|
|
Post by standish on Dec 24, 2005 13:57:58 GMT -5
Syzygy cites Wethersfield Democrats as acting like Washington Republicans. In reality, incumbents of either persuasion circle the wagons to limit public scrutiny and participation. Republicrats and Demicans, alike, have done the same with Campaign Finance Reform, by passing the "Incumbent Protection Bill" and putting control over "public" financing (forced taxation to finance insider politics) in the hands of party bosses. We are seeing the erosion of participatory democracy, slowly but surely, on every front. It's the political class acting as a one-party system to exclude the electorate. Now we get to rubber-stamp party decisions. We must act locally to prevent further erosion, and act largely to oppose "regionalism" and continue local control.
|
|
|
|
Post by SyZyGy on Dec 25, 2005 12:33:11 GMT -5
"Demicrans" and "Republicrats"!
Wow!
Two sides of the same coin.
Standish, tell me you coined these term!
Say it is so!
If not, I give you credit for sharing this with us here.
I wonder how much local control we have left.
What do you have in mind to stem the tide?
An email compaign? Press releases? Warm bodies before a cold Council?
Sy
p/s: I will be away for the next 8 days; keep the pot boiling!
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Dec 25, 2005 17:04:55 GMT -5
As far as I know, the terms are my originals. However, unbeknownst to me, other(s) may have arrived at the same hybrid contractions. They're logical ones. If you wonder how much local control we have remaining, reflect on some of the successful battles townspeople have fought... and won. Now, imagine the same battles against a remote, unresponsive, regional agency. We MUST maintain as much local autonomy as possible, or, further lose to autocracy. Fight this current Council proposal to change minutes. Remind people about our loss of voice (5 minute rule) at Council meetings. Inform your neighbors and encourage them to take a role. Continue to post on this bbs. Send e-mails. Show up at hearings, meetings, et al. Be a citizen. Keep up the good work. Happy Christmas and New Year. Peace on Earth... Good Will Toward Men (and Women).
P.S. - My term is "Demican". You may prefer "Demicran", but, if you wish to remain true or care to attribute, now you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Dec 27, 2005 4:42:25 GMT -5
Observations of the Minutes (unofficial) T/C meeting of 12/19/2005 (Embedded square [bracketed] items are my intentional commentary.) The copy of the minutes of the Town Council of 12/19/2995 received from the Clerk's office on 12/23/2005 was only headed: "Unapproved
DECEMBER 19, 2005
REGULAR MEETING" The heading was missing 'Minutes of the Town Council, Town of Wethersfield, CT'. They also had been annotated: "12/22 [Thursday] Dolores -
Please Proof.
Thanks,
Tammy" Unlike the agenda of the meeting, which follows an alphanumeric outline, these minutes lacked any such alpha-enumeration and indentation scheme. A copy of the agenda of the meeting did not accompany the minutes. Though all Councilors were named under those present, [any absent should have been indicated as "none" for the sake of clarity]. On the first page it was reported that: "Chairperson Morin clarified that item B.3.a is an ordinance for introduction and should not appear on the agenda under Other Business." But, since the name of the "B.3.a" item was not given, a reader, absent the agenda, could not know to what in fact this referred. It should also be noted that the life of the agenda on the Town's website is very short: it usually appears within 24 hours of the council meeting and is removed from public access the following day. The removed agenda of the meetings of the Council and the various boards and commissions are not currently accessible to the public on the Town's website; certain towns in the state provide both. Under the headings of Public Comments and "General Comments ", comments by members of the public were rendered to usually one or two sentences, regardless of the duration, contents or significance of each presentation. The Council Reports & Comments was similarly rendered to one or two sentences per Councilor, with the exception of the Chairperson who was allocated a small paragraph of several sentences covering his multiple observations. In the section entitled Council Action, the moving and seconding Councilors were named for each proposed action; this was followed by a simple summary of passage of each action and its tally: aye, nay, abstaining. No attributable comment or even paraphrase by any Councilor during the discussion of any motion was included here. Under the heading of Other Business and the topic 'Changes in Town Council Minute [sic] format' was a brief paragraph which attributed nothing to any specific Councilor. The only attribution was to the Town Clerk. This paragraph started with an unattributed, unsubstantiated, allegation: "The reason for this motion being necessary was discussed since the public has complained that it is taking too long for minutes to appear on the Town website and the detailed transcription of various minutes is costing the Town approproximately $25,000 per year. " The paragraph closed with: "Councilors had mixed opinions regarding the new format; therefore, it was decided to table the motion until more information [sic] is obtained. "Under the headings of Ordinances, Resolutions, Appointments for Introduction and "Ordinance Amending Chapter A180, Town Council Rules of Procedure" the proposed revisions were presented. Noteable was the some questionable grammar: "Each speaker shall limit their his/her remarks... " and "The Chair at their his/her discretion... ". No demarcation was provided to indicate where this proposal ended and any explanatory note(s) began. [Remarkably, the Clerk felt it appropriate and consistent to report:] "Chairperson Morin wished Happy Holidays to the residents of Wethersfield on behalf of the Town Council. "Under the obviously boilerplated section entitled Adjournment, NO times nor names were included. For example, the last of the three motions read: "At p.m., moved "TO ADJOURN THE MEETING" seconded by . All Councilors present, including the Chairperson voted AYE. The motion passed 9-0-0. "For their personal review, concerned citizens should probably obtain a copy of these unapproved minutes from the Clerk's office since, as of the moment, they are not on the Town's website [despite the haste or facility with which they were produced!]. [Isn't the estimated "$25,000 "already part and parcel of our town budget and isn't it to a large degree the pay supporting at least one part-time assistant town clerk and any already accommodated, outsourced, secetarial services (for the minutes)? ] |
|
|
|
Post by cruzrt on Dec 27, 2005 10:37:23 GMT -5
FootDoc's posting on 12/27 4AM is VERY disturbing. The remarks of the 9 Councillors regarding the content changes to the Minutes have been hidden. Those of us who were actually present know what those 9 people said; yet the Town Clerk (and the Town Manager, who approves the Minutes) has chosen to conceal them. Let's not be too hasty to applaud those Councillors who seemed to be opposed to the changes. The very next agenda item during the 12/19 meeting was the approval of minutes of the 12/5 meeting. Those minutes had also been drastically edited to eliminate nearly all of the content from both Councillors and the Public. Yet all 9 of the Councillors approved those minutes with nary a remark about what was missing from them. We need to get this issue made visible to a wide audience of our citizens. What has already been done by Sassano & Therrien is outrageous, and will be even more so if the Council actually approves that 12/19 agenda item.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Dec 27, 2005 14:00:43 GMT -5
The following was dated today and time-marked as 11:03 this morning. It was received from the Assistant Town Clerk Tammy Ohanesian.
Apparently this is the lastest draft of the now fully implemented Rocky Hill format for the minutes of the meeting of the Town Council for 12/19/2005.
Please note:- this is a TXT/text conversion of the highly formatted MsWord Doc file.
- I will try to get this document in form consistent with that format later
- there were no "working notes" attached to it nor a link to them
- Though the composer of this document alludes to the CGS, the specific citations supposedly relied upon were not provided (Time for another FOI inquiry?)
TOWN OF WETHERSFIELD
MEETING MINUTES
In order to comply with Connecticut General Statutes regarding minutes of meetings, the following will be used to record information during all public meetings that take place. An original must be submitted to the Town Clerk of Wethersfield within 24 hours of the meeting being adjourned. Motions should be complete, showing the maker and second of the motion as well as how each member voted. Unanimous votes may be listed as unanimous.
NAME OF PUBLIC BOARD OR COMMISSION
Town Council
DATE MEETING AGENDA POSTED
December 16, 2005
LOCATION
Silas Deane Middle School Auditorium
551 Silas Deane Highway
DATE OF MEETING
December 19, 2005 Meeting
TIME MEETING STARTED
7:00 p.m.
PERSON PREPARING MEETING MINUTES
Dolores G. Sassano
NOTES TAKEN
X Yes; NoAUDIO, VIDEO OR LIVE TRANSMISSION OF MEETING
X Yes No
MEMBERS PRESENT AT MEETING-. Absent: -
1. Councilor Adil
2. Councilor Cascio
3. Councilor Drake
4. Councilor Forrest
5. Councilor Kotkin
6. Councilor Kirsche
7. Councilor Walsh
8. Deputy Mayor Fortunato
9. Chairperson Morin
Also present: Bonnie Therrien, Town Manager; Dolores G. Sassano, Town Clerk.
NUMBER REQUIRED FOR QUORUM __5_____
QUORUM PRESENT X Yes No
TEXT MOTIONS AND RESULTS VOTES
1st MOTION B1a Passed X Failed Tabled
Councilor Adil moved: “TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF JEFFREY R. KOTKIN FROM THE SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE – WEBB, STILLMAN & PHYSICAL SERVICES,” seconded by Councilor Forrest.
2nd MOTION B1a Passed X Failed Tabled
Councilor Cascio moved “TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF DAVID L. DRAKE FROM THE SCHOOL BUILDING COMMITTEE – WEBB, STILLMAN & PHYSICAL SERVICES”, seconded by Councilor Kirsche.
3rd MOTION B1b Passed X Failed Tabled
Councilor Adil moved “TO ACCEPT THE APPOINTMENT OF LOUIS P. ROBITAILLE, JR. TO THE CIAC FOR THE TERM 12-19-05 TO 6-30-07 AND MICHAEL R. CARRAGHER TO THE FAIR RENT COMMISSION FOR THE TERM 12-19-05 TO 6-30-07”, seconded by Councilor Walsh.
4th MOTION B1c Passed X Failed Tabled
Councilor Forrest moved “TO AUTHORIZE BONNIE L. THERRIEN, TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CERTAIN CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FOR A SSBG SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT,” seconded by Councilor Adil.
5th MOTION B3b Passed Failed Tabled X
Councilor Adil moved “TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED MEETING MINUTES FORMAT FOR TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS AND THE MEETINGS OF ALL TOWN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS” seconded by Councilor Walsh.
6th MOTION B3c Passed X Failed Tabled
Councilor Forrest moved “TO ADOPT THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) AS THE STANDARD FOR INCIDENT MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE TOWN OF WETHERSFIELD”, seconded by Deputy Mayor Fortunato.
7th MOTION B3d Passed X Failed Tabled
Councilor Walsh moved “TO AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO APPLY FOR PRESERVE AMERICA FUNDING FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FOR A HISTORIC WETHERSFIELD MASTER PLAN AND TO ACCEPT THE FUNDS IF SO AWARDED”, seconded by Councilor Kotkin.
For Introduction:
ORDINANCE AMENDING PART I – ADDING CHAPTER 2 – LOCAL DISASTER EMERGENCY TO THE REVISED CHARTER AND MUNICIPAL CODE
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER A180, TOWN COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
Minutes:
December 5, 2005 Regular Council meeting approved as is.
LINK TO WORKING NOTES (will be attached if available)
TIME MEETING ADJOURNED:
8:25 P.M. TO EXECUTIVE SESSION;
8:59 P.M. BACK INTO REGULAR MEETING;
9:00 ADJOURNMENT
[The duly made/seconded motion with vote to move into executive session - present in the Sassano version of the 'minutes' - was NOT reported here. Like the Sassano version (12/23/2005), this Ohanesian version does not properly report the mover/seconder and vote to adjourn the council meeting- making this version technically flawed to. KES,12/31/2005]
TIME DELIVERED TO TOWN CLERK
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Dec 27, 2005 14:20:16 GMT -5
The following link and download and viewing works on my computer; hopefully it wil work for yours; let's give it a try.
The URL takes you to the PDF file which I just created of the above referenced minutes (today's version) for 12/19/2005 meeting of the Town Council:
If you need a copy of Adobe's Acrobat Reader just click here: PDF Reader (free!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Dec 28, 2005 7:03:34 GMT -5
Today's Hartford Courant (12/28/2005; page B3-B4) carried a short article by one of its ace reporters, entitled:
MEETING MINUTES PLAN FAULTED
Some question Town Clerk's Proposal To Cut Back Transcription of Council Proceedings
Cut it out from your copy of the Courant, or log onto www.courant.com and locate it online and download your personal, archival copy; the following link will be short-lived due to Courant's policies:
You will probably have to highlight the ENTIRE LINK and copy past it to your URL window, due to infrastructure limitations of ProBoards.[/size] Then read it and read between the lines. Then post your thoughts here. Later today I will have time to do the same. One question: who is Michael Cuddigan? I hope he also shows up at the next Council meeting*: Tuesday January 3rd at SDMS *Councilor Matt Forrest will be at Town Hall, on this Thursday, Dec. 29, for the pre-Council meeting session of "The Mayor's Hour" from 5:30 - 6:30 pm (probably in the Manager's Conference room). He too voiced concerns (about the possible change to shorter, threadbare minutes) at the 12/19/2005 Council meeting, the unapproved versionS of which notwithstanding[/b]
|
|
|
|
Post by Jubashero on Dec 28, 2005 12:48:58 GMT -5
Section 1-225 of the Connecticut General Statutes list the following requirements:
A written summary of the vote for each member of any public committee on any issue must be be made available for public inspection within 48 hours.
The minutes must be made available for public review within 7 days.
These regulations have been on the books for several years.
I was a little disheartened with arguments in favor of the reduced minutes at the last council meeting. Are the minutes for the benefit of the Council or public interest? Is the impetus for change at this time to reduce the cost, or is our town staff becoming lazy? I say if the minutes are reduced, the town clerk should lose one staff member.
I for one would like to see the minutes remain as they were. Having said that, I also recognize that the regulations have to be met. I think the new form could produce the bare bones voting results w/n the 48-hour time frame, and be completed more fully with the complete information (as before) in the 7 day time frame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Dec 28, 2005 12:57:06 GMT -5
NB: I sent the following to Town Hall this morning; I received two electronic email confirmations of reception by the Clerk and the Manager:
2005.12.28
Wednesday
EST: 10:57 (UT-5:00)
to: Dolores Sassano, Clerk, Town of Wethersfield
cc: Bonnie Therrien, Manager, Town of Wethersfield
cc: John Bradley, Attorney, Town of Wethersfield (via the offices of the Clerk and Manager)
re: "Second" version of the Unapproved "Minutes" of the Town Council's regular meeting of 12/19/2005
Dear Mrs. Sassano,
Thank you for having one of your three assistant town clerks, Ms. Tammy Ohanesian, send me a second (new and different) copy of the "minutes" (unapproved) of the Town Council meeting of 12/19/2005. This latest version differs substantially from that which you had provided me last Friday, 12/23/2005, at your office.
I noticed that this second version more closely approximates that of the "Rocky Hill format" mentioned at that Town Council meeting - nearly devoid of any elaborative content other than the "motions and votes" and attendance. I noticed too that no "working notes" were appended nor attached to this second (Rocky Hill format) version.
This latest version, in its lead paragraph was headed with the following (lead) sentence:
"In order to comply with Connecticut General Statutes regarding minutes of meetings, the following will be used to record information during all public meetings that take place. "
In such a legal document as your minutes, isn't it fitting and customary, when the Connecticut General Statutes are so invoked, to quote "chapter and verse"? No citation or reference was provided though.
I presume that this allusion (to the CGS) was included with the assistance and blessing of the Town Attorney, Mr. John Bradley, of the firm Rome, McGuigan, Sabanosh, PC. If this is not so, please correct me.
I write specifically to request, under the Freedom of Information Act, State of Connecticut, that you provide me with
(a) the documents from Attorney Bradley (or arising from verbal or electronic contact with him) which supported this action on the part of your office; and
(b) the citations and references to the CGS
which you subsequently used to support the inclusion of your lead sentence in the most recent (second, Ohanesian) version of the "minutes" of the above referenced Town Council meeting.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to this request.
Respectfully,
By email
(Electronic Receipt Requested)
Kenneth E. Sokolowski
Wethersfield, CT 06109
|
|
|
|
Post by oldetowne on Dec 28, 2005 12:57:31 GMT -5
I think it's obvious that the goal of reducing the workload of the Town Clerk's office is a convenient excuse for reducing the quality and quantity of the minutes. Harken back to the pre-mayor's wife days in the Town Clerk's office and the minutes were prepared in the detailed manner without any whining about how long it took or whether they contained anything contentious or objectionable that the public or a Council member may have said.
Frankly, I also think that the Council minutes issue is the tip of the iceberg with respect to the town's failure to comply with FOIA. Minutes for PZC and ZBA meetings are weeks in the making, those for other commissions are all over the lot in terms of quality, and minutes of Council committee and subcommittee meetings are often non-existent.
It all may become an academic issue as time goes on and the public's right to participate is pared back further. We may well reach the point where there would be nothing to put in the minutes other than the motions and seconds as all important decisions are made in advance and in private by the majority members of the Council under the watchful guidance of their party leaders.
|
|
|
|
Post by standish on Dec 28, 2005 17:37:28 GMT -5
...We may well reach the point where there would be nothing to put in the minutes other than the motions and seconds as all important decisions are made in advance and in private by the majority members of the Council under the watchful guidance of their party leaders. |
|
stvman
Bronze Member
Posts: 23 
|
Post by stvman on Dec 28, 2005 17:40:31 GMT -5
One of the excuses I've heard tossed around by town officials is that the tapes are available for viewing in the library. But, according to the card catalog database, the most recent tapes in the library are from 2002. Question posed to the Reference Librarian confirmed that the library no longer gets the tapes.
|
|
stvman
Bronze Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by stvman on Dec 28, 2005 17:45:21 GMT -5
That posting earlier today by Jubashero about Section 1-225 clearly shows a distinction between the "votes document" that must be made available within 48 hours, and a "minutes document" that must be made available within 7 days. If Jubashero has accurately posted the wording from 1-225, that destroys the Town Clerk's case for the law requiring ONLY attendance and votes recording. Do we have any legal beagles on the board who can verify that 1-225wording?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Ken Sokolowski on Dec 28, 2005 18:00:37 GMT -5
I posted this letter moments ago 2005.12.28
Wednesday
EST: 17:50 (UT-5:00)
Dear Ms. Fillo,
I read with great interest the article you authored in today's Hartford Courant regarding the proposals to change the format (and I must add content) of the minutes of the boards and commissions (including the Town Council) of Wethersfield.
I am sure that you will be amidst the public on Tuesday, January 3, 2006, when this issue may be raised (removed from the table, where it is currently) and perhaps discussed and acted on (if it is not again tabled).
I and other observers of the political / town scene in Wethersfield for more than a few years have great concerns about the intent and impact of such a proposal. We would go so far as to say, the minutes (at least for the Town Council) don't need "fixing" - the format and content which has been provided us for many past years serves the public well.
There are many unanswered question. One is why the Town administration has not insisted (by all appropriate means) that minutes of the various boards and commissions are not being submitted as required by law. A review of the Minutes page ( wethersfieldct.com/B+C/minutes.html ) [You will need to copy/paste the entire link on this forum. kes] on the Town's website demonstrates the great number of minutes have not been posted to the site for months! Just look at the dates of some of those which are tagged as "New". Another important question is which minutes are indeed AWOL and which minutes - perhaps submitted on time - just have not been moved to the website. )
I offer the following link for your consideration; it takes you to a thread on a local ProBoards bulletin board where I started a thread on this topic. I am sure that you find it at least informative and enlightening.
wthrsfld.proboard26.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=talkboards&thread=1135082351&page=1
When you review the two versions and compare them not to each other but to any other version of the minutes of the Council prior to December, 2005, you will notice how worthless they are to the public: no legislative "history" is found (except the motions and votes; no discussion, no reasoning, no give and take, no clue what the Councilors felt and why they voted in a particular manner, etc.
I and others will be adding to this thread in the remaining days leading to the 1/3/06 Council meeting.
The stripped down "minutes" may satisfy some base minimum of the legal reporting requirements of the CGS and the FOIA, but they are not what the public expects and needs in both the short or long term if we are to remain a participant in the American process of governance.
I could go on, but must send this off now. There are many other considerations which support the retention of our "classical" minutes; there are other reasons why the proposal to redact and / or restrict the transcription of the vocal contributions of the participants in this process of governing our fair town of Wethersfield.
Sincerely,
Dr.Ken Sokolowski
Wethersfield, CT |
|
