"Lights" Referendum: PRO/CON?

[SyZyGy]

The original statement on the WTPA petition last May 2004 was:
"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."

The details of the Court mediated "settlement" of the WTPA's mandamus suit again the Town Councilors and Council have yet to be divulged. The wording of the referendum question has yet to be decided any may not have to be decided until (what?) 30 days before as yet unscheduled referendum (May, 2005?).

Elsewhere on this forum I have postulated a few possibilities. My third option, I suggest, will be the clearest and fairest question to be put to the public in that polling. For the sake of discussions here (over the next 4-5 months), I restate Option 3 here:

"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?

[SyZyGy]

• LouS posted here:
  JUST SAY NO TO THE REFERENDUM.
  JUST SAY NO TO THE WETHERSFIELD TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION...
  ...this referendum will be voted as a NO...."

  
  
  
• I am almost willing to take LouS's word that "this referendum will be voted on as a NO." "Will be"? Of course, all of you realize that for him to make such a statement means that someone on the "inside" (Town Councilor, Town Attorney or Bonnie herself) would have had to definitively leak it to him that the wording of the re-instated referendum would be stated in the original negative: "The Town of Wethersfield shall not keep...".
  
  
• Perhaps this type of disregard for Court's direction (gag-rule) is what morganika is concerned about when she sees "criminals and sinners" throughout our town. One might think that he were affiliated with the Wethersfield Youth organization, who by all appearances seem to play fast and lose with the rules of propriety and sensible, public, financial disclosures.
  
  
• Let me state again, for the benefit of the unruly, unwashed, unimpressive, or undereducated public, that I feel the referendum question SHOULD be worded in the affirmative: that is YES to the question means YES to the lights on athletic fields.
  
  
• Of course, we all have to wait to see exactly what the Court and/or the Councilors will designate as the official referendum question for 2005. Until the Councilors make the wording official, we will just have to postulate different scenarios. LouS is positing one and I another.
  
  
• Hey, you lurking Councilors out there, why not introduce a resolution on this Monday, 12/20/2004, to officially set the wording of and date for this referendum, which you tried to foolishly to bury.
  
  
• Yes, foolishly. Only the uninvolved would believe that what the Councilors did (accepting this advice of the Town attorney in re referenda) was the right thing to do. The Councilors again arrogantly invoked their mandate and sheepishly tried to avoid NO-COST referendum questions on the November, 2004, ballot. They foolishly missed the opportunity to settle this question (lights: yes/no) 'quick and easy.'
  
  
• There was a time (more than once I may add) that, after reading many of LouS's posts here, I thought I saw the light of a person (though dedicated to one cause) who yet showed a willingness to consider opposing views in public questions. I thought I saw qualities which would make such a person an admirable and desirable Town Councilor (and I am sure that is already being discussed, right Shirley?!).
  
  
• But, LouS has just dimmed his light in my estimation, when he advised: "JUST SAY NO" to the WTPA. Again, the arrogance of in-power party politics rears its ugly head (say, Town Council 1999-2001). The Dem's at this point usually have a very high probability of capturing the Town Council any time they want, assuming the current (at that time) Council doesn't screw up.
  
  
• I had previously called the WTPA the "righteous party" in this Court action, because they had the RIGHT to challenge the opinion of the Town attorney and the pocket-veto decision of the 'Russ-ian' Town Council. This IS America; isn't it?
  
  
• What LouS is implying is to deny the WTPA its American, legal RIGHTS, just because he apparently does not like what they are saying or that an unfavorable court decision or outcome might come his and his cohort's way?
  
  
• I had tried to give morganika a gracious way to back out of a rather untenable comment (regarding criminals in town); unfortunately she chose not to extricate herself. Sadly I wished her "peace" and must now leave her to football101.'
  
  
• Similarly, I wish that LouS would revise his comments here about how the public should address (and regard) the WTPA. He owes it to the WTPA, Wethersfieldiers, and our American way of life.

[saj]

Although I will leave LouS to defend himself against this personal attack, I will say that I took his statement to mean "say NO to preventing the growth and development of any positive improvements to the town of Wethersfield-be it sport related or not". I also believe that in other posts throughout this forum LouS has acknowledged the importance of the WTPA and its importance in the history of this town and how he appreciates the time and effort of those in the WTPA, however that does not mean that LouS, or anyone else, needs to agree with their opinions.

[oldetowne]

I agree that Lou is perfectly capable of defending himself. However, I think underlying his message and Saj's follow-up is a point which needs to be considered.

That is that the WTXA has served and continues to serve a purpose in this town, but whatever good they do is totally obscured by the vitriolic and visceral reaction that they generate from a large number of people in town - many of whom are not politically active or involved.

The WTXA could petition for a referendum against cancer and it would fail 2-1 in this town simply because they propose it. And that would happen only after the WTXA brought a lawsuit to force the referendum because the Council wouldn't allow it.

It's tough to separate the message from the messenger in some cases and it has become almost impossible with the WTXA.

As for the lights, let's set the question, make it clear, make it unambiguous, and let the issue go to the voters where it should have gone in the first place.

Merry Christmas to all.

[LouS]

Syzygy,

First , I cannot, for the life of me understand where you believe I implied to “deny the WTPA its American, legal RIGHTS”. I am actually looking forward to this referendum. Funny, in the most recent Wethersfield Life the only negative quotes in an article that was written were from Rocco Orsini,(fact) (a rep of the WTPA?). For the record and in past postings and statements, I have given praise to the WTPA for its past work. That does not mean I agree with every position they take or respect the seemingly often aggressive/ inappropriate speakers that appear to represent the WTPA at council meetings.

Second, is it only you that can have an opinion or is it the “correct opinion” on any topic? To make a statement in your post “Of course, all of you realize that for him (read LouS) to make such a statement means that someone on the "inside" (Town Councilor, Town Attorney or Bonnie herself) would have had to definitively leak it to him that the wording of the re-instated referendum would be stated in the original negative”… is a cheap and cowardly act, as well as being an out-and-out mistruth. But I guess in an anonymous forum such as this you can try and get away with it.

Third, you seem to be a create writer, very clear(?) and specific and seemingly always correct. I wonder if, without your spell check and thesaurus, that your diatribe would carry the same weight. Some people that hide behind this type of anonymous forum can only participate at this level because of the ability to brain storm, write and correct and seemingly appear to be articulate, when in fact "chewing gum, walking and carrying on a conversation" prove to be formidable tasks. Too bad you have taken this track, since many items that you have posted are insightful, whether I agree or not.

Fourth, the town as a group, has chosen to continue to move forward. Democrats or Republicans (John Cascio is a great example of this), it makes no difference. There is a vision, and to move forward will see a cross section from the town, which will include multi-party affiliations, demographics and other variables, all supporting this effort.

Last, before I close and make my final statement to you, not all in town are what you speak of and to come out and make a derogatory implication and statement about me and where you think my posting got its basis from, shows me that you are not a very nice person.

My statement to Just Say No is based upon the last best (not your suggestions) information, which is the original negatively stated question. If you need a crystal ball to make this logical connection you are not as thoughtful as I might have guessed.

You have chosen to make this misstatement to the wrong person. I will not respond to your further input here or anywhere else in this forum. I have had to take this tact only once before in this forum and that person was subsequently banned for being deceitful and inappropriate.

If you are going to try and state fact elsewhere…have all your facts and when you are going to attack someone, make sure the facts actually apply and have a concrete basis to substantiate a correlation.

[SyZyGy]

LouS had written:
"All views, beliefs and opinions are welcome. "

I wrote about the overt, tacit and (what could be called) implied sentiments which he conveyed.

LouS then wrote:
"I have had to take this tact (sic) only once before in this forum and that person was subsequently banned for being deceitful and inappropriate." (my underline)

I still think he might make a good Town Councilor, with a little tweaking (tougher skin?).

[JackAss]

Syzygy, you keep trying to draft Dean Wormer for council. You sound like a typical politician, full of hot air and BS.

Maybe with all your insight you should run next election.

[SyZyGy]

Hey, J/A,
Sorry, it's been so long since I decided to get back to you. Me, run for council; hmmmm.

LouS as Dean Wormer, eh? I have always wondered by he chose John Vernon / Dean Wormer as his avatar. (LouS isn't talking to me right now, so I guess I will have to talk to you. I got a little heated in a post to/re him a while ago.) I am sure that a psychology student would find the selection / use of avatars and "handles" on this forum in general fit food for feasting. Jackass & Mike Moore is an interesting combination too; there is got be an interesting story or explanation; care to elaborate sometime?)

But, I digress. I am interested in who you feel should run/be run for Council this year - on both sides of the "aisle." Name names, please, seriously. Right now, I am more interested in the names than the reasons. (I am sure that Steinmetz and Roberts are working on this question right now.)

In parting: (Dean Wormer) "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son." ;D

[SyZyGy]

During a sparcely attended Town Council meeting last nite (1/4/2005), the official wording of the new "lights" referendum question was revealed.

Proposed Ordinance for May, 2005, Referendum on the "Lights" - as "agreed upon" by both the Town/Councilors and the WTPA: (Deletions from the original were removed and additions are in ALL CAPS here.)

Section 101-1.1 : The Town of Wethersfield shall not construct or cause to be installed or constructed any permanent or temporary floodlight, spotlight or other reflector-type lighting for illumination of sporting events OR OTHER ACTIVITIES on any municipally owned property.

If nothing else, the agreed upon wording shows one thing only: the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association is NOT serious about the outcome of this referendum!

Why on earth would the WTPA agree to Town's inclusion of the phrase "or other activities"?

The original (2004) wording was painted with a broad brush, to be sure, by covering all sporting events on town properties not just Cottone Field. But to include "or other activities" - that covers a far greater area of activities!

All of the jox, jockettes and their supporters in town will be out in force to promote the defeat of the referendum in May. But, in addition, so will every and any other organization of any ilk who has or might want to have any "lighted" event (on any town property) in the diminished ambient light. Parks & Recreation; Committee of Culture and the Arts; Skatepark; I am sure you can think of more private groups wanting to use outdoor Town properties.

I can see people (other than soccer-mons and football-dads, etc.) very concerned with the prospects and possibilities flowing from the passage of this referendum. These non-jox might have been the hope of the WTPA for passage of the referendum. Not any more!

The WTPA might as well accept the fact that their passage of this referendum is dead in the water!

The WTPA DID "win" their battle with the overreaching Town/Councilors by having forced them against the judicial wall and thence to this new referendum. The WTPA made their point.

On the other hand, if these guys are half as politically astute as they believe they are, then they should accept the fact that they are going to lose this ferendum - big time. Even when I had not learned of the exact wording of the new question, I had predicted the defeat of the referendum 3:1. Now, its defeat may be even more resounding.

The time and resources of the WTPA might better be spent (during the next 3 months) reviewing the direction and details of the new budgets from/for the BOE and the Town.

The WTPA made their point (the Council screwed up!) Now the jox and others ('activitists'?), will make theirs.

[SyZyGy]

www.ctnow.com/hc-wetlight0118.artjan18,0,1936054.story
Focus Back On Lights - Hearing Open To Public
By MaryEllen Fillo, Courant Staff Writer
January 18 2005; Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant

Again, that ace Hartford Courant reporter has informed the public what it already knows (or should already know) about the mess which the Town Council caused by failing to comply with its own Town Charter with regard to the WTPA's "Lights" referendum last year. (If you want to re/read the article follow the above link.)

She makes it sound as if tonite will be public's only chance to sound off on the during the official public hearing on this May 24, 2005, court-ordered referendum (BLT). Obviously that is not the case in generalities. The public, aye's and nay's both, will have a chance at every Council meeting from tonite until the one just before the polling takes place - some nine (9) opportunities (diring "public comments).

Since members of Council are part of "the people," an admittedly twisted paraphrase of Bonnie L. Therrien's remarks is apropos: 'It really doesn't matter what "the Councilors" say, it is going to referendum.'

Fillo tries to help the Russ-ian Council when she claims that the town attorney "ruled" the original petitions were "invalid." Not so, he (Bradley) offered his "opinion" to an overly eager Council. They liked what they heard, hence their pocket veto to do nothing - not even follow the Town Charter. She likes her mistakes so much, she tends to repeat them in the same article ("ruled invalid").

Fillo obviously bit into the bologna which her buddy Danny'O fed her when she claims the original referendum would have applied to "any town property". Not so; the original one specified "illumination of sporting events on any municipal [sic] owned property". The WTPA "gave" the Council a big fat kiss when they agreed to change that phrase to: "illumination of sporting events OR OTHER ACTIVITIES on any municipally owned property".

It's obvious that the Russ-ian Council has quite a task ahead of it: educating the public that no means yes and yes means no.

Both the WTPA and the Russ-ian Council need to get supportive voters out (at least it won't be happening in snow, ice, sleet, hail or blustery cold.

The "explanatory text" which the Town will issue just before the polling will be very important. Though it must remain neutral, the explanatory text will have to lay out before the public unbiased "facts" so that voters will be able to make an "intelligent" decision.

I suggest the following:

• The Council or Manager could form a "Wethersfield Explanatory Text Advisory Committee" - WETAC- of residents to help in soliciting, vetting and promoting terminology for the public's edification prior to polling. The manager could solicit CV/résumé's of interested candidates to make sure that only the most qualified would be seated on the A/C.
• With only about 3-1/2 months to go, this WETAC would have to be "fast-tracked". No time to waste. The WETAC could also have liaisons from the Parks & Recreation (dept.), the WPD, Physical Services, the Committee on Culture and the Arts, the Tourism Commission, and ALL the sports teams and clubs, etc., etc. Naturally there would also have to be ex officio (non-voting) members of the council assigned to it.
• It would adhere to all of the rules and regulations of the town Code/Charter (this time!), including posting of agenda and the timely publishing of the minutes of the meetings. You get the idea. The WETAC could hold weekly or semi-monthly meetings, each of which might have 5 whole minutes of public input. Then in a grand manner the Council & Manager would accept what was offered them by the WETAC and then do what they wanted anyway.

Fillo makes it sound if all the ramifications have been collected and collated already. Not so; there are no ramifications to "review."

Since the Council, Manager and Danny'O & Co., seem to have a fast track to Fillo, why not "embed" her on the new WETAC. Maybe then the town readers would be treated to better reporting from this Courant Staff Writer.

1/19: Couple spellings were fixed

[SyZyGy]

If the May, 2005, "Lights" referendum passes (preponderance of YES votes), existing lights on town property will have been "grandfathered" under the terms of the "settlement" anyway.

Since the town mothers and fathers couldn't get their act together and did not release a copy of the agreement, Ruhe summarized it before Council early in January.

Correct me if I am wrong, but he did not mention that there was any agreement on the part of Councilors/Town NOT to attempt to have the lights installed at Cottone Field BEFORE the May referendum.

I wonder if Danny'0 and the Town could pull that off in the three and a half months that remain to the vote in late May. I believe that (other than a lot of fundraising and all of the cash in the bank on the part of Danny'O), only getting a variance from the Zoning Reg's would be needed. I can't imagine that the ZBA or PZC would have the gumption or precedent to deny it.

[oldetowne]

I doubt they could get the lights up in the next three months - right now the only way to do it is to get a variance from ZBA and, even if they get it, it would be tossed immediately in an appeal.

[SyZyGy]

The following, now a matter of public record, was read by George A Ruhe at the Wethersfield Town Council meeting of January 18 and later to the Board of Education on January 25th. Its purpose was to, in the eyes of the WTPA, clarify a number of misconceptions expressed by the Town/Councilors and the Hartford Courant reporterette Fillo.

re:

Wethersfield Taxpayers Association
VS
Town of Wethersfield & Town Council

Docket # CV 04-4000863-S

"Let's Set The Record Straight"
(Facts Rebutting Council & Press Statements)

The following comments were made to The Wethersfield Town Council on January 18, 2005 by George A Ruhe speaking as the Vice President of The Wethersfield Taxpayers Association, (WTXA). The comments addressed Agenda Item - "A.1 Public Hearing: May Referendum Question - Lights in Town".

"Good evening ladies and gentlemen, George A Ruhe, 956 Cloverdale Circle. Tonight I am speaking as the Vice President of The Wethersfield Taxpayers Association.

This evening you are where you were last May on the evening when you accepted the guidance, perhaps misguidance of our town Atty. Bradley. Since then you have managed to spend a significant amount of the citizens money and taxpayers dollars. Our Town Manager and town staff have spent countless hours on what we think were misdirected priorities. You are on the verge of spending significant additional money on a referendum that would not have cost anything had you followed the requirements of the Town Charter, and had acted on this appropriately last May.

As a result of these actions you have divided this community, as I have never seen it divided in the forty three (43) years that I have lived in this town. And that is sad. Our officials have consistently violated the spirit and terms of "The Settlement" agreement by discussing the issue outside the agreed upon, "Joint Press Release".

The spreading of misinformation continues to this very day. One only need look at the article in todays (1/18/05) Hartford Courant. The Courant states, " The Town Council decided to hold todays hearing even though it is under Court Order to hold a referendum on the issue in May."

• WRONG - There was no Court Order , but a settlement between The WTXA and the town.
  
  
• Nowhere were the options available under the Town Charter negated.

[/b][/li][/ul]
Our Town Manager Bonnie Therrien says, and I quote, " The Charter says we have to have a hearing when there is a proposed referendum introduced "

• WRONG - An ordinance was introduced by petition , for which a Public Hearing is truly required.
  
  
• There are still two options under The Charter accept it, or reject it and then go to referendum.

[/b][/li][/ul]

Ms. Therrrien goes on, and I quote again. " And even though the Court is ordering the referendum, we are going to cover ourselves and still hold the hearing. It really doesn't matter what people say, it is going to referendum. But at least people can voice their opinions"

• WRONG - The Court did not order the Referendum per-se. The fundamental message was and is - you should have followed the requirements of The Charter.
  
  
• No part of The Charter, again, was negated by The Settlement.
  
  
• Her statement, " It really doesn't matter what the people say, it is going to Referendum" represents, in our judgement, the epitome of arrogance - a problem of this Council from the get-go.

[/b][/li][/ul]

The Courant article errs again when it describes where we are this evening, as a result of and I quote, "a court crafted compromise in response to a law suit by WTXA."

• WRONG - The settlement reached was the result of hard negotiations (as Bonnie and I and those of us that were there know, and Mr Mayor you were not there) between the parties with the encouragement of The Court to try to work out a settlement.

I would share a brief excerpt from a letter from our attorney dated December 18.

• "There was no discussion of settlement until we both went into the judge's chambers for a pretrial discussion. The presiding judge always speaks with counsel prior to any hearing or trial stating as it is their primary goal to settle cases and keep the docket to a minimum. The Judge asked if we had explored settlement and exhausted our settlement discussions. That is when O'Brien said that he had had some discussions with his client and maybe there was a resolution that might work - if if we could change the wording of the ordinance. I ( Meg Rattigan) responded that we would be open to discussing whatever suggestions the Town had. That was it and the judge told us to go work it out if we could. I then told you (WTXA) that O'Brien suggested we discuss a settlement and the conversation / negotiations continued in the hall."

I would share another comment from our attorney received on January 18, 2005

• I read the article ( referring to the Courant 1/18/05) this AM.
  
  
• There was no "court ordered referendum" it was the result of a settlement. Also, as you know all existing facilities are to be grandfathered - that was a very important point for all parties during the discussion.
  
  
• If you recall, at the last Council meeting when I spoke I suggested that this information would be bandied about to try to use scare tactics as it deals with this issue.

[/b][/li][/ul]

In conclusion, you have an opportunity to do it right tonight. From a WTXA perspective either route you take is fine, you will be adhering to the requirement of the Town Charter. You do have the opportunity to save the citizens and taxpayers some money which in these times is a very prudent thing to do.

• Our counsel to the citizens of this town is to vote: YES

Thank-you
(George A Ruhe)