December 20, 2007

Bristol's councilors stretched thinner than most

If Bristol’s six city councilors sometimes seem as if they’re stretched thin, it’s probably because they are.
Divide the population of the city by the number of council members and each of them serves a little more than 10,000 residents.
That’s more than twice as many residents per representative as they have in New Britain, Meriden, New Haven and Southington. It’s three times as many as they have in Stamford.
In fact, Bristol has one of the highest ratio of council members to residents in the state. Only Greenwich, which has three council members for its 62,077 residents has a higher ratio among Connecticut’s larger municipalities.
“We just don’t have enough bodies,” said Ken Johnson, the Republican’s unsuccessful mayor candidate this year, who compiled the statistics.
He said it’s no wonder that council members “feel overwhelmed” with all the assignments and responsibilities they must perform.
A majority of the charter Revision Commission has stated that if it doesn’t propose a change to a city manager form of government, expanding the number of councilors would be wise. Most said they’d like to see a 9-person council, perhaps representing three districts or maybe running citywide.
City Councilor Frank Nicastro, a former mayor, said that he doesn’t want to see more people on the council.
The more councilors there are, Nicastro said, “the more snarled” it gets trying to get anything done.
He said that if people are concerned the job is too demanding, they shouldn’t run for it.

Population per city councilor
Bristol – 10,010
Waterbury – 7,151
West Hartford – 7,065
Bridgeport - 6,664
Norwalk – 5,530
New Britain – 4,769
Meriden – 4,480
Southington – 4,414
New Haven -4,121
Danbury – 3,564
Stamford – 2,927



*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe if the Councilors would read the Charter learn and understand their roles, and not try to play mayor, then they would find that they have adequate time to do the job, even better than they are doing.
The system was not meant to be a 7 membet troika, the council was not meant to get involved on a day to day basis with general operations.

Suggest that they do take the time to actually find out what there job is, not what they would like it to be.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone take the time to check the numbers?

Maybe if their assignments were reduced, they could function better!

Yet they still want more: like a bunch of Yentas.

Anonymous said...

Frank's point is well taken about knowing what you're getting into, but the fact is that there is a lot of work and it gets even harder when the work is not easily divided or shared. It's been obvious for years that there are some councilpeople who shoulder more work and initate policy stuff while others just go to stags and then spend time each month thanking dept heads on camera for doing their jobs.

Anonymous said...

If you want your councilmembers to limit themselves to doing nothing more than their committee assignments and constituent service, six is enough. But most of us took this job wanting to leave Bristol better than we found it. The status quo is not good enough. If there were a few more of us we could spend more time identifying problems and finding (and fighting for) solutions and not be just a "caretaker" government.

Anonymous said...

But most of us took this job wanting to leave Bristol better than we found it.

Craig, That requres that the council work as a team that communicates like professional adults. Don't try to be a one man show and you will all get much more accomplished.

Anonymous said...

Craig: Let me first state that you're a good man and a pro-active councilman.

However I question your use of the term "'caretaker' government". Would an expanded council constitute more government? Less government would be less of the "caretaker" role. How about finding ways to reduce government?

As far as the NEED to expand the council as the city works now, it might be a good idea. I appreciate your efforts.

Anonymous said...

I think that the $20,000 it would cost to pay two extra council members would be better spent on something else.

Anonymous said...

How about if you just stop whinning Minor and get out of city govt.?

Anonymous said...

Mainly what I see emanating from this idea is MORE GOVERNMENT.

Seems like Johnson is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and Criag is just advocating for more of a role of himself.

I, for one, would like to see less government, and an opportunity for citizens to become part of the process. Right now, in most cases, they are overshadowed by the politicians, and with more politicians, it can only get worse.

Anonymous said...

You Republican/Conservative wannabes sound so dumb when you try to act all politically smart. Tired terms like Less government? More Citizen involvement? Hello??? Having extra councilmen to share the work load is NOT what the mantra "LESS GOVERNMENT" is about. And the idea of more citizen participation in government? Bristol elected officials are citizens. Expand the council and you expand citizen participation. Simple.

No wonder why the local Republican party is so terrible.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Minor,

How do you sleep at night?

When you say "most of us took this job wanting to leave Bristol better than we found it"... exactly how are you going to do that with your track record? Is Bristol better as a result of your playing politics?

What we want is for people like you who we elected to serve to show leadership and stop clowning around on the taxpayers dime.

Please take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself are you going to continue to be part of the problem or part of a solution.

Anonymous said...

My suggestion has always been to increase the size of the council by one-third and cut the pay by one-third, so there would be no increase in cost to the taxpayers. We would earn less but the total productivity would be greater. None of us are doing this for the money.

Anonymous said...

"You Republican/Conservative wannabes sound so dumb when you try to act all politically smart"

Responding to this comment, I would say that first you're comment is mean-spirited and immature. The initial response was to the comment about "caretaker government" and the number of people on the council.

Try to understand this. The government grows every year. There are more positions created. By not expanding the council there is perhaps a chance that government might be slower to grow due to the lack of ability to oversee it.

I suggested that perhaps Craig Minor should be more focused on slowing the growth of government than expanding the council.

However, I also stated that I think he may be right in regards to the need for more people on the council as we stand today. My comment was in reponse to his use of the term "caretaker". The more government grows, the more it becomes a "caretaker-government". It may or may not have anything to do with expanding the council.

I stated that I think Craig is a good councilman. I think he is a thoughtful person in regards to the city. I don't however understand his train of thought on the role that government should play in society based on his comment ("caretaker"). I assume it is more liberal than mine and more than the one I was brought up with.

OK?

Anonymous said...

No, it's not OK. People love to scream about the need for "less government" without any idea what that means. Less government is about taking authority and responsibility for services away from government and giving it to the citizens. So no more building inspections to make sure your neighbor's new house doesn't burn down or flood sewage into your yard. and so in exchange for some tax cuts, we can fire public works employees and you can volunteer to deliver your garbage to the dump and you can get your neighbors together to plow your street. At least we won't be succumbing to more government by growing the size of the city council by a whopping 3 members.

Anonymous said...

Craig Minor - you are not in it for the money? Yeah right, is that why you were talking at the DTC one night stating; "The city doesn't pay us enough to put up with this crap."

I have a bridge in Brooklyn if you are interested in realestate Minor.

Anonymous said...

That was his point, you dunce. The money is not why they do this. If it was, it isn't enough money. A little comprehension can go a long way. Try it sometime.

Anonymous said...

To the first poster ... I didn't read in the Charter that the mayor was to be a dictator either. The council is trying to do their job and, just like Stortz, is closing his ears and doing what HE wants to do. All I see from Ward so far are paybacks to his friends and it's just the beginning. Let's hope he wises up.