The Plan: How to Get the Lights

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Now that the referenda have been voted on, there is really no reason to continue posting to the "Vote NO! on Question #2" thread. I would suggest that we all stop posting to that thread at this point.

The question on Pro-Lites peoples' minds is: How do we go about getting the lights on Cottone Field, Esposito Field, DiCicco Field, etc., etc., with emphasis on the first, in the shortest, legitimate time-frame?

Now that the public has made it clear (by almost a 2:1 margin) that they expect good sportsmanship from the pro-lites people (that they should "Play by the Rules"), I feel that Mr. Sansaro and Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Miller should respond by laying out "the plan". That way, all can have reasonable expectations.

Mayor Morin has said time and time again, that no town funds would be expended to install the lights.

As I see it, the applicant for the lights on Cottone Field has to be the Town itself and / or the WPS via the BOE. If that is the case, then the Town attorney, John Bradley, Esq., and the Parks and Recreation Department and the Building Department, and Dr. Proctor's administration, etc., will have to get involved in creating and submitting the application for such lights to the PZC (and then the ZBA).

However, since no town funds can be spent for their services, be it real or in kind, without Mayor Morin breaking his word to the public (a potentially lethal political mistake), the payment for these services will apparently have to come from the Cottone Field Fund (Connecticut Rivers Community Bank) which the Town controls via its finance department, etc. I have not checked recently but I believe there is about $22,000+ which had come from the public "for the lights" and Cottone Field and which are available to facilitate the planning and application phases for the zoning / appeals processes. The Town and only the Town has complete control over those funds for this purpose.

I am sure that Ms. Therrien, Dr. Proctor and Ms. Hanc'ck will inform the public exactly how this is to be handled.

I am sure that there will also be members of the pro-lites group who will gladly work with the Town/WPS to provide a variety of support services to make the Town's application process easier - and at zero-cost to the Town - by picking up the tab if all of the current in-the-bank funds are exhausted.

How involved this process becomes depends on many factors which I am sure will be elaborated in this thread.

I look forward to fact-filled information from those who post here - hopefully free from personal attacks and innuendos that have characterized attempts to "discuss" this matter up to this point.

As far as I can tell, this should be a brand new ballgame which shall be "played by the rule" without histrionics.

[hodiddly]

Good points from the good Doctor - I would like to get one last thing off of my chest, and then I promise I will move on from this point forward - regarding the "play by the rules" mantra, didn't the pro lights people do that? Didn't the WTXA sue the town of Wethersfield? Had question #2 passed, wouldn't that have been playing by the rules? Now that question #1 was shot down by a wide margin as was #2, and the pro lights people are willing to abide by the decision of the vote, isn't that playing by the rules? Aren't black & gold signs telling voters to vote yes on #1 if you want lights deceptive? (these signs produced & distributed by the WTXA). Isn't that kind of hipocritical and somewhat bending the rules? I think so. - So let us move forward, and light the field, so that we can concentrate on other matters.

[LouS]

Doc,

You are correct in everything that you mention. What you failed to state, however, is that the WTXA's Q1 was defeated. The voters made that clear, as well.

This means that there is support and acknowledgement from the voters that Lights at Cottone should be allowed. Now the question will be, and you (plural pronoun) can not have it both ways, will the WTXA follow the voters' will, as the "prolights" movement will? Or will the WTXA be obstructionists and use potential law suits, etc., to stop this voter acknowledged movement?

Let's see if it is as good for the goose as it is for the gander.

[Ironrod]

Lou,

You must have missed my previous reply to your assertion that the outcome of last weeks referendum supports lighting Cottone Field...so here is that reply and my analysis again:

By no means was the defeat of Q1 a victory for proponents seeking to light Cottone Field...THIS WAS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT FOR LIGHTING COTTONE FIELD!

Why? Consider this:

Its clear that ALL those who voted YES on Q1 for a broad based prohibition of lights would have been in favor of prohibiting lights at Cottone Field alone if presented with that choice...

What's more SOME of those who voted NO on Q1 against the broad based light prohibition would have been against lighting ONLY Cottone Field if they had the chance to vote on that specific initiative.

So we know 40.4% of the electorate are against lighting Cottone Field and some additional percentage of the remaining voters are also against lighting Cottone Field.

So where does that leave us? An even split FOR/AGAINST lighting Cottone Field? Perhaps more against lighting the field? Certainly there is no "vast majority" of support either way.

So for those who have made the claim that "the vast majority of townspeople are for lighting Cottone Field" I think the outcome of last weeks vote on Q1 has firmly renounced their ability to judge the will of the people...

I say lets have another referendum vote this November specifically on lighting Cottone Field...then we will finally know the will of the people.

Until then, Lou, you should resist spouting your opinion as the truth...You've been wrong before and you will certainly be wrong again.

[standish]

As far as I know, the Writ of Mandamus was filed to force Town Council to follow the rules of the Town Charter. That's what a Writ, as such, does. While I did not support the goals of WTXA's original petition drive, I do believe the town was required to address the petition and hold a referendum. Nor was the lease arrangement which paid for the field entirely "kosher", by the letter and spirit of the charter.

In turn, while there is enabling legislation that actually permits a town to exempt itself from zoning, it is in order to circumvent zoning rules that proponents opted to pursue this approach. It is legal by the letter of the law (However, of 169 towns in CT, only 5 have ever done so). On the other hand, it is actually an effort to change the rules (or, throw them out) in order to win a short-term goal. Thus, the failure of spirit.

Were the black and yellow signs a failure of the same spirit? I believe so. The sign's authors claim they simply wanted people to "think about the lights". However, the signs were misleading... intentional or not.

[hodiddly]

O.K., I apologize in advance for being "simple" here, but my question now is this - Why did we not vote, originally, on just lighting cottone field? I asked this question once before on this forum, and the only answer I recieved was "because we can't"(paraphrase), but no explanation as to why we couldn't. I dis-agree with Ironrod regarding supporting lighting the field - I believe that if that was all that was at stake on the ballot the lights would have been approved by a 2 to 1 margin (just a guess). As to all who voted Yes on Q#1 would have been in favor of prohibiting lights on Cottone - not if they had been decieved and or confused by the black & gold signs. Question #1 was still voted down by a wide margin. I have spoken to many people who voted No on #2, simply because they did not want to give this, or any future council that much authority, but are very much in favor of lighting the field. If lighting Cottone is all that is at stake on a ballot, I think the WTXA are in for an enlightening experience.

[LouS]

Ironrod,

See standish and hodiddly for info and as good a statistical representation as yours.

[LouS]

And Ironrod,

I was trying to refrain from being nasty, but your implication of my "spouting off" has elicited this, although factual, juvenile comeback, which I promise I will try and control by not responding in the future at all...if I can't say anything nice...
your track record, to this point is 0-1 I believe.

[RGarrey]

Hodiddly, you ask why we couldn't vote on just Cottone Field lighting. We couldn't because that was not the wording on the petition. When you have a citizen initiated petition it is illegal to change the wording from what was on the petition when people signed it. Anyone could initiate a petition that speaks specifically to the issue of Cottone field but that is not what the taxpayers association wanted. They worded their question to cover much more than one field. Most people didn't agree with the wording of that question but you can't change the wording once you have signatures on the petition, if you change the wording then it becomes a whole new question and you must start over and get all new signatures.

I think it is impossible to call the results of this vote a victory for or against lighting Cottone Field. Both questions, in my opinion, were too broad in their scope to call it a mandate either way. People who were either for or against Cottone Field Lighting may have been forced to vote in a way that went against their feeling about lighting Cottone field, but was neceesary to stop two poorly written referendum questions.
Now we will have to wait for the town to put in the application and then sit back and listen to the next round of "debates" at the P&Z public hearings and on this forum.

Oh yeah and one question for Bill, what is "Karma" and why don't I have any? Just curious.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Doc, You are correct in everything that you mention. What you failed to state, however, is that the WTXA's Q1 was defeated. The voters made that clear, as well. This means that there is support and acknowledgment from the voters that Lights at Cottone should be allowed. Now the question will be, and you (plural pronoun) can not have it both ways, will the WTXA follow the voters' will, as the "prolights" movement will? Or will the WTXA be obstructionists and use potential law suits, etc., to stop this voter acknowledged movement? Let's see if it is as good for the goose as it is for the gander.

Lou,
I made no reference to the defeat of Q#1 intentionally. I agree with you that 60% of the voters made their feelings clear, *IF* you discount the confusion factor in the wording of Q#1. (I cannot get any more worked up over the 'Vote Yes/Q#1' signs than I can over your literature which specifically excluded any hint of a larger, more dangerous issue - exempting the Town from its own zoning processes. I see these as t i t s for t a t s.)

I look at the 40/60 defeat of Q#1 as enabling the POSSIBILITY of lights on the sports fields in town - it is hardly a mandate. So I must heartily disagree with your interpretation of the defeat of Q#1 that "support and acknowledgment from the voters that Lights at Cottone should be allowed.".

I see the Q#1 tally as indicative that the electors saw a larger issue (? too broad a prohibition of new, municipal lights). It is a presumption on your part that this 60% voted specifically to promote "Lights at Cottone". If you are correct (and I believe that you are not, then the Pro-Lites should have prevailed with Q#2. I believe that the most that you can legitimately claim is the obvious: that lights have not been categorically ruled out.

Lou, the referenda are over and you are still fixated on the WTXA. The polling is only a week old and you are already hurling epithets ("obstructionists") at them. Maybe they will make their feelings known and maybe they will not. Maybe they will "have to" and maybe, if the application is handled properly ("by the rules") they will not have to.

It's a new game and you have the ball.

I would worry less about what they MAY do and be more concerned what YOU guys are going to do to improve the chances of getting lights on Cottone.

So, what is your game plan? Will the WYO work directly with the Town/departments involved in fashioning the application which the Town/BOE will have to bring before the PZC? Has the Town and/or Council and/or the BOE started to knead the application? As others have asked here, when will the application be brought before the PZC? Is Mr. Miller going to help fashion that application as he had the petition which led to Q#2? Will the WYO funds donated to the Town be used to pay for the application process - necessary for the installation of the lights?

As for geese and ganders, I prefer either or both be cooked well, unstuffed, with plenty of herbs and spices, with a dry, white whine .

I believe that your followers on this forum would like to be led by your good judgment and information. It's time to move on. Go for it!

[standish]

Rick,
Now you have at least one "good" karma. I "exalted" you, which is something one can do (or "smite", as one is so inclined). When logged in, at the bottom of another's posts, just under the "karma" value, there is a selection of either "exalt" or "smite". Choose judiciously.

Have fun!

[hodiddly]

I realize that I am throwing myself into the deep end of the pool, so to speak, with the participants in this conversation, but let me see if I am reading this correctly - The WTXA created a petition that was worded in such a way that they knew the majority of the informed voting public would go along with, because of the "broad stroke" approach in which it was written, by tacking all municipal properties onto the issue, instead of just making it about Cottone Field. The referendum vote cost $20,000, and we got an outcome that most would agree is gray, at best. We now will vote again in November, and the Cottone field issue will be on the ballot as a seperate issue? I agree with Rick that the outcome of this vote could not be considered a victory for either side - how could it? I will also agree with Footdoc regarding his t i t for t a t comments, but with this addendum - the pro light people wanted to keep this about the lights (at least in my opinion) on Cottone - the WTXA manipulated the general public's train of thought and pushed for the broader stroked question, then produced and distributed the deceptive signs. I will disagree with the Doc regarding who I should be more concerned about. The actions of the WTXA, to me, seem to be much more manipulitive. These people do NOT represent me in any way. As for the goose, I'll have the Chardonnay.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

To:
Bonnie Therrien, Manager, Town of Wethersfield: [e-mail]
Dr. Patrick Proctor, Superintendent, WPS: [e-mail]
Russell A. Morin, Chair, Town Council: [e-mail]
Gerri Roberts, Chair, Board of Education: [e-mail]

Dear honorable leaders,

On Bill (Randazzo's) on-line forum, there is a discussion about the path and process which the Lights-on-Cottone advocates and their Town of Wethersfield / WPS allies will / could / should take in pursuing and perhaps achieving their goal(s): Lights on Cottone, and Esposito, and DiCicco fields, etc.

I opined on that forum that it is the Town and/or the WPS which will have to apply to PZC; is this correct and if not who has standing for such applications? Is the BOE/WPS going to defer to the Town/Council in the handling of this matter, or will the BOE/WPS take the lead, which I believe it should (school property)? The public would like to know exactly the plan and course which the Town/WPS will take in the application and hearing processes before PZC and ZBA; would you please inform us?

The public would like to know the time-frame for these processes and have the answer to the big question: is it a reasonable expectation on the part of the Friends of Lights on Cottone (FLC; my phrase and acronym) to have the lights installed and operational some time this Autumn 2005?

I also offered the analysis that, since the Mayor has decreed that no Town funds shall be spent for the installation of lights on Cottone, expenses incurred by the Town would have to be paid by withdrawals from the donations of the WYO and others held in the Cottone Field Fund escrow account at the CT Rivers Community Bank. Am I correct or wrong; if wrong, please elaborate on how the application and hearing costs shall be handled to avoid the embargo on "Town funds" for this purpose. What is the estimated cost to take this question / application through all of the local boards and commissions. Is the WPS/BOE instead going to underwrite the costs if the Town/Council will/can not? Does the WPS/BOE have equal and preferential access to the Cottone Field Fund (escrow account)?

Will the Town/WPS accept assistance from the Mr. Daniel O'Connor's WYO, (PAC or otherwise), Mr. John Miller (local engineer), Mr. Lou Sanzaro (sports enthusiast) and other supporters to help defray the cost to the Town/WPS for such applications and hearings (via the Cottone Field Fund and contributions in kind)? If not, please elaborate.

On the 5/24/2005 referenda, the electors who voted that day clearly said (that there should be no town-wide prohibition on new lights installations on municipal properties, thereby not ruling out lights on Cottone (40% to prohibit-v- 60% not to prohibit). Additionally, the electors voting that day said loud and clear that our current Zoning processes were more important than lights per se on Cottone (37% for zoning exemption -v- 63% for no zoning exemption).

Politics aside (if that is possible in Wethersfield - especially in a local election year!), the message to the Town, the WPS, the Council and the BOE should be very clear, the answer to the proposition of lights or no lights on Cottone must be played by the rules - that is, on the "up and up". I personally look forward to such a forthright approach to this question and process by you, Dr. Proctor, the Council and the BOE. The public expects an honest attempt to honestly discuss and decide this issue.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

From the Town Manager's Report to Council on 5/20/2005:
"The balance in the Cottone Field Account at 5/13/05 is $22,640.80. The only activity is interest posting for $13.02. "

[hodiddly]

I would like to conduct a very unscientific poll - I would ask all readers of this post to simply state whether or not they would like to see lights on Cottone field? Standish, footdoc, rgarrey, ironrod, thinkingmama, and all others - now that the vote is over, and it's not about zoning reg's and political posturing, I would like to hear honest opinions. I personally would like to see lights and would enjoy taking my kid's to night games. Let's hear your opinions Wethersfield!