|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 1, 2004 13:55:19 GMT -5
Yesterday, 11/30, the WTPA had its day in court with representatives of the Town/councilors (regarding the two, May, 2004, referendums which Town attorney John J. O'Brien convinced them to 'pocket veto').
The 'word' in the corridors is that the Town/councilors were taken to the woodshed but they convinced the judge to place a gag order on the outcome of that hearing.
Why that was? Who is hiding what? Who is going to be ecstatic and who will embarrassed? Will heads roll and if so, whose? What will this say about the Town, the Council, the WTPA? Can we expect the usual sycophants to spin it for "their" side?
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 2, 2004 11:29:53 GMT -5
Error:
"the WTPA had its day in court with representatives of the Town/councilors (regarding the two, May, 2004, referendums which Town attorney John J. O'Brien convinced them to 'pocket veto')."
Should read:
"the WTPA had its day in court with representatives of the Town/councilors (including assistant town attorney John J. O'Brien, Esq.) (regarding the two, May, 2004, referendums which town attorney John W. Bradley convinced them to 'pocket veto')."
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 5, 2004 8:44:10 GMT -5
What are the chances that there will be "technical difficulties" with the telecasting of the Council's meeting on Monday Dec. 6, on the town's channel, WCTV-16? Will there be another attack of the enigmatic 'BOE-Virus', known to cause such problems?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Dec 6, 2004 7:12:15 GMT -5
Why do you suggest this possibility? Do you think something is going to happen that could conceivably embarrass the Council or the town? Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 6, 2004 7:57:40 GMT -5
Why do you suggest this possibility? Do you think something is going to happen that could conceivably embarrass the Council or the town? Very interesting. 1. So that it doesn't.  2. Is the emperor wearing new clothes*?  |
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Dec 6, 2004 8:54:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 8, 2004 6:41:10 GMT -5
Instead of starting the evening (at say 6:00 PM), Chairman Russ chose to hold the executive session at the end of the meeting. The meeting was televised (with only a brief, minor glitch) up to the time the Council went into E/S. The town's bulletins were displayed for what was more than an hour.
Without any hint or warning to the public, viewing or attending, the Council finally wandered back in to officially close the meeting. By luck, we saw Forrest move to have the Town/Councilors accept some kind settlement with the Taxpayers Assoc'. The council then quickly (without public discussion, commentary or information) voted to accept it: 7-0-1 (yes,no,abst). I guess the public is not important enough to keep informed; what are the terms of the agreement? What is the Council trying to hide? Perhaps some progressive freshman in town could enlighten us, no foolin'!
The Soviets had what we called "Iron Curtain."
The Red Chinese, a "Bamboo Curtain."
The East Germans, their "Berlin Wall."
The Israelis, a 'Matzah Wall.'
Candidate Halstead, his 'Mexican Barrier' plan.
And our Council, the "Cones of Silence,"
Or, should that be the 'Russ-ian Stonewall'
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Dec 9, 2004 12:15:29 GMT -5
I guess this is what you were referring to....
Town Vote Set On Lights
By MARYELLEN FILLO
Courant Staff Writer
December 9 2004
WETHERSFIELD -- A plan to install lights at Cottone Field has sparked a referendum next May on the issue of illuminating any playing field or other town property.
The townwide vote is the compromise to a lawsuit filed by the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association to block construction of light towers on Cottone Field at the high school.
The referendum was approved this week by the town council. Taxpayers will be asked to ban all outdoor lights on any town property, including Cottone Field.
"The judge suggested we try to settle this rather than going to jury trial," Mayor Russ Morin said, referring to the suit filed in July in Superior Court in Hartford.
But the wording of the referendum question could pose a problem because it affects all municipal properties, not just the field.
"It is confusing because voters who do not want lights to be banned will be voting `no,' " the mayor said. "We plan to make sure residents are educated about the issue and then let the people decide."
Morin and a majority of the town council are in favor of the field lights.
The suit was filed after the town attorney ruled that two petitions submitted by taxpayers groups were invalid. One petition sought to stop the installation of artificial turf at the Wethersfield High School playing field. The second sought to ban outdoor lights on any town property.
Since the petitions were ruled invalid, the town has completed the turf project at the football field. The light installation has been pending while a group of supporters raises $125,000 for the work.
"I am very disappointed that the Taxpayers Association is once again causing the town to spend thousands of dollars in an effort to undermine our elected officials," said Dan O'Connor, who has spearheaded the light project for Cottone Field. "I am confident that the town will overwhelmingly vote against the taxpayers' efforts to again stop this project."
Morin said the May referendum will cost taxpayers about $20,000.
Assistant town attorney John O'Brien said the compromise was in the best interests of the town.
"Instead of locking horns and going to trial, both parties got together and were successful in reaching a settlement," he said. "The reality is, both parties had different opinions, and this agreement does not acknowledge that one party or the other is right."
Michael Cuddigan, a resident, said that although he is not sure how he will vote on the question, he is sure that sending the issue to referendum is the right thing to do.
"There wasn't enough research done on this and not enough due diligence by the council," Cuddigan said. "The council tried to force this, and it's a matter that should be determined by the people."
Copyright 2004, Hartford Courant
|
|
|
|
Post by tomterific on Dec 9, 2004 12:38:45 GMT -5
Well, Well, Well. Dan-O is so worried about the cost of the referendum. He's really scared that the voters will have the opportunity to defeat his ill-conceived scheme. If former Democratic Councillor Bradley had not tried to thwart the citizens this summer, the election on the lights would have happened on the regular November ballot at no cost to the citizens. But, Mayor Moron led the way. Maybe Russ and his band of five will cough up the $20,000, out of their large pockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 9, 2004 13:15:51 GMT -5
The original question was/is:
"The Town of Wethersfield shall not keep, maintain, or cause to be kept or maintained any permanent or temporary floodlights, spotlight, other reflector-type lighting for illumination of sporting events on any municipal owned property."[/list] www.ctnow.com/news/local/hr/hc-wetref1209.artdec09,0,6327233.story?coll=hc-headlines-hr
Town Vote Set On Lights
By MARYELLEN FILLO
Courant Staff Writer
December 9 2004
WETHERSFIELD -- A plan to install lights at Cottone Field has sparked a referendum next May on the issue of illuminating any playing field or other town property.
Unless the as yet undisclosed, court mediated "settlement" has reworded the original referendum quedstion, Fillo again has screwed up: her reporting "or other town property" is NOT part of the original question and is grossly misleading. Raises another interesting question: was she duped; is she being "used" by O'Connor, et al.?
The townwide vote is the compromise to a lawsuit filed by the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association to block construction of light towers on Cottone Field at the high school.
Again, Fillo has been manipulated. This is only being promoted by Danny & Russ to camouflage the fact that the Town screwed up not allowing the two, town clerk certified petitions to go to referendum in the first place. Were they so insecure that they chose to pocket veto the two referendums?
The referendum was approved this week by the town council. Taxpayers will be asked to ban all outdoor lights on any town property, including Cottone Field.
Again, Fillo sticks her head out. If there is a "new" referendum question which includes "any town property" you can be sure that Russ et al. stuck it into to quarantee the defeat of a lights embargo.
"The judge suggested we try to settle this rather than going to jury trial," Mayor Russ Morin said, referring to the suit filed in July in Superior Court in Hartford.
Yeah, filed in Court by the WTPA because the Town Council wasn't following its own Charter.
But the wording of the referendum question could pose a problem because it affects all municipal properties, not just the field.
Here Fillo goes again for the third time: "all municipal properties." I was under the impression that both "parties" were under a Court order not to discuss the potencial settlement until the the wording of that settlement was agreed upon by both sides. How does Fillo know for sure that that is what the yet to be approved wording will be - unless Russ (or someone else on or associated with Council) "leaked" it to her?
"It is confusing because voters who do not want lights to be banned will be voting `no,' " the mayor said. "We plan to make sure residents are educated about the issue and then let the people decide."
Morin and a majority of the town council are in favor of the field lights.
Right, Russ! No more confusing that it would have been the FIRST time around. But Russ now has an opportunity to politic, since the Council has not yet voted to officially set the referendum date. Once that happens, he and the Town will be forced to remain nominally neutral in comments about the question. They will of course spin it ever so subtly in the "explanatory text" provided by the Town.
The suit was filed after the town attorney ruled that two petitions submitted by taxpayers groups were invalid. One petition sought to stop the installation of artificial turf at the Wethersfield High School playing field. The second sought to ban outdoor lights on any town property.
When Fillo makes a mistake, she is apparently consistent; this is the FOURTH time. Go back an READ the actual question at the top of this post; it says: "illumination of sporting events on any municipal owned property." Fillo, you having trouble with the English language?
Since the petitions were ruled invalid, the town has completed the turf project at the football field. The light installation has been pending while a group of supporters raises $125,000 for the work.
"I am very disappointed that the Taxpayers Association is once again causing the town to spend thousands of dollars in an effort to undermine our elected officials," said Dan O'Connor, who has spearheaded the light project for Cottone Field. "I am confident that the town will overwhelmingly vote against the taxpayers' efforts to again stop this project." Morin said the May referendum will cost taxpayers about $20,000.
Lier, lier, pants on fire. Danny, let's get the fact straight! The Town has brought this upon itself! The Town chose to ignore its charter and the signatures of more than one thousand citizens and pocket vetoed the two referendums. The taxpayers (both small and large "T") should be pissed as hell at the Town /Council for having screwed this up in the first place. All of the taxpayers are being forced to pay for this additional referendum when it COULD HAVE BEEN FOLDED COST-FREE INTO THE POLLING AT THE PAST GENERAL ELECTION on 11/2/2004!
Assistant town attorney John O'Brien said the compromise was in the best interests of the town.
"Instead of locking horns and going to trial, both parties got together and were successful in reaching a settlement," he said. "The reality is, both parties had different opinions, and this agreement does not acknowledge that one party or the other is right."
Ah, the "impartial" town attorneys are weighing in too. It's more than obvious that the Town screwed up and the TPA got what it wanted in the first place - taking this question to the PUBLIC!
I can hardly wait to see what the WTPA say after reading this article by FILLO. Based on the content and the comments by Russ and Danny, it sound like the gloves will be coming off. Russ had no business making ANY comment about this matter at this time (before an agreed upon statement could be reached with the TPA). Frustrated Danny obviously bit at the chance to get back into the fray, spitting his vitriol again. His good buddy Fillo provided him with that opportunity.
Michael Cuddigan, a resident, said that although he is not sure how he will vote on the question, he is sure that sending the issue to referendum is the right thing to do.
"There wasn't enough research done on this and not enough due diligence by the council," Cuddigan said. "The council tried to force this, and it's a matter that should be determined by the people."
And she closes with a sop.
Some people say that Council had a mandate to govern; since they won the last local election, they did. But someone else once said: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts* absolutely. This Town/Council mess is not corruption, it's just arrogance run amok.
*Corruption means deterioration, the breakdown from a functioning, ordered condition or state. |
|
AB
Bronze Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by AB on Dec 9, 2004 14:45:44 GMT -5
I wonder if a tennis match under the lights at Mill Woods qualifies as a sporting event on town property.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 9, 2004 14:57:16 GMT -5
Yep!
|
|
|
|
Post by tooold on Dec 10, 2004 7:11:40 GMT -5
I just hope that the referendum question(s) are clear and not "legal speak".
This will be a true test as to where the town is regarding lights at ball fields.
I believe the vote will be there for Cottone Field and then the baseball field too!
Thank you to all that pushed for this "line in the sand".
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 10, 2004 10:51:12 GMT -5
Original petition read:
"The Town of Wethersfield shall not keep, maintain, or cause to be kept or maintained any permanent or temporary floodlights, spotlight, other reflector-type lighting for illumination of sporting events on any municipal owned property."I don't know any good reason why the ballot question should not track very closely to the WTPA's petition (above). Any major departure from that petition would not be true to the framing of the petition and the referendum question. Consider these: - Option 1:
"Shall the Town of Wethersfield not keep, maintain, or cause to be kept or maintained any permanent or temporary floodlights, spotlight, other reflector-type lighting for illumination of sporting events on any municipal owned property." Here a YES vote means NO lights in the manner described. "
- Option 2:
"Shall the Town of Wethersfield keep, maintain, or cause to be kept or maintained any permanent or temporary floodlights, spotlight, other reflector-type lighting for illumination of sporting events on any municipal owned property. Here a YES vote means YES to the lights. But, it also implies much more than the original: it could imply that the town is taking a position that all such events/fields BE so lighted - an entirely different issue from the original petition. "
- Option 3:
"Shall the Town of Wethersfield BE ALLOWED TO keep, maintain, or cause to be kept or maintained any permanent or temporary floodlights, spotlight, other reflector-type lighting for illumination of sporting events on any municipal owned property. Here a YES vote means YES to the lights without the problematic implication involved in the 2nd option.
I anticipate that the WTPA will urge the first option (most faithful to the original question). The lights-on-every-field sports enthusiasts will urge the second option (promotes their cause). I see the third option as a middle ground approach for all sides." I wonder what the Courts will allow.
|
|
|
|
Post by NightScream on Dec 10, 2004 12:10:41 GMT -5
I'm very simple in my thinking but, why doesn't this lighting issue stand on it's own merrits? This ref. would implicate all M properties, (as told to me by town employees). Is this true? I guess my question should be generalized to reflect a more sound point, "Why are ref.s in general written to encompass more than one item or agenda? If truely, the project worth it's weight in the public's eye, then surely it should stand the critics and "no-votes" of the time. A well formed plan and sound argument should/would surely convey a vote of confidence.
|
|
