishing an ethics commission in Cheshire? Several other towns, including Milford and Glastonbury, have them. Perhaps, a commission could better resolve issues like the use of town property, conflicts of interest and political influence in town offices.
"Perhaps, a commission could better resolve issues like the use of town property, conflicts of interest and political influence in town offices. "
Drop the "perhaps". The entire way the W/S proposal was handled, shenanigate, polegate, tunnelgate, bouldergate, and fundgate may only be the top of the iceberg.
An ethics commission, free of any control by the TM or Council, is sorely needed. Special interests and special people have too much influence in this town and that's why the W/S development passed. O'K, their application hasn't past yet, but the rubber stamp is ready.
What? Do you really believe that anyone elected or on a board or commission has done anything wrong or profited from any proposal or project that they were asked to review or act on? Were the P&Z members that voted for the text change doing so to enrich themselves?
Parties have a hard time finding people to run for election or serve on a board or commission because they feel that it is not worth the aggravation. At this point I agree, someone would be nuts to run given the current environment in this town. People must realize that there are differences of opinion and just because someone would vote for something that you are dead set against, does not mean that they have been paid off, it just means that they don’t agree with your point of view. They are just volunteers that are doing what they think is best. I am sure that no one in either party has been paid or done anything unethical while serving. There are differences of opinion. I don’t always agree with what is decided, but I never think that someone has made that decision for a reason that would require a ethics commission.
12:03 PM
I think you misunderstand the purpose of an ethics commission. It is not a prosecutorial body, rather it serves an advisory role. As you mentioned, the town relies on volunteers to perform many essential duties. Occasionally, instances may arise where a volunteer has a concern about whether a particular situation or action presents a conflict of interest or potentially violates some code of ethics. That person may appreciate having a commission that could help them sort through any ethical issues and resolve potential conflicts. In addition, if a volunteer were to make an innocent mistake that raised ethical concerns, would it not be better to resolve the issue impartially and quietly? If we learn anything from the Town Clerk episode, it should be that trying to resolve issues of ethics through the political process is messy and acrimonious and often leads to enduring enmity on both sides.
I completely disagree. The town attorney is available to everyone to ask questions about ethics. He would be more independent and would not be appointed by a political party. A much better solution. The last thing that Cheshire needs is another commission, this one to over see all the others. We do not need another layer of government.
12:57 PM
First, the Town Attorney offers a legal opinion, not one based on ethics. Second, the Town Attorney is appointed by the Town Council, who would also appoint members to an ethics commission. Finally, the ethics commission acts only when asked; it does not insert itself into the proceedings of the Council or other boards and commissions. Not to belabor the episode with the Town Clerk, but the town attorney offered his opinion to the clerk and was present prior to and during the Council meeting in which the Town Clerk was investigated. Yet, he was unwilling or unable to resolve the issue and prevent the subsequent political firestorm.
"The last thing that Cheshire needs is another commission, this one to over see all the others. We do not need another layer "
Ridiculous, it would not oversee anything and it would not be another layer of govt.
It should have the power to investigate, conflicts of interest, and the misuse of one's office or position for the benefit of self or others.
Let's get away from the good ol boy form of govt.
Why are we fixing something that is not broken? Name an offical that has done something that is not ethical or profited from a decision that they made? None come to mind.
3:30
Esty
"Why are we fixing something that is not broken?"
Maybe it works well for you and that may be the problem.
It worked well for W/S, Boman and Calcagni.
anon 10:18.
You're full of boulders, suffer from tunnel vision and probably think 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration.
Pick up a copy of the charter and read it.
To July 13, 3:30 Here's one that comes to mind:
A sitting P&Z member voted on a controversial condo project on Cheshire St. P&Z wanted only 8 units, builder wanted 12. Builder threatened to put affordable housing in instead and P&Z caved in and let him put in 11 units. Same sitting P&Z member who voted on that project ended up buying a unit there. Coincidence? Maybe. I'm sure if you check the records, it will show he paid market price but it certainly looks fishy to me.
ok if the PZ votes to approve the WS project they can't shop there
Sure right good point
9:54
Anon
In your whacky world don't you think the unnamed commissioner may have been happier with 7 neighbors not the 10 he now has. The town was faced with a potential for a lawsuit with this developer. You may also remember Karnack, affordable housing was first introduced for this property which on its face is not such a bad thing but the town has virtually no say in the number of units built in that development scenario.
Toss the conspiracy stuff in the hopper...its all bunk.
Is that the same P&Z member who made the motion and at one time gave the lawyers from Westfield a hard time??
Did someone say lawsuit?? Many to come....
Post a Comment