Democrats fire back on referendum issue

Democratic city Councilors Ellen Zoppo-Sassu, Calvin Brown and Mary Fortier issued this statement late Tuesday:

Democratic Response to the Republican Town Committee’s recent “Let the Public Decide” press release

  

Petty politics and overly dramatic phrases will do little to further this debate on downtown’s future. Our comments concerning the referendum were based in two facts: the City of Bristol has never governed by referendum and to date, we are not convinced that a non-binding referendum on a non-ordinance related item is proper.

The primary question is is it appropriate for the City of Bristol to invest public money to kick-start the initial phase of a private investment?

  

Following dozens of meetings and forums, and accumulating voluminous input since this downtown development project was first proposed almost 10 years ago, we have reached the point where hard decisions need to be made.

So the secondary question is, “should the question be put to referendum or should we rely on the experience and knowledge of our elected officials?”

These are two complex questions that invite thoughtful public policy debate. But not questions that require, or will be resolved, by the petty political bickering offered by the Republican Town Chairman Derek Cenzelewski..

  

It is our opinion that a call for a non-binding referendum is yet another move by the local Republicans to not make a decision. Mr. Cenzelzewski’s effort to twist our words showcases political opportunism at its worst.

There has been a glaringly obvious lack of reports from Republican Council members concerning items of importance at monthly City Council meetings and in fact, when Democrats give reports, they are accused of “grandstanding” or “talking too much.”

Councilman Martin serves as liaison to the Field Study Committee, the Board of Education, the Downtown Development Corporation and the city’s Marketing Task Force – 4 committees that have major budget and policy impact yet until last month, he has stayed silent during Committee reports. Ironically,

Councilman Martin has also neither fulfilled his role of communicating back to the Council on downtown issues nor has he endorsed the idea of a public referendum, yet Mr. Czezelewski ignores these facts. Again, a clear indication of his motivation: petty political bickering.

To recap some of Mr. Czenzelewski’s  outlandish allegations, here is what we believe:

•    We know our role is to listen to our constituents and make ourselves available to them in a variety of ways including at public events, via social media, email, and open office hours. In fact, the Democratic council members are the only ones to have held office hours to hear from our constituents, this past year.

•    Councilwoman Fortier does have an opinion. She is also a lawyer by profession and deals in facts. As the minority party, we are not included on the current talks with the Renaissance discussions. Some of these concerns were addressed by the mayor in executive session last week when the mayor realized we had not received certain information and promised the Council it would be circulated shortly.

•    The city did not hold meetings in the “middle of the night” in 2005; nor do they do so now. That’s just a lie. But here’s a fact, many city meetings are held to accommodate key members of the Republican administration with disregard to the Democratic members’ schedules or the public, which typically can’t make meetings that are held when most people are still working.

•    There was a large amount of public input and open meetings in 2005 concerning the fate of the 17 acre parcel. Ideas considered and discarded based on public reaction at that time included using the site for a field house and new Boys and Girls Club, a school to replace the O’Connell neighborhood school. Ironically, after 8 years with little to no progress, 2 of those years in which Mr. Czezelewski served on the City Council, there are many people who now look back on those proposals and wish that those ideas had come to fruition.

Democracy doesn’t stop at the ballot box. It requires constant conversation. Creating and recreating the image of what we as a community want our city to be is a work in progress. Bristol residents have contributed to the discussion on the future of downtown for years. That conversation is not over nor is it right for us, as city councilors now, to abdicate our responsibility. To do so would ignore what the voters sent us as their elected Councilors, to do.

Submitted By:

Calvin Brown, District 1

Mary Fortier, District 3

Ellen Zoppo-Sassu, District 3

In addition, Fortier sent this along:

I want to take this opportunity to clarify my recent comments about a possible referendum on Depot Square.  Steve Collins correctly quoted me saying that I am not privy to anything and I don’t know whether there should be a referendum.  First, neither the Charter of the City of Bristol nor its ordinances has any provision for a referendum on a spending or bonding issue.  And certainly not on matters of economic development. Unlike many New England towns and cities, we do not use the town meeting or referendum for the yearly general budget or bonding issues, instead we have a Finance Board and City Council.  And, the Finance Board has more members as a check to the City Council on financial matters.  I didn’t create our system of government but I am part of it and I work within that system. 

            The BDDC, Bristol Downtown Development Corporation, was created as a special quasi-public entity to oversee the development of the 17-acre parcel we call Depot Square.  They have a “preferred developer agreement”, or contract, with Renaissance Downtowns which sets out the steps for developing the property. To date, the only thing the BDDC has asked the Council to do was grant an extension for a revised financial plan to be submitted. That extension was granted unanimously in May. I didn’t create the process but I respect the process. The BDDC was added to give extra attention, consideration, and expertise to this important issue.

 I have attended several BDDC meetings and public comment sessions since I was elected. I was not at the last BDDC meeting where the “referendum idea got floated”.  The notice of that meeting was not on the city’s website and no email notification that it was happening was sent. As a result I am not privy to the context with which the idea of a referendum was raised.  No explanation has been provided as to what the basis or authority for a referendum question, much less what the actual question would be. Yet it’s been said that a referendum would be appropriate because the city was being asked for financial support to the project.    

   Since the Council granted the extension, the mayor and Republican controlled city council have not kept us informed on further discussions. Outside counsel hired by the Mayor and City Council have not been given formal opportunities to have conversations with myself and my fellow Democrats.  My fellow Council member Calvin Brown sent an email on June 25 asking for an update on those discussions and he still hasn’t received a reply to the email. I still have lots of questions.  There is no finalized proposal so I don’t think a referendum now would even be appropriate.  And, why have a non-binding referendum?  What is the point of that?   

 I support the overall plan for Depot Square: multiple buildings with mixed use residential units, retail offices, restaurants, and of course a piazza.  I came into office being presented this plan and want to do all I can to make it work.  I want a vibrant exciting downtown, but more importantly I want a strong stable tax base. The more value built on Depot Square the more taxes the city will collect leaving less tax increases for city residents.  The value of Bristol, our community, as a whole will increase.

I share a frustration that the April proposal by Renaissance Downtowns contains a request for bonding or public money from the city. It makes what is already a complicated project more complicated.  It makes decisions by the BDDC and the Council harder. But it is, according to the current process a question for the BDDC and Council. 

The city spends many millions of dollars each year and with that try to plan and build for our future.  We have spent millions on new schools, we are planning a multimillion dollar new firehouse, before the year is out we will probably authorize spending more than a million on our first synthetic athletic field, and in the near future we will be spending millions upgrading our police communications system. Hopes that development of Depot Square would be funded by private dollars is dictated by the realities we as city leaders face daily. That doesn’t exclude considering a portion be funded with public dollars.  Or that the Mayor and City Council ignore their role as representatives of the public interest.

My constituents ask me when something is going to happen in Depot Square.  When I ran for office I told voters I hoped for something sooner rather than later.  Many voters are not familiar with all components of the process or even what has been proposed, but want to see activity downtown again. My preferences for the priorities of the city whether Depot Square or a new turf or a new firehouse or a new field are just my opinions, they are all part of a bigger process. 

Copyright 2014 All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

GOP says: 'Let the public decide' on Depot Square

Press release from the Republican Town Committee:

Let the public decide this time

Bristol, CT – July 13, 2014 – Although a formal proposal to do so has yet to be made, the idea of allowing the public to weigh in on the potential public financing of Depot Square by way of a non-binding referendum placed on this November’s electoral ballot has been floated. Public support of such a referendum can be heard around Bristol, from the barbershop to the post office, City Hall to the gas station, and everywhere in between.

However, not everyone is on-board with allowing the public to have a say. This past week Councilors Zoppo and Brown came out in opposition of such a measure. Councilor Brown equated asking for the public’s opinion to “throwing his hands up” and “not doing his job.” Representing the public’s desires for Bristol is your job, Councilor, and the best way to get the public’s opinion is through a referendum.

Councilor Fortier, meanwhile, did not offer a position on this issue, saying, “I don’t know. I’m not privy to anything.” Has Councilor Fortier not been a part of these meetings? Has she not met with the developer or others? Does she simply not have an opinion, or does she not want to make her opinion known? Perhaps she has just been spending too much of her time grandstanding on issues she has no authoritative power over, rather than focusing on matters she does.  

The last time a major financial decision was made by the City on “Depot Square” back in 2005, it resulted in several million taxpayer dollars being spent on the mall. The decision was made in the middle of the night, with no public input. That administration decided they knew better than the public, and the result can still be seen today: a 17 acre parcel of emptiness in the center of our community, with millions in lost tax revenue and an I.O.U to the City’s “Rainy Day” fund.

Coincidentally, Councilor Zoppo - who opposes a public referendum on this issue - was a member of the City Council that made the initial decision to buy the mall with no public input in 2005. If the public is going to be asked to contribute additional money to this project, the Council needs to do the right thing and ask the public for its support. It is up to Renaissance Downtowns to sell this project to the public, as they have been working to do over the last few years.

At the end of the day, the City Council will have the final say – referendum or not – and will have the opportunity to lead. Why not at least get the public’s input before making that decision?

Copyright 2014 All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Bristol voters may get the final say on Depot Square

There’s a growing chance that city voters will get to weigh in on the proposed Depot Square project.

Bristol Downtown Development Corp. officials said Tuesday municipal leaders are eyeing the prospect of a Nov. 4 referendum to determine whether residents are willing to use government money to help fund construction of the first piece of the proposed $280 million project to transform the city center. See full story.
For those interested in seeing the state statute governing binding referenda, here is the link.

Copyright 2014 All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Citywide recount needed for two proposed charter changes

The city will do a recount of votes on two routine ballot questions that were exceptionally close, said Democratic Registrar Bob Badal.

Badal said state law mandates a recount of questions three and four that would, if passed, change the city charter.

Question three, which appears to have passed, would extend the term of the registrar of voters from two years to four years.

Question four, which appears to have fallen short, would create a four-year term for the assistant city clerk and make technical changes to provisions covering the clerk's office.

The state mandates the recount because the vote was so close.

"It's within the guidelines of one half of one percent," said Badal.

The preliminary results showed that question three passed by a 10,678 to 10,070 margin.

On question four, 10,226 voted yes and 10,641 voted no, according to preliminary results.

The two proposals headed for a recount generated no controversy at all during an extensive charter revision process that began last year at City Hall. The Charter Revision Commission unanimously endorsed both changes and city councilors backed them without dissent months ago.

Officials expected both measures to pass overwhelmingly and several expressed surprise when the votes turned out to be so close.

Typically, the city's voters approve by wide margins charter revisions that carry the council's backing.

The recount will be overseen by Mayra Sampson, who was the chief moderator of this year's election, said Badal.

Sampson said there will likely be four ballot counters, two Republican and two Democrat, at the recount.

Badal said he and Republican Registrar Ellie Klapatch will assist Sampson with the recount.

"We will be there," he said.

The recount will start Wednesday, Nov. 12 at 10 a.m., according to Badal.

About 27,000 votes were cast in the city in the Nov. 4 election, he said.

"It will be by scanners," said Badal. "It's citywide."

But he said the recount will be limited to those two questions and not any other part of the ballot.

Sampson said any ballots that had some kind of flaw – if someone tried to vote for the same candidate on two party lines, such as the Democrats and the Working Families – would have to be recounted by hand.

She said she didn't know how many would have to be counted by hand.

Sampson said both questions were decided by fewer than 100 votes each.

"They're close, but I don't think there's enough to change the outcome," said Sampson.

*******

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Chief operating officer plan gunned down

Voters gunned down a proposal to create a chief operating officer by a wide margin at the polls Tuesday.
The plan to have a city manager-lite oversee municipal departments garnered support from 40 percent of voters, according to official results.
“I’m surprised it went down so big,” said state Sen. Tom Colapietro, a Bristol Democrat who opposed the charter revision plan but thought it had wider support in the community.
City Councilor Ken Cockayne said that the goal of supporters was to give voters a choice.
“They had their say,” he said, “and now we have to move forward.”
“Perhaps this wasn’t the right answer,” said another backer, former GOP mayoral candidate Ken Johnson.
He said, though, that “people are still looking for change” at City Hall.
Johnson said he believes that Mayor Art Ward’s strong opposition to the proposed charter revision “swung it quite substantially” toward the mayor’s stance.
“I was disappointed to see him take a stand,” Johnson said, because a Democratic mayor in a Democratic town holds some clout.
“I’m humbled that he thinks so,” Ward responded later. “I thank him for giving me credit for that much foresight for the city.”
Ward said that with hard times at hand, people weren’t about to back a plan to create a costly new position in city government.
The voters, he said, “recognize what’s fiscally responsible for the city with these tough economic times.”
The final tally was 13,148 opposed and 8,828 in favor, a 60-40 split.
Those who backed the measure had to launch a petition drive this summer to get it on the ballot over the opposition of the City Council. They argued that the position was crucial to bring more efficiency, oversight and continuity to the city bureaucracy.
But critics said that spending about $250,000 a year for an unproven change didn’t make sense in the middle of a recession.
Johnson said that the challenge of pushing the idea through clearly was harder than he anticipated.
“It was more daunting than I had imagined because of the coattails from the top of the national ticket,” Johnson said, which brought more Democrats to the polls.
He said that pro-COO officials are grateful to the thousands who signed the petitions to get the proposal on the ballot and to the many people who stood at the polls all day to tout the concept to voters.
With the defeat of the COO plan, it is possible that Ward will pursue an alternative to add a part-time aide to the mayor’s staff, something that former Mayor Gerard Couture tried but was dropped when William Stortz took office.
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

AFL-CIO urges Bristol to vote no on COO and state constitutional convention

Press release from Council 4 of the AFL-CIO:

Council 4 Union Urging Bristol Members to Vote “No” on COO and Constitutional Convention Questions

 

            New Britain, CT – Council 4, Connecticut’s largest AFL-CIO union, is recommending that its members who live in Bristol vote “No” on two ballot questions:

·       Create a Chief Operating Officer position (Question 5).

·       Hold a convention to amend or revise the state constitution (Question 1).

            According to Kevin Murphy, Council 4’s Director of Collective Bargaining and Organizing, “We represent more than 800 members who live and pay taxes in Bristol. Our members understand that you don’t throw good money after bad. Funding a well-paid bureaucrat with no accountability would only squander precious tax dollars better spent on education, economic development and public services.”

            Council 4 also opposes the constitutional convention ballot initiative that has been championed by anti-union extremists.

            “Supporters of this ballot question want to open up our constitution to undermine workers worker protections and force their extremist agenda on the citizens,” said Council 4 spokesman Larry Dorman. “A constitutional convention would be wasteful. How can you justify spending $13 million on a convention when there’s budget deficit approaching $300 million?”

            Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, represents 35,000 workers in state and local government and the private sector. To learn more, go to www.council4.org.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

City labor leader blasts COO backers

The president of the Greater Bristol Labor Council said he “quite ticked off” at the signs erected by supporters of the chief operating officer proposal that portray the referendum as a showdown between unions and taxpayers.

Mike Petosa said that the signs “really show the ignorance” of the charter change backers “about what we are and who we are. We are taxpayers also.”

Petosa said the proposal to create an administrative chief at City Hall is “so full of holes that it’s not funny,” including any provision for paying the expected $250,000 tab to hire an experienced professional to do the job.

“If they  think they’re helping the city, they’re not,” Petosa said.

He said that Bristol “is in a lot better shape than a lot of other cities” because its leadership has done a good job over the years of protecting its financial standing and balancing the service needs of residents with their ability to pay.

Petosa said there is “a core group” pushing the chief operating officer that includes businessman Craig Yarde, former Republican mayoral contender Ken Johnson and city Councilors Craig Minor and Ken Cockayne.

“These people have their own agenda,” Petosa said.

There’s something they wanted that they couldn’t have” so they claim there’s no accountability at City Hall, he said.

Petosa said he’s upset they decided to make an issue out of the unions, which have traditionally had good relations with mayors and city councilors in Bristol.

“It shows their lack of professionalism,” Petosa said.

He said that Cockayne in particular has been going after municipal unions since day one.

“If he wants to cause labor unrest in Bristol, he may just get it,” Petosa said.

He said that Yarde may be a good businessman, but he doesn’t know anything about how city government operates.

Besides, Petosa said, Yarde demonstrated his commitment to Bristol a decade ago when “he moved his company and 400 jobs out of town” to Southington.

Petosa said he trusts that voters will see through the weak arguments raised by COO supporters and will opt to keep the existing governmental structure in place.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Overview of the chief operating officer issue

Whether the city needs a chief operating officer or not comes down, in the end, to something akin to faith.

Those who support the measure on Tuesday’s ballot say that putting an experienced professional in charge of city administration will lead to savings that far exceed the position’s likely cost.

Those who opposed the charter change say that adding a post that’s likely to cost taxpayers about $250,000 a year – for salary, benefits and sundry – doesn’t make sense in the middle of a recession unless there is hard proof that it will produce savings.

Since only time can answer the doubts with proof that one side or the other is correct, it is virtually impossible to prove that adding a kind of city manager-lite to the structure of city government would have much impact. But voters still have to make a choice on the controversial plan Tuesday.

The Choose COO organization pushing the idea – headed by businessman Craig Yarde and former Republican mayoral contender Ken Johnson – said Friday that Bristol’s “present system is laden with cronyism and lacking accountability” and called on taxpayers to “get the professional leadership we need” by voting in favor of the proposal.

But Mayor Art Ward, a critic, called the move a “last minute push by a small group of political proponents who want you to believe that all of the ills of our community will be resolved by the presence of yet another level of government, a COO.”

Though the plan got the unanimous backing of the bipartisan Charter Revision Commission, the Republican Town Committee and the Greater Bristol Chamber of Commerce, city councilors gunned down the proposal in June on a 5-2 vote.

The losing side opted to fight on, gathering more than 3,600 signatures from registered voters in order to give the public the last word on whether to make the change or not. That’s why it is on the ballot Tuesday as Question #5.

“It looks like a classic fight,” Yarde said. “The taxpayers who are looking for more efficiency  and cost containment in our city government and the union looking not to change the status quo.”

The Choose COO group has put up large signs in town describing the vote as one between taxpayers and unions, which critics say is unfair given that most city workers live in town and are both union members and taxpayers.

Still, a letter sent out to members by Local 2267 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees warned them that a chief operating officer “will not prove to be a friend of the unions.”

Officials who oppose the charter change say that the city runs pretty well now and there’s no need to add a vague new position that might muck things up.

 City Councilor Mike Rimcoski, a Republican, called the proposed chief operating officer “another layer of bureaucracy” that would cost taxpayers too much.
City Councilor Frank Nicastro, a former Democratic mayor,  said that the strong mayor form of government in Bristol has served the city well for nearly a century and there’s no reason to revise it. He said that arguments that department heads are out of controland need supervision  is “garbage.”

Critics argue that Bristol has managed to create a healthy rainy day fund, fully fund its pension trusts and provide a solid school system without socking taxpayers over the years. They say there’s nothing a COO add.

But city Councilor Ken Cockayne, a freshman Republican who favors the change, said, “People seem to be living in the past. We have to be looking to the future.”

Democratic city Councilor Craig Minor, who favors the position, said that asking how much the new slot will cost is fair.

“I personally think that in the long run the COO will save us a lot more than he costs, but a better way to look at it is to think back to when desktop computers were just starting to become common in the workplace. Everyone wanted to know how much money would they save,” he said. “Well, as it turned out, they probably didn’t save a penny.”

“But they made it possible for us to provide much better service to our customers, and to do many things we never thought possible. They make us more productive. That’s what the COO provides,” Minor said.

Yarde said a COO “will help in the continuity needed to maintain a long term vision for this community,” which he said is needed because mayor and councilors can change every two years.

Yarde said that he’s also convinced the position will bring savings for taxpayers.

 “Believe me, there are millions of dollars of low hanging fruit that a COO can pick without sacrificing service or jobs,” Yarde said.

“We’re not the little town of Bristol anymore. It’s time for professional oversight,” Johnson said.

There are other questions on the ballot as well, including a controversial state referendum about whether to hold a constitutional convention to consider rewriting Connecticut government’s blueprint.

There are also four non-controversial charter issues in Bristol that haven’t received any opposition, including a move to extend the registrars’ terms to four years.

The polls are open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.

What would a COO do?

The COO would supervise and evaluate the city’s 21 department heads, make recommendations to the mayor and the City Council, and ‘provide leadership and direction’ to city government on a range of issues, including the budget, technology initiatives and customer service.

Who hires the COO?

A hiring committee consisting of the mayor, one city councilor, the Board of Finance chairman and two citizens, one from each party, would pick the COO.

What qualifications would a COO have?

To apply, a COO prospect would need at least a bachelor’s degree in public administration or a related field and have at least four years of experience as a city manager or its equivalent.

At least four city councilors said the standards ought to be higher.

How would a COO lose his job?

At any time, a vote by two-thirds of the City Council would end a COO’s term, which means that five of the seven council votes would be needed to fire someone in the job.

*******

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Some thoughts on the chief operating officer

One of the problems with this issue is that it's so big, complicated and messy that explaining it is almost impossible.
Of course, I'll try to do it justice in a news story soon -- very soon!
But I also created a web page that has the text of the proposed changes to the city charter with links to some of the provisions that raise questions, some of which might have answers that I don't know.
I'll keep adding my thoughts and questions (including questions that others have raised) until Tuesday. Feel free to comment on it just as you do here.
Here's the link. I'll try to pretty it up, too, so that the links on the tex are easier to notice.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Yarde says yes to COO

Businessman Craig Yarde sent this along:

It looks like a classic fight. The taxpayers who are looking for more efficiency  and cost containment in our city government and the union looking not to change the status quo. The unions biggest argument is the cost of hiring another couple of positions (COO and assistant) working underneath the mayor to perform the duties that aren't currently being managed. I will personally state my reputation ( for what that is worth), that this new COO position will pay for itself in spades. I don't want to list the areas where we can achieve cost savings,  so as not to offend anyone that works for the city. I personally believe they are all acting in the best interest of the city and we have some fine ladies and gentleman trying everyday to contribute. This community will be facing the most terrible conditions in our history in the next five years.  We need someone with the expertise of a Chief Operating Officer to help guide us to the future.

Hiring a few more assistants under the mayor will not provide the management experience necessary to promote efficiency and promote change.

Don't be penny wise and dollar foolish. Sometimes you have to spend a little bit more to get the results that are necessary.  I sincerely hope the citizens of Bristol believe as I do. If I can demonstrate the cost savings, would they support the COO position.

What else are they concerned with if the cost is not a problem. The mayor is still the boss and the COO would never undermine his leadership but we desperately need to manage our business. The COO managing twenty one direct reports is not a easy task but it's better than no management at all.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Mayor says no to COO

From Mayor Art Ward:

VOTE NO to COO - VOTE NO to Increased Taxes - VOTE NO to Less Representation - VOTE NO to More Government.

These are the elements that every voter should be considering when they enter the voting booth on Tuesday, November 4, 2008.

Every voter should be concerned with this last minute push by a small group of political proponents who want you to believe that all of the ills of our community will be resolved by the presence of yet another level of government, a COO.

What this misinformed group fails to tell the voters is that the cost of this COO position alone, will impose an additional cost to you and me, as taxpayers, of over $250,000 to $300,000 a year.

In answer to the concern of this group on how to address the need for additional personnel to carry out the functions charged to the Mayor's office, my proposal to the Charter Revision Commission was for the creation of a mayoral assistant position, as exists in most other communities of our size, which would handle delegated duties. 

This non-benefit, part-time position would act in a manner similar to that of an Assistant Corporation Counsel at a salary of approximately $28,000 a year.

This would afford the Mayor the opportunity to more appropriately focus attention on the areas of concern referenced by these other proponents and also allow the time for a more directed, objective, responsible and less expensive method of evaluating the actual future needs of the mayoral position.

As your mayor, I can assure you that the financial well-being of this city will continue to be appropriately addressed through the joint cooperation of the elected officials and the members of the Board of Finance. 

This system of government, like everything else in life, should always be subject to constant review, tweaking and improvement but always keeping in mind that we need to assure the people that our intentions are not politically motivated but are solely for the purposes of keeping the taxpayer's benefits first and foremost and vigilantly being fiscally responsible..  .

VOTE NO to COO.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

The argument for a chief operating officer

Those pushing for a chief operating officer in Bristol have put together this:

SAVE TAXPAYER $$ VOTE YES FOR THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER ON NOVEMBER 4TH

Dear fellow Citizen:

The responsibilities of the mayor are too broad and too demanding for one person and leave little time for appropriate strategic planning and promotion of the City. For this reason and others, the bi-partisan Charter Revision Committee recommended that Bristol adopt the management position of a Chief Operating Officer (COO).

“What exactly is this COO position?”

Allow us to spell out clearly: 1) the role of the COO and, 2) how the position would be implemented in Bristol. We encourage you to familiarize yourself with this information, share it with your friends and encourage them to vote YES to question #5 on the ballot on Nov. 4th.

What is the role of the COO?

This trained professional will coordinate and supervise the appointed officers of the City (department heads), relieving the Mayor of these responsibilities, and assure that these officers administer City resources effectively and efficiently. The COO will:

• Supervise and evaluate direct reports.

• Communicate with the mayor and council about the affairs of the city and make recommendations relating to the interest of the city.

• Provide strategic planning and coordination among city departments to implement the budget and policies and procedures of the city.

• Provide leadership and direction to all officers and employees of the city to develop and implement city budgets, customer service and personnel initiatives, technology initiatives, grant activity, and other matters.

• Develop and administer programs to address citizen inquiries and complaints.

• Aid in recruiting and developing qualified candidates for appointment to city boards, commissions and other appointed offices.

• Attend all city council, board of finance, and other meetings as required.

How do we hire a COO and what are the qualifications to be COO?

• The mayor nominates and the city council appoints a COO hiring committee which conducts a search and recommends a candidate for the position.

• The COO hiring committee consists of five members: the Mayor (or designee), one member of council, the board of finance chairman (or designee), and two electors from the City, neither of which may be City employees or from the same political party.

• The COO hiring committee makes its recommendations to the mayor. The COO is nominated by the mayor and appointed by the city council. The COO is appointed for a term of four years.

• The successful candidate holds at least a bachelor’s degree in Public Administration or related field (preferably a master’s degree) and has at least four years experience as a City Manager or equivalent. Further, preference is given to a candidate with: experience in administration, supervision, strategic planning, budget preparation, team building and negotiation skills; strong communication and interpersonal skills, strong verbal, written, and analytical skills.

• The successful candidate must become a resident of the City of Bristol within six months after appointment and maintain residency during the term of office.

• At the end of the COO’s term, or at any other time, the COO may be removed by a two thirds (2/3) vote of the city council.

-Ken Johnson & Craig Yarde

Paid for by Choose COO, Gary M. Schaffrick, Treasurer

*******

Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Union letter opposing COO

In a letter addressed to "union brothers and sisters," AFSCME Local 2267 said it has put together a committee to fight against the proposal for a chief operating officer at City Hall.

"A chief operating officer will not prove a friend to the unions," the mailing said. It also said the position would be "a costly mistake" for the city as a whole.

Here's the anti-chief operating officer letter: LINK to PDF.

And to those who assisted in its release, thanks you for the help.

I'll have more on this later this afternoon.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Ken Johnson defends COO from union attack

Former Republican mayoral contender Ken Johnson, a leader in the effort to create a chief operating officer position at City Hall, sent this along:

Bristol’s taxpayers have the right to decide on creating the Chief Operating Officer position.  They earned that right when over 3,600 of them signed a petition demanding so. If taxpayers are satisfied with the status quo, they can vote ‘No.’ If taxpayers think it’s time for a change in our city government, then they can vote ‘Yes’ to question #5 on the November 4^th ballot.

Regarding the letter: What is the union leadership afraid of? The COO “will not be a friend to the unions” the writer says. Implying what? That the current city government is?  Come on. This proposal isn’t anti-union.  It is PRO-TAXPAYER!

            Craig Yarde and I have formed a committee to promote the COO/City Manager concept. 65% of our sister cities of similar size across the entire country have already adopted a similar change. I believe this decision about the form of city government is too important a decision to be left to the politicians and special interest. This decision should be made by the people. They can vote with the confidence that a bi-partisan Charter Revision committee studied this, recommended the COO and wrote the job description. If the people of Bristol vote ‘Yes’ to Question #5 on Nov. 4^th, they can be assured that they will have a professional in City Hall who will PUT THE TAXPAYER FIRST and not be beholden to special interests or political whim.

            I encourage every taxpayer to exercise their right and take back City Hall by voting ‘Yes’ to question #5 on November 4^th.

Anybody got a copy of the union letter? I haven't seen it.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Push for chief operating officer creates partisan divide

When the Republican Town Committee took up the issue of the proposed chief operating officer last month, its members unanimously endorsed the charter change. Nobody spoke against it.

Mayor Art Ward said that the Democratic Town Committee, in striking contrast, "nobody spoke for it."

There are, of course, Republicans who oppose the change, including city Councilor Mike Rimcoski.

And there are, naturally, Democrats who favor the position, including city Councilor Craig Minor.

But the partisan divide is nonetheless obvious.

What that means for the fate of the idea at the polls, I don't know. What I do know, though, is that there are more than twice as many registered Democrats in town as there are Republicans.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

City can hold referendum whenever it wants

How many times over the years have city lawyers and politicians said there is no way to put a question on the ballot unless residents go out and gather 3,300 or so signatures from registered voters to force the issue? Answer: On hundreds of occasions.

But now we find out that it's not true.

Last night, Dale Clift, the city attorney, summarized this opinion at the City Council meeting, in response to a query raised a month ago by resident Tim Gamache (which councilors subsequently said they'd like to get answered).

What Clift says is astounding to anyone who's sat through many municipal meetings.

In his opinion, he says that "the Mayor, or City Council, each by himself" can put a "proper question" on the ballot.

A proper question can repeal a council action or hogtie future council actions. Trying to get the right wording is a trick for the public, of course, but it's no trick at all for city leaders, who can simply ask the attorneys to write something up that would pass muster.

Clift said there is a key difference between a referendum forced by petition and one that politicans put on the ballot themselves.

If there's a petition drive that forces something onto the ballot, its results are permanent. They can't be reversed except by another public vote.

If the mayor or the council put something on the ballot, they would naturally abide by the results, but there's nothing to stop them from ignoring the referendum results a year or two or ten later. That would matter a lot on some issues, but not at all on others.

What's fascinating is that most of the people serving on the council today -- and perhaps all of them -- said they would put major projects on the ballot if they could.

Well, it turns out they can.

So now we have an interesting question: will they?

It's too late to put anything else on the Nov. 4 general election ballot. But there's nothing to stop the mayor or council (or both) from holding a special referendum on the $130 million school plan, as long as it's worded properly.

Yes, it would cost some money -- $30,000 or so for a special vote, if memory serves me correctly -- but it has happened before.

The 1988 referendum that blocked development of the Hoppers-Birge Pond Nature Preserve was held on Nov. 18th - two weeks after the presidential election that saw George H.W. Bush capture the White House.

If nothing else, Clift's opinion opens the door to a possible new era in Bristol politics, where the public can perhaps pressure officials to put controversial items on the ballot.

Moreoever, there are times when politicians might now find it convenient to throw issues to the people to decide, allowing them to sidestep tough choices themselves.

Either way, I'd be surprised if we don't see more public policy issues on the ballot in Bristol in the months and years ahead.

Whether that's good or bad, I'm not sure.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

No answers for Stortz

Richard Lacey, an assistant city attorney, said the city can't answer the chief operating officer questions posed by former Mayor William Stortz.
Lacey said that state law requires "strict neutrality" by city officials on referendum questions.
Municipal employees "cannot take any official action" related to the issue, he said, or they could face fines up to $1,000 and other penalties.
So it's up to supporters of the COO to respond to Stortz, if anyone does.
*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Stunning ruling on putting issues on the ballot

For years, city lawyers have said the City Council can't put measures on the ballot for a public vote.
But tonight, the city attorney, Dale Clift, said that the council can put questions on the ballot -- and so can the mayor.
I'm blown away by this, because for 14 years I've been told otherwise.
I'll get a copy of Clift's Sept. 30 opinion on this soon and post it on the blog. I'm sure it's not as black and white as it sounds.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

New website pushes chief operating officer proposal

Take a look at this site to see what supporters of the chief operating officer have to say about the proposed charter change.

There's a letter from businessman Craig Yarde explaining the pro-COO stance. Here's what he wrote:

Dear Fellow Bristol Citizens:

My name is Craig Yarde. I've been a Bristol resident all my life. I graduated from Green Hills, spent half my life at the Forestville/Bristol Boys Club and barely graduated from Bristol Central. I started Yarde Metals out of my Bristol home 32 years ago and grew it to over 600 associates (many of them Bristol residents with a half a billion in sales). I also own Yardezone.com with two partners which converts companies to our philosophy: Establish a great organizational structure, teach everyone to read a financial statement, communicate to everyone your goals and objectives, treat your people the way you want to be treated yourself, open the books, share the profits and most of all - have some fun, while creating a great team with everyone rowing the boat in the same direction.

This is not happening in the City Of Bristol. I recently talked to a union boss friend of mine and he reiterated that municipalities are diff erent than private business. I would say no. It all starts from the top down and from the bottom up. Communication is the life blood of a company or municipality. That's why we have a problem. At the top. I feel we set the mayor up to fail in regard to the org chart. Mayor Couture told me he spent half his day listening to citizen complaints. The mayor spends every evening in board meetings, kissing babies and cutting ribbons. The mayor has, or should, help to solicit funds from the State. He has to be the visionary to lead us to the future. On top of that he has to manage twenty one direct reports. You got to be kidding. Superman couldn't do it. Forget about it. If you approve the new Chief Operating Officer (COO), he/she will manage the twenty-one direct reports which the mayor doesn't have the time to manage. This should make the city departments more efficient and effective to service us citizens and help to keep taxes down. The COO would use their experience to assist the mayor and council and will help in the continuity needed to maintain a long term vision for this community. After all we've been turning over councilmen and mayors every two years. Believe me, there are millions of dollars of low hanging fruit that a COO can pick without sacrificing service or jobs.

If you agree, please vote YES to create a COO on November 4th. It's like money in the bank.

-Craig Yarde

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Stortz raises questions about chief operating officer

Letter sent today to Mayor Art Ward by former Mayor William Stortz:

September 30, 2008

Dear Mayor Ward,
As you recall, over the years, I have supported the idea of a Town Manager for the City of Bristol. However, the current proposal seems like a diluted version of the concept of a Town Manger and raises some questions in my mind, and probably many others. Since it will be on the ballot this November, I am hoping that you can clear up or otherwise address some of my concerns.
First, I do believe that no wording changes can be made to the issue on the ballot prior to the November election, for logistical reasons as well as because the wording submitted is the wording that the petition was based on. Also, if it does pass and some changes are appropriate for whatever the reason, those changes will require another Charter Revision Commission and subsequent placing on the next ballot for the people to vote on. Therefore the city will have to function with the change as approved, even if it has some defects. While I believe I am correct, could both of those issues be responded to?

Second, I am not aware that a salary has been set for the COO position. I would ask that you send that issue to the salary committee and have them respond prior to the election so that the people can have some idea as to what the position will be costing the taxpayer. Since it will be your administration that probably fills this position, it will be your salary committee that sets the salary. If the proposal passes, the salary range will have to be determined prior to advertising, so determining and publicizing it now is expediting the process just slightly, but also giving the voter a better base on which to judge.

At the same time, the question of the Mayor’s salary should be addressed. Again, if the proposal passes, the Mayor’s duties will be significantly affected. Will that justify a change (reduction) in the Mayor’s salary? I know that the salaries of elected officials cannot be changed during their term of office, so any change would be effective after the next election, but again, the people should know this before they vote on the proposal. Also, that would be a concern as individuals make a decision relative to their running for office.
In the same area, I would like to see a tentative budget prepared for this new office. Again, while it will be an estimate, it is likely that a budget will have to be submitted to the Board of Finance for the normal budget process, and that budget process will probably start way before the new person is on board. An estimate is better than nothing for BOF purposes, and again will provide the voter with a clearer picture of the financial impact.
I have many other areas of concern, but I will submit just one of them at this time. I do want to research the others before I raise additional questions.

The basic question revolves around the reporting/responsible to process. This involves any Department Head that “works” for a Board: I will basically use the Police Chief and Police Board in my example, although the concept would seem to apply to other Department Heads also.
The proposed Charter change says (section 62 (b) (1), in part, the COO shall be responsible to exercise general supervision over, the Chief of Police. It also says (6) provide leadership and direction .. to develop and implement the City budget….

The current Charter, Sec 45 (a) says.. The Police Department shall be under the general supervision of the board of police commissioners. Sec. 45 (f) says in part… Said Board of Police Commissioners, subject to the approval of the City Council, shall make rules and regulations for the government of the Police Department….

Which prevails?

Similar language exists for the Fire Department.

Park Department, a somewhat different issue: Sec 34 (f).. Said Board shall have exclusive power to make rules and bylaws for the ordinary transaction of business….

Library: Sec 38 (b) Said Board shall have exclusive control of all the properties of said Library…. If they want something done, whom does the Library Director listen to?

It also seems like Sec 62 (b) (10) gives the Council additional powers, unless any direction they provide is limited to power given them by Charter. Currently they do not appear to have any operational authority.

Mayor, there may be language somewhere in the current Charter, or in the proposed changes that addresses these seeming inconsistencies. If so, I would appreciate knowing where. But you know, and I know, that if there is some vagueness, sooner or later it will become an issue, between the COO, the Mayor, the various Boards, the Staff. This could lead to bargaining unit problems or management problems. It could put employees in the middle, which wouldn’t be fair, or it could create conflicts between the various parties involved. This could be even more of an issue where boards are involved and the mayor chairs the board.
If I am overly concerned, ore if the problem has been or is addressed, let me know if you will.. If I am anywhere near right, then this should be addressed so as to not put the city in the middle.

Even if my concerns relative to the reporting structure have been or are addressed, I would still like a clearer picture of the salaries involved, and the anticipated budget. I am confident that the voters would like to know that too.

Sincerely,
William T. Stortz

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com