A public employees union that represents cafeteria workers and others is leading the fight to block a controversial plan to create a chief operating officer to oversee City Hall.
Though “there’s always a threat there could be a loss of union jobs” if the new administrative post is created, “this is a taxpayer issue” first and foremost, said Chad Lockhart, president of Local 2267 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
A letter sent out by the union to “union brothers and sisters” in Bristol says it is “putting together a committee to fight against” the Nov. 4 charter change referendum that would add the chief operating officer to the city government’s structure.
“A chief operating officer,” the letter explains, “will not prove to be a friend to unions.”
“What is that implying?” asked Republican city Councilor Ken Cockayne. “That implies that the labor leadership has their hands in City Hall.”
Cockayne, who supports the referendum, said the letter shows the public “who’s behind the vote no organization” that has started putting up lawn signs against the proposal.
In the letter, the union says it is placing signs to express opposition to the idea on members’ lawns around town.
“We really need to show strong opposition for what would surely prove to be a costly mistake for the city of Bristol and also for our AFSCME members,” the letter said, adding that anyone who didn’t want a sign should call the union to let it know.
Lockhart said that as a small business owner in town and a night supervisor for a high school, he “can see this whole thing from different angles” and understands why some people might like a chief operating officer.
However, he said, even those who see a need for a type of city manager should recognize that the proposal on the ballot next month is seriously flawed.
Because the city would retain its full-time mayor, it would wind up with “two people to do the same job” at greater cost if the charter revision is approved, Lockhart said.
Since the city already has someone at its helm “who, in my opinion, is doing a great job” as mayor, there’s no need to add another position at even higher pay to duplicate what’s already in place, Lockhart said.
He said that one reason to prefer a mayor to a chief operating officer is that voters can throw out a mayor they don’t like every two years.
To get rid of a chief operating officer, Lockhart said, takes a two-thirds of the City Council” and leaves the public with no role.
“I like the people to have the vote,” he said.
Installing a chief operating officer to oversee the city’s departments, Lockhart said, would “take the power away from the people and give it to the government.”
Former Republican mayoral candidate Ken Johnson, who helped organize the Choose COO group pushing for passage of the plan, said the proposal “isn’t anti-union. It is pro-taxpayer.”
Johnson said that if the public supports the charter change, people “can be assured that they will have a professional in City Hall who will put the taxpayers first and not be beholden to special interests or political whim.”
Lockhart said the plan offered to the public isn’t going to protect taxpayers.
He said that it doesn’t make any sense to add a powerful new administrative position that Mayor Art Ward and the council oppose that would leave a full-time mayor in place “to be a baby kisser and a handshaker.”
But Cockayne said the opposition is motivated by self-interest alone.
The union leadership, he said, “is afraid of accountability at City Hall.”
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
68 comments:
Every motivation is driven by self-interest.
The primarily Republican-supported COO position is designed to go into city hall and "find the deadwood" and eliminate it.
The largely union anti-COO crowd fears the COO will come in and look to eliminate union positions through the recommendation of moving many positions to outside contract positions.
The reality is that the COO would probably do neither because he or she would assess the climate, find out who really holds the power over his/her job and then do what is necessary to avoid being eliminated.
The taxpayers would end up being the ones dissatisified since they now would be paying for another high adminstrative salary and no effective changes would be realized. (I'm sure the COO would be gathering some data to justify his/her position but it probably would be just as easy to argue that those savings were not attributed to the COO position).
"Cockayne said the opposition is motivated by self-interest alone."
....I'm not union but I oppose the COO and I guess you could say that I'm motivated by self-interest.... I'm interested in feeding my family and keeping a roof over our heads. In this failing economy, the very last thing we need is another hand in our pockets because KEN and his flunkies think a COO is a good way to get their foot in the door....Sorry guys, but NO THANKS!
cockayne, johnson and minor should spend time finding the merits of their proposal rather than trying to use the union theory as the reason to vote for their abomination -
johnson, cockayne and minor should sit down if they can't stand up and speak positive about the mess that they have created with this proposal.
"You like the people to have a vote"?!?!?
Unbelievable! You and your brothers didn't feel that way when you showed up in full force at the council meeting when it was voted down.
A Bi-partisan Charter Commission recommends it, but the council votes it down and says the people don't have a right to vote on it and you guys stand down unmotivated to safeguard the taxpayers' right to vote.
I guess you want the right to vote only when it comes to what is right for you and your organization.
This is organized labor at its finest folks. They don't want this b/c they can't buy the COO. He/she will make decisions based on what makes good business sense, not on if they will get re-elected in two years.
Let's say you own a business with over $175 million dollars in payroll and other expenses. Who woudl you like running it - a former bar owner with no college education or financial experience or a master's level person with a degree in Public Administration, with a minor in finance, and years of experience in city planning or management? This argument is not meant to be a slight at Art, b/c this same argument can be made regarding most if not all of our prior mayors regardless of party.
"They don't want this b/c they can't buy the COO."
Uh, hate to break it to you, but I think a lot of people don't WANT to "buy the COO"....we don't need it and we can't afford it.
3:46 - your argument might hold water if the mayor (and the mayor alone) was responsible for running the "business," but we have a system of checks and balances, a city council, legal consultants, accountants, department heads, etc., etc. People who live, work and have a vested interest in making sure our City succeeds. We have the right to vote in the leaders of our choice, or out the people who aren't meeting our expectations, and it's a system that works.
These union bosses are f___ing scary.
It's time for Right To Work Laws in Connecticut.
October 20, 2008 3:23 PM:
I agree. As much as I can't stand the unions, this COO doesn't sound like such a great idea.
I like an elected CEO of the city, no matter how dumb a guy the Democrats run (and they keep getting dumber and dumber, and/or kookie and kookier).
Steve, Did you ask Mr. Lockhart what exactly he meant by saying a COO is not a friend of the unions?
I guess the fact that this was pushed by a Republican Counselor - Cockayne and a Democrat Counselor - Minor, and a Republican private citizen - Johnson and a Democrat private citizen - Yarde means nothing. Spin it anyway you want, there are opponents and proponents from both sides of the aisle on this one. People in this town have been asking for change for years now, complaining about the same leadership for years, complaining about their lack of vision and experience, about their lack of education, etc. Here we have an opportunity to transition to a Council-Manager form of government and get professional educated leadership in City Hall who knows how to handle things and we are scoffing at it. This is sad.
Why is a COO not a friend of the unions?
Given the mess this country is in right now, I'm not fond of C_O anything.
The CEOs, CFOs, COOs and other "experts" that provided the oversight (wink, wink) to the unbridled greed and got paid unconscionable amounts of money($100s of millions)like they were gods.
No it wasn't the union workers who unleashed that massive raping of the taxpayers, it was "the professionals" and their special interest accomplices.
Yeah we need more of those C_O types to safeguard the little guy's money.
Thank God Bristol's got a AA3 bond rating run by regular people or we might have to be begging the Federal Government for some bailout money like the big C_O institutions.
On a local level, fighting special interests is exactly why we need the COO. Ward, McCauley, Nicastro - they all do not make any decisions without first considering how it will be interpretted by organized labor.
All of the checks and balances we have are great, but they are not held accountable and/or managed and supervised by the mayor. Prime example is how often Rosenthal screwed up in the past. It happened over and over again, and no one did anything. Nicastro nominated him and backed him up so he wouldn't look like he made a mistake, then Stortz left him as a lame duck b/c he knew he was a buffoon, but did not have the support to get rid of him or the paper trail, finally Ward has ducked the issue too, but with little choice. No one managed this idiot and held him accountable. Everyone said the union would back him up and he would sue the city if he was let go. Well if he was held accountable for all of his screw ups and was warned and a paper trail was maintained to show good reason for his termination then it would have happened already. He is just one example of a Department Head (or one of the checks and balances you refer to) needing to learn how to be accountable to the taxpayers. As for council members - none of them (Republican or Democrat) consistently make decisions to favor the taxpayers. They are too concerned with getting reelected. They pander all the time to special interest groups, particularly organized labor unions. Name one major vote on anything in the last 4 years that McCauley, Ward or Nicastro did not vote in a fashion that was supported by the unions. You can't do it. I understand why, b/c they are looking to get reelected. Maybe if a COO recommends things it takes them off the hook, but there in lies the problem - this is the real reason why the unions are against it and so are McCauley, Ward, Nicastro and Rimcoski (all endorsed by the unions.
Special interest like Yarde and Johnson ?
The Unions are a lot of the problem with the economy in this country. Yes, it's nice to have job security and a grossly above average salary...but at what cost? Companies and Towns can't afford to keep paying these people. They are becoming too powerful and their demands seem to get greater each passing year. I saw an ad the other day for a CL&P lineman. Sure it's an important and dangerous job. But is a Union Salary of $40 an hour (to start, no including OT and Storm pay) really necessary? No wonder my damn electric bill is so high and energy costs so much!! Someone needs to put a cap on the Unions. Ever wonder why cars cost so much? It's because of the Union workers. The COO is a great idea for Bristol to help control spending and make the Department accountable. You got my vote.
6:06 PM:
Everything you have pointed out is not something that can be solved by a COO. In fact, everything you have described is why this issue is so crazy in the first place. You have a complaint against a department head. A complaint against how our local government is run. And rather than work harder to run a mayoral or city council candidate that isn't an "empty shirt" we're faced with a choice about a political position that would undermine the basic idea of democracy. The idea that the people can hold accountable the elected officials that make decisions over them via the ballot box. An inherent, fundemental right.
But that is not something that I think you believe in. Because your complaint is that all these people that you've named are somehow illegitimate because they were supported by a union. Or because there is a union or two in this town that is politically active. Or because there was even the slightest mention of a union in relation to that person.
But guess what. The people that you named (Nicastro, Stortz, Ward, McCauley) are not illegitimate. They were elected fairly through an open and accountable process.
And the beauty of that process is that power can change hands from one party to another. From the incumbent to the opposition. Only in recent years have we seen a disturbing trend where when one party can't stay in power indefinetly or get what it wants through the system they decide to tear that system apart, or worse take the one stumbling block (in the case of the COO the voter himself/herself) out of the equation. And that's the problem.
Ken Johnson calls this position pro-taxpayer. That has often been used as a code word for anti-union. The same can be said for "special interest." Every supporter of this issue has brought little to no reasoning for the position on its merits but rather called it a chance to put department heads in line or check the "power of the union."
But I have just two questions:
1. Does anyone think this position would legitimately be able to do to Jonathan Rosenthal what it's supporters (and his opponents) are claiming the last three mayor's have not done?
2. Is anyone surprised that with all the anti-union rhetoric (and some of it very vile) that Chad Lockhart and AFSCME are opposed to this measure?
This has been billed as an anti-union position (no matter what Ken Johnson says). Of course the union would oppose it. At least Mr. Lockhart gave reasons relating to the merits of the position in addition to the anti union rhetoric for opposing it.
The only thing I've seen from supporters is that this position is better because the person would somehow have a master's degree (vagueness of the position not withstanding).
But when all is said and done this position isn't just anti-union. It's anti-voter!
This isn't a COO. This is a Coup. And should be just as quickly rejected by the people before they lose the ability to reject anything else.
Vote No COO!
Why do people think this is about putting "our" people or "their" people in power and excluding the voters from the equation. That is ridiculous. Who from the proponents of this position is even remotely qualified?
Calling it a coup implies that this is a backdoor way taking power away from the majority party. As it is written it is supposed to be a bipartisan person. With our council's history of being dominated by democrats, one can make the argument that if any party will have a chance to put their own man in power, it would be them.
Why, specifically is a COO not a friend of the unions?
This form of government has been around for a century. All of the arguments against it make it sound as if this is some hair brained scheme. Look up council-manager government and to become better informed.
Check www.icma.org
OMG!! AnonWestConn is arguing for smaller government?!?!? This COO thing must really be the wrong way to go, or ... maye it is completely right? ..... Now I am really confused. I'm usually on the opposite side of him, but I almost agree with him, but then again there really is no accountability with our leaders. Oh man, what do I do?
How about a debate on the topic b/t Yarde and Lockhart, or Minor and Rimcoski, or Johnson and Ward.
The supporters of the COO COO have yet to show just how this COO COO would do anything: the way they wrote it precludes progress from being made.
If they wanted to make progress, why didn't Minor support Stortz in his efforts to dispose of Rosenthal? All he needed to do was convince Zoppo or McCauley or Nicastro to join forces. Ward was a lost cause, was a stumbling block.
If they had done that, it would have been easier for Stortz and subsequent mayors to "get the department heads attention".
That aside, they have NOT shown any way of getting anything done that can't be done now, if the votes are there.
Ths COO COO cannot unilaterally fire, and no matter the paperwork, would still need the votes.
Get real guys and do your homework before you try to do something like this.
For all the old crazy people on these blogs that have voted for every Democrat that has served this city. Thank you for making MY city look like a piece of sh*T! Since I was able to vote other then 2 times there has been a Democrat mayor in city hall..Out of these 18 years and nothing has been done to this city!! Its disgusting that every one of you voters can be proud to live in Bristol! I can just image what your homes look like if you think Bristol looks fine! Are you people that blind. I am all for a COO - I don't even care how much it will cost the city, because for some reason the tax payers in bristol don't care about losing money anyways. You voted out the guy that bought the mall, and elected one of the guys that voted for the mall. So why does money matter to you tax payers all of a sudden? Add up all the money that was lost already form the mall purchase and it wont even add up to what a COO will cost you in 50 years! Give it a rest people and embrace change and stop with the old ways! because all your voters are doing is making Bristol into a town that nobody will ever want to move into!
What other community(s) have a COO?
Would appreciate an answer.
They want you to vote for the COO without giving you any information about the details.
They expect us all to vote blind instead of telling us what we need to know to make an educated decision.
It's as if they know that if they answer our questions, we will certainly NOT support it.
8:38pm - I can really understand if you were left on a door step and abandoned as an infant - parents must have had foresight - fact is the your parent's mindset has been proven correct - get lost.
Please tell me just what party Minor belongs to. He seems to be a back stabber.
in this case - the MINOR PARTY - all about craig and how much smarter that he is compared to the rest of us "OTHER PEOPLE."
I believe this COO question is going to hurt the GOP ticket. All it's going to do this year is mobilize the union machine. The COO may be a decent idea, but screw balls on the GOP are too self-absorbed and stupid (or both depending on which one you're referring to) to see their own bad strategy.
"...adding that anyone who didn’t want a sign should call the union to let it know."
Are they serious? Is this legal? Where are they getting the money to put up signs without permission from the property owner - which will likely get thrown out. Wouldn't it make more sense to tell people who to call if they WANT a sign? Union dues at work or mafia?
8:38 What you say would be true if it were all republicans. And when are you adolescents going to learn that you don't own this city and it is not yours. I guess never !!!
A COO IS NOT a Town Manager.
And there is difference!
If the Union is against it, it must be the right thing to do.
Less union means more individual rights, they are a scam for the left wing politicos
10:57 - well thought out assessment, even though minor and his gop pied pipers wouldn't agree.
Poster 7:59...AKA Stortz!
Stortz, your in a dream world! All you talked about was this huge file you had on Rosenthal when in fact you had nothing. You where a do nothing Mayor. Now from the sidelines you have all the answers. GO AWAY! We are all sick of you thinking you where some great Mayor!
Rummor is your running for Mayor next year. We all hope you do because you will be humiliated as too how very few votes you get. Who will get more votes Blaske or Stortz...my money is on Blaske
Just think if the Unions were as nasty as the Union hatemongers on here. I guess the unions have more class than them.
I don't know about that. I have heard and seen plenty that does not make me think of the word class when describing the unions. But I digress, there are idiots and fools on both sides to this issue.
9:37 poster,
Thats a good one....I almost peed in my pants!!
The Bristol GOP has a death wish.
cockayne sure seemed confused in the Hartford Courant today. sounded like he might be rethinking his position and leaning toward the union.
Always thought that minor was the wishy-washy one
oh well, if minor also switches before election day, at least it will be a bipartisan switch.
"but we have a system of checks and balances, a city council, legal consultants, accountants, department heads, etc., etc."
True, we have a system that can PREVENT a mayor from doing something rash. The problem is the electoral process gives us the most popular guy, not the most competent guy. We need a COO who knows what to INITIATE.
Case in point: Mayor Ward is relying on the Department Heads to suggest places to save, because he doesn't know where they are himself. I give him all credit for doing this, but a COO would KNOW where those savings are.
....but who would know better where the cuts should be made than the department heads themselves? It doesn't mean that the mayor doesn't know where they are, it just means that he respects the department heads and is listening to their input. I think that shows real leadership. I don't see how a COO could do the job any better.
8:38pm - I can really understand if you were left on a door step and abandoned as an infant - parents must have had foresight - fact is the your parent's mindset has been proven correct - get lost.
October 20, 2008 10:14 PM
________________________________
Thats the best you can come with. You know the poster at 8:38pm is right. The COO will not cost the city a dime in the long run. Plus if the city did one public works job themselves and did not hire Laviero or Tobacco that cost would pay for the COO. For everyone that keeps saying you do not have a say in hiring the COO - your wrong. The council and mayor you hire are the ones that will hire the COO. So for all the Democrats that are out there saying that you don't have a say - again you are wrong. The tax payer will always have the final say!
Our private contractors in town do fine work. Maybe we should contract out more of our services to them and reduce our city workforce - by attrition of course - ok w. you Mr. Gamache?
4:31
You won't even know who is being interviewed.
If they make a bad choice, who will go, the COO or the elected officials?
Over the past 10-12 years, how many incumbents have been defeated in an election (not a primary)?
We complain but continue to reelect.
In 2005, after the Mall purchase who was defeated other than Couture? in 2007, no incumbent was defeated.
So will you throw the elected officials after they release the COO, or before?
"The Bristol GOP has a death wish.
October 21, 2008 11:29 AM"
--Forget the COO issue. I think there should be an FBI investigation as to who made this comment and/or threat. Where's the outrage? Where's Collins the hypocrite on this one?
The City of Meriden has a COO style government. Now thats something to look up to. I'm pro-union, but I still don't want this COO position. If you can't get elected by the people, don't just make up a job position so you can try again.
The COO will be an elected official in a small sort of way! You elect your councilman/women and mayor..right? Well those same people will be hiring your COO...So I am confused on how you do not have a say in the matter? If the COO they hire is wrong for the city..you would no re-elect the people that hired the COO and make sure the next folks that are running do not renew the COO contract..Again the Tax payer will always have the final say! Get over it you union folks! The smart young people of Bristol that well be coming out to vote this year will be making sure a COO is in office! Out with old and I use that word "old" loosely and in with the "new"! Its going to be a great new day in Bristol on Nov 5th!
The COO being chosen by the same people who we elected is definitely NOT the same thing as the voters having a direct say in the hiring or firing of the COO, and that's just one of the multitude of problems involved in this muddled, sloppy, and very expensive proposition.
I think the majority of Bristol voters are savy enough to realize that the COO is a total and complete waste of our tax dollars at a time when we should be looking for ways to save. Vote no COO!
I don't think it is a waste. The status quo in this town will no longer due. Just like one of the previous posters wrote. If you can genuinely say you are happy with Bristol and the direction our leaders have taken us in over the years then by all means vote no. However, if you are like many of us who have had it with our leadership of both parties and you're sick of partisan politics, and guys like Stortz drumming up fear in the seniors and Ward pandering to the unions, and Nicastro keeping taxes down - yeah!, but at the cost of future taxpayers, or Couture - attacking the mall property - yeah!, but without support of the town - boo! then vote yes. Consistency, accountability, transparency - long term vision and leadership.
The COO being chosen by the same people who we elected is definitely NOT the same thing as the voters having a direct say in the hiring or firing of the COO, and that's just one of the multitude of problems involved in this muddled, sloppy, and very expensive proposition.
-----------------------------------------
Is the above statement what Bristol has really come to? Is this the reason the city looks like it does today? Saying the voters will not have a direct say in the hiring of the COO is absurd! The Union folks love to scare people into thinking that your taxes will always go up when the other guy comes up with an idea! The hiring of the COO is only going to bring great things to this city that is needed badly!
The most transparent thing about the COO is the motivation of its proponents. Sorry that your candidates can't get themselves elected, but please don't underestimate the intelligence of the City tax payers. No matter how hard you keep trying to sell it to us, we're smart enough know that your ill-defined COO would be a costly mistake that Bristol can't afford to make.
If your COO is such a great concept, why don't we HIRE the president? I mean, running the business of the United States is a HUGE undertaking. Why do you think we continue to VOTE for the president, instead of just hiring the person best suited for the job?
Vote no COO.
Union people will be very surprised come Nov 5th! I cant wait!
The ken johnsons, cockaynes and minors, none of whom have ever deserved union support because they only care about their self-perceived airs of superiority over us common-folk, want you to believe that everyone who is against this COO proposal belongs to a union.
Fact of the matter is that they will realize on election day that the "NO" votes will far exceeed the numbers of electors who are union members - it will include all of us taxpayers, UNION AND NON-UNION who have common sense and the vision to see through this farce and the inflicted abuse of us taxpayers by these users.
Here is an example of an idea, or some variation thereof, worth considering but the plans for implementaion are woefully lacking.
This doesn't speak well for the proponents, especially after the concerns were brought forth and they ignored them, did not even try to provide answers.
Is it just an ego trip, stupidity, of vindictiveness?
Name one thing that the proposed COO could do that the current system couldn't do!
Bristol should be what the people want. Is this COO going to implement his/her ideas just because they are a "professional?
Tell the mayor, tell your councilman what you want and then they can implement relative to Bristol.
11:43 - Bet you're the same dweeb who was chirping about how Ken Johnson would beat Art Ward for mayor in the last election. You were wrong then and hopefully you'll be wrong again. We don't need, we can't afford, and we don't WANT a COO. I can't wait for November 5th....
wonder if minor would have been as supportive of this coo idea if queen ellen didn't get beat - might have depended on if minor considered the queen to be as smart as him - cause we know that minor feels that no one is smartER than him.
minor is sooooo transparent.
can't wait until next november to vote his butt out of office.
Vote NO on the COO.
maybe next time the charter commission could change it so that we could all vote for all (6) city council positions; then we could vote for all of the council positions and give us the choice of getting rid of people like minor, cockayne and a few others at the same time.
Bad idea. We need councilmen who are accountable to and can focus on the needs of their home district, while still participating in decisions that affect the whole city.
The charter committee looked into expanding the council to include a few at large seats, but they gave up on it because it would have upset the balance of power between the council and the board of finance.
The Charter Revision Commission gave up when they ducked the Town Manager question and decided to use the COO as their life raft, sinking the whole community instead of keeping it afloat.
Adding two council seats would have made it 8-8 with the mayor as the swing vote.
Would have made it interesting and given the mayor more power.
unless you had 8 of nicastro, mccauley, block and minor - then nothing would change, nothing would get done anyhow.
Are there 8 of them around??
Hope not!
Post a Comment