May 9, 2008

Charter decision may come today

There's a special City Council meeting at 5 p.m. today -- Friday, for those who are blissfully unaware of the calendar -- to determine the fate of the Charter Revision Commission's recommended changes to the city's blueprint.
The most controversial measure is, of course, whether to create a chief operating officer for the city.
Though the idea is almost certainly going to be voted down, there's a good chance that won't actually happen today.
Instead, some have told me, the commission will probably be asked to ramp up the educational requirements for anyone seeking the full-time position. A vote on the proposal itself will likely come later.
But you never know with this council. It's certainly possible the council will simply dump the concept today.
I'm not sure what's going to happen to the other vaguely controversial recommendation to turn the part-time treasurer into an appointed position rather than an elected one. With all the hoopla over the chief operating officer, the treasurer suggestion has gotten little attention.
I'll be there to let you know what happens today, but if you're curious to see city government in action - or its inaction, perhaps -then feel free to come to the meeting itself. What a great way to start the weekend!

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at


Anonymous said...

Gee the suspense is killing me.

Ward: NO

Macauley: No

Minor: No ("he carefully analyzed the idea and after close intellectual review he decided it was detrimental to the unions which control his cadidacy just as they control all Dumb-o-rats")

Nicastro: No

Cockayne: Yes

Rimcoski: who cares, 'cause it doesn't matter anyway..but NO 'cause Stortz told him NO

Anonymous said...

Go Cockayne, Go Cockayne Go Cockayne GO!!

Anonymous said...

Minor said he would vote for it.

Anonymous said...

A Special meeting at 5:00PM on a Friday???

And Ward criticized Stortz for special meetings?

Anonymous said...

If Minor votes "yes" (even thought it'll be a moot point), I'll vote for him in 2009. His GOP opponent in 2007 received almost every union endorsement known to man, so that candidate we must assume would vote "NO".

Vote Craig Minor (the common-sense conservative?)

Yarde-a-gan said...

Actually if Block, Minor and Rimcoski vote yes, the taxpayers might have a new deal here in Bristol

Anonymous said...

When was this posted?

Was it in the paper?

Why the secrecy????

Anonymous said...

"Actually if Block, Minor and Rimcoski vote yes, the taxpayers might have a new deal here in Bristol"

The taxpayers may need a "new deal" after we go into a depression here in Bristol.

No Cockayne, No Cockayne, NO!

Anonymous said...

The education requirements are incidental, at least at this time.

Just what are they voting on?

Will the Mayor still be full time, who will the department heads report to, what will happen to all the Boards and Commissions?

The devil is in the details, and so far I do not believe that they have been spelled out.

Anonymous said...

There will not be any vote tonight. All the council can do by statute tonight is suggest/request some tweakings to the Charter Revision Commission. The Charter Revision Commission has a couple weeks to respond with the "final" report. That "final" report can be the same as the "draft" report, or it can contain the council's suggested tweaks.

Cockayne addict said...

May 9, 2008 1:18 PM:

It's much more likely that we'll go bankrupt from over-spending and over-taxing due to out-of-control municipal unions than anything else.

DO Cockayne!!!!

Anonymous said...

"It's much more likely that we'll go bankrupt from over-spending and over-taxing due to out-of-control municipal unions than anything else."

What facts are you basing this statement on? Could you please clarify how the union is responsible for over-taxing? Exactly how much over-spending is the union doing?

Contrary to what the political hacks would like us to believe...the "evil union monster" is not to blame for all our woes. We've got real problems that need real solutions. Don't let the hacks blow sunshine up your butt. They haven't got a clue!

No Cocakayne - HELL NO!

Anonymous said...

Again, everything that the workers get was approved by ELECTED OFFICIALS.

Anonymous said...

"Could you please clarify...?"

First of all I wish the best for all people, working, non-working, union and non-union.

To answer your question; first of all the city budget is growing more than twice the rate of inflation. The city budget is paid for by taking money from people via taxes. This money could be spent (by individuals) on things that grows the economy instead.

Businesses also pay taxes. Labor negotiates wages, benefits and pensions from these businesses. The public employee unions get their wages, benefits and pensions from taxes. The cost of doing business in a certain area effects whether businesses develop in that area.

Let's look at Connecticut. New Departure is gone. Winchester is gone. Accurate Forging is gone. OZ Gedney is gone. Fafnir is gone. Veeder Root is gone. Superior Electric is mostly gone. Bristol Brass, Chase Brass, Timex, no longer exist. Stanley doesn't make anything here anymore. Pratt doesn't make anything here anymore. Kaman Aerospace doesn't make anything here anymore. The list goes on and on. Whether it's the cost of doing business, the cost of labor or foreign competition, these businesses are no longer in Connecticut. What have the unions do to cut those costs? The answer is nothing. All they have done is drive up the cost of labor and the cost of doing business in general.

That sir will bankrupt us.

Anonymous said...

May 9, 2008 4:44 PM:

Crudeness barely ever wins an argument, even at a union meeting.

Cockayne addict said...

Nancy Reagan would say yes to Ken Cockayne!!!

Anonymous said...

"Nancy Reagan would say yes to Ken Cockayne!!!"

I thought Ronald was the one suffering from dementia?

Anonymous said...

Its funny how all you union people are against Cockayne, are you afraid he is on to something...9:00, I totally agree with you, the union has done nothing to help Bristol, all it has done is cost the city more. The city can't survive much longer with a union. Its costing us too much.

Anonymous said...

I am not union, but I am still against Cockayne.

Cockayne Addict aka May 9, 2008 9:00 PM said...

May 9, 2008 11:06 PM:

There's no way we'll get rid of the unions, but perhaps it might be possible to "reel them in" or regulate their power more.

May 9, 2008 9:00 PM AKA...

(Go Cockayne, Go Cockayne, Go Cockayne GO!!)

Anonymous said...

Ken is making the snowballs for others to throw.

Where is he with solutions?

He is carried away with getting headlines: that is not helping get things done!

He has been doing that for some time, even before he ran for council.