No need for a long post here, the point is quite simple. Whether or not Eddie Perez is a crook headed to prison is not the issue.
Tonight at 9:45pm the Hartford City Council adjourned their regular meeting to go into an executive session. Prior to that, as has become the norm in most council meetings lately, the discussion centered around removing the Mayor from office and arguments regarding the role of John Rose.
Please Councilmembers stop this insanity. There is much more business that is critical to the operation of Hartford as a city. Whether Eddie Perez stays or goes will be decided most likely in the very near future. His damage has been done and by not focusing on the business of Hartford, you as councilpeople are adding to the damage.
And besides, by looking like opportunists who smell blood in the water it just adds to the distractions to draw attention away from the real work that needs to be done.
Has any contingency plan been developed for what most people think will be the inevitable headline in the next few weeks on the front page of the Courant "Perez cuts a plea deal with the State, will resign today". I doubt it. Has any thought been given to cleaning out the Mayor's Office and who will come in to facilitate a smooth transition?
Wasting time on arguing about Eddie Perez and John Rose is just that, a waste of time. Please focus on the budget, focus on the huge deficit Perez will be leaving us with. Focus on how we will begin turning Hartford around once Perez, Rose and the rest are gone. Focus on the needs of city government and making that happen in full transparency so that you can begin restoring confidence in the operations at City Hall.
If Perez is gone tomorrow by some miracle that the Council could garner 7 votes to remove him or if he is removed in a few weeks by pleading guilty to numerous felony charges, does it really make that much of a difference.
Please start focusing on the real remedies and be ready to forge ahead when the reigns of government are taken back by an honest leader. The frivolous resolutions, as well meaning as they may be, are just adding to the distraction that has become the daily standard operating procedure in City Hall.
Lets be ready to make real change when that Courant headline becomes reality any day now.
Kevin, how are the nine city council members selected? Do each of them represent a voting area of Hartford and get voted in by the people of their perspective "areas"?
ReplyDeletecouncilpeople are elected "at-large", which means they are elected on a citywide basis. councilpeople, in theory, don't represent a specific district or area.
ReplyDeleteAn effort to change that was being considered during last years work by the Charter Revision Commission. The "hybrid" council would have consisted of both "at-large" councilpeople and members elected by districts.
Charter revision was essentially killed by this Council after they allowed critical deadlines to pass unchecked, even after Commission members put in numerous hours to work on the revisions.
I was the chairman of the last commission and a member of the commission before that one (2002). Both commissions proposed a hybrid council. In 2002 it was voted down by the council and a petition drive to get it on the ballot fell short. In 2009 it would have been voted down had the council not completely botched the process. You can have a serious debate about whether district elections are a good thing, but that is not what has killed it. Rather, it was pure self-interest. Both times it was the 3 minority party members who were at the heart of the opposition because it would dilute their influence (the 02 proposal would have had 11 on council, 6 at large and 5 districts, so only 2 minority members elected at large. 09 proposal would have had 13 - 8 at large, so 3 minority members). 2009 was particularly disappoionting because it was Dr. Deutsch who proposed the 13 member hybrid council at a charter revision committee meeting only to vote against it when it got to the council. There were also a fair number of Democrats, mostly at the town committee level, who opposed it both times because instead of being able to help influence the election of 6 of nine (i.e. a supermajority) the DTC as a whole would only have been able to influence 4 of 11 in 2002 and 5 of 13 in 2009. Perhaps the biggest disappointment, however, was the Mayor himself. Back in 2000 he was a strong supporter of district elections (that charter revision committe proposal went nowhere). In 2002, he was working with a coalition of 2 D's and the 3 minority party members (Airy-Wilson, Painter, and Sheff) and he was against it. In 2009 he was a lot more ambiguous, supporting an entirely district-elected council (like New Haven) which was a political non-starter. Whether that was a principled position (ie the Mayor thought it best for the city), a self-interested one (ie the Mayor knows that the Mayor of New Haven has a lot more power relative to his council than almost any Mayor in CT, except perhaps Stamford) or a cynical one (he knew it was a non-starter so he could be in favor of "district elections" without having to worry it might come to pass) is not clear, but if the Mayor had supported the commission's compromise plan, he probably could have persuaded Winch and Torres to support it, which would have made 6 votes in favor (assuming that the council could actually have called the proper meetings). As for how the council is elected, 6 are selected by the Democratic Town Committee, because the 6 endorsed D's have won all but a couple of the elections in the last 40 years. the other 3 actually get elected, because there is usually stiff competition for the 3 minority representation seats.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that politics enters into the whole Charter Revision Committee, every time there is one,starting from the selection of commission members all the way through to the writing of a report to the Council.I thank Rich for his well thought out posting.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see another try at revising the Charter.
It sounds like the council members who have decided to side with Mayor Perez have been compromised and no longer serve the public. They should be identified and replaced in next election so Hartford can have free thinkers and move forward. Is there a source we can use to research council voting history to determine who blindly follows the Mayor?
ReplyDeleteIt is a totally political process, which is natural and appropriuate, because a city charter is a political document (does anyone thing the US Constitutional Convention wasn't a political prcess?). What is frustrating is that in Hartford it is usually a very cynical and self-interested process. Back in 2002, for example, councilwoman Sheff pretty much stated in a meeting between council and the commission that, unless the commission backed a charter change raising the mimimum salary for council the pay before that was around $13,000 and it went to $18,500, if I remember correctly) she would not support a strong mayor form of government. The only way charter revision can work in Hartford is either to have a consensus before hand on the council about what they are willing to put on the ballot, or have enough people on the commission with enough political pull that they can either lobby the council or, if necessary, go into the streets to do a petition drive to get the revisions on the ballot over the council's objection.
ReplyDeleteIt is a totally political process, which is natural and appropriuate, because a city charter is a political document (does anyone thing the US Constitutional Convention wasn't a political prcess?). What is frustrating is that in Hartford it is usually a very cynical and self-interested process. Back in 2002, for example, councilwoman Sheff pretty much stated in a meeting between council and the commission that, unless the commission backed a charter change raising the mimimum salary for council the pay before that was around $13,000 and it went to $18,500, if I remember correctly) she would not support a strong mayor form of government. The only way charter revision can work in Hartford is either to have a consensus before hand on the council about what they are willing to put on the ballot, or have enough people on the commission with enough political pull that they can either lobby the council or, if necessary, go into the streets to do a petition drive to get the revisions on the ballot over the council's objection.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to your posting heading Kevin,Hartford is in choas and will remain so until the issue of the Mayor and the corruption in city hall is resolved and the resolution of the dire financial situation that we find ourselves in.In addition, the political situation of the Democratic Party in Hartford is and will remain deadlocked between two equal competing factions, with little or no hope of any unanimity or consensous as both sides are totally suspicious and untrusting of the other side.
ReplyDeleteI like what you're sharing Rich and agree with you except on one small philosophical point. Our political process in America is anything but "natural". It has been contrived by the wealthy and continues to be dominated by the haves who control the have-nots.
ReplyDelete90% of politicians in the country get reelected. Our political process has digressed from politicians being the voice of the people to becoming career paths often used by many politicians to benefit themselves.
Something can be learned from how former Minnesota Governor Jesse Venture refused to run a second term even though he was expected to win. He also believes politics should not be a career path.
In Kevin's original post he complained that the council is not properly focused on critical issues at hand. I'm not sure how discussion of charter revisions past, proposed, or imagined addresses issues at hand, but I do find it interesting. Since Chairman Wareing is in on it, I'd really be curious to know how he deems the "strong mayor" charter to be working, now that we've had some years experience with it. For the record, I voted against it, and don't regret the vote in the least. In fact, the Perez performance suggests to me that it is not a particularly good idea. I'd also quibble with Rich on whether concern about reduced minority party influence on council is a matter of "pure self-interest," and would sincerely ask of him what he deems the advantages of the district-elected members.
ReplyDeleteIsn't there a term used when power is shifted from a group of people to just one person? I'm trying to think of it.... I know it starts with a "d".... I'm thinking Hitler... I'm thinking... Stalin... Saddam Hussein... Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Sung... whatever this word is it seems to historically lead to bad leadership a lot.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr Brush in his belief that the strong Mayor system has been a failure in Hartford.Any large City in Connecticut that has been in dire financial straits and was taken over by a State over-sight board for a period of time...Bridgeport,Waterbury and West Haven all had a strong mayor system that devolved into corruption and incompetance.My belief is that a strong mayor system is devoid of the necessary checks and balances for a reasonable democratic government and sets the stage for either an unsecure or corrupt person to become a corrupt tyrant.I would be in favor of either of a return to a Council/Manager form of government or the "strong mayor's" power under the Charter sharply reduced.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Peter's comments, I believe that some district representation is appropriate for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, I have lived in Hartford for almost 20 years and several neighborhoods have never had a single member of council in that time, while others have had (and have now) grossly disproportionate representation. We can all sit around (especially if we live in the South End or West End, both of whcih have been overrepresented on council for years) and say that a coucilperson "represents everyone" but go and ask someone from a neighborhood without a resident councilperson about the level of responsiveness from the council. Number two, given the DTC stranglehold on the council, and given the almost complete failure of 3rd party or minority party candidates to do better than the minimum of 3 seats in the last 40 years, district elections represent the best hope of giving voters a real alternative to the DTC endorsed slate because a person with a strong base in a neighborhood, or a couple of neighborhoods could buck the system and win that area, even if they couldn't win citywide. Take Thom Page - he lost citywide as a 3rd party candidate, but did really well in the West End could have won a district built around the West End. As for strong mayor, the issue is not the structure, it's the people. New Haven and Stamford both have a strong mayor system (with the mayor having at lot more power than the Mayor of Hartford). Many (if not most) people would say Stamford is probably the best run city in Connecticut. Many (if not most) of our council members love to blather on about how powerless they are, but they approve the budget and they approve all the Mayor's appointments to boards and for department heads. If they can't figure out how to use those tools effectively in dealing with the Mayor, they shouldn't be on the council. As a system of government, council/manager has its advantages, but it also comes down to people - Barry Feldman in West Hartford was a really good town manager. Sandy Borges in Hartford, not so much. As between the two, I go for strong mayor because the person running this city ought to be directly acocuntable to the voters, not some technocrat, quite possibly from elsewhere and just passing through, and who is accountable only to them 9 members of council, 6 of whom are selected by the insular DTC.
ReplyDeleteRich, the problem is most of the checks and balances of the council against the Mayor requires a vote of 7 of the 9 council members. Once the Mayor has 3 council members in his back pocket he's made city council come to a deadlock. This has already happened and it's why I said those council people need to be identified and removed.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a strong Mayor only works when you have an honest Mayor. As Eddie and history demonstrates, if someone less then honorable gets that kind of power it's devastating to the people.
Thanks, Rich, for your thoughts. I must say, that I agree with you entirely, and not just with respect to the mayor's office, that "the issue is not the structure, it's the people." I'm not a fan of Eddie's, but I would give him a high grade for the appointment of Ilg. I admit that we have at least once successfully defeated the DTC mayoral candidate (Mike Peters), but is not your concern about DTC control of council also applicable to mayor? That seems to be the source of at least some of Eddie's ethical/legal problems. And, why doesn't the people v. structure point apply to district representation on council? Frankly, I'm not sure the governmental structure here makes that much of a practical difference. I'd really appreciate it if we had a government that strove to return the City to a triple-A bond rating, as opposed to one that strives to provide multitudinous social services with large numbers of unionized workers; an impossibility here because of the people who vote, and regardless of charter.
ReplyDeleteJeff, it is interesting you raise the 7 of 9 point. There was a lot of debate in 2002 about what the number for removal of appointments and overriding vetos should be. But remember, that we were talking about a council that would be 11 not 9. The thinking was that 8 of 11 was too many but 6 of 11 not enough. When the council ditched the changes in its structure, however, it let the 7 member number through because that wasn't part of the council package. On balance, though, would you want only 6 votes needed to remove when you know that it is highly likely 6votes will always be controlled by the DTC endorsed slate? It's a fair question and it is also ironic that the council today hamstrung by the 7 member requirement when they created the mess by cutting loose the exapnsion of council. In response to Peter, there was a lot of debate about whether the DTC would end up controlling the Mayor but utlimately we concluded that the Mayor would probably have enough power to maintain some measure of independence from the DTC (Mike Peters did, and he was a weak mayor). Another irony, because I don't think any of us on the 2002 commission would have guessed that a strong mayor could so completely dominate the DTC (and the council) for so long. In any event, most of this stuff is debatable, and only matters at the margins. What is most pressing is what Kevin is blogging about, which is the state of City government, and more particularly how ready it is (or isn't) should a post-Perez world emerge in the next few weeks (or months).
ReplyDeleteWell, soon to be Mayor Segarra will have all the power shortly. Let's hope he uses it to start the healing process Hartford so desperately needs after it's 9 year raping from Mayor Perez and his cronies.
ReplyDeleteRich...the chances for "bucking the system" by independant democratic officials comes from the historical evidence presented.The system was effectively bucked by Mayor Perry and her Council selections under the old council/manager form of government when they threw out I Chas Mathews et all and by Mayor Mike's folks when they threw out the Perry people as well. No one has yet sucessfully bucked the system in Hartford under the strong Mayor system.Since there are fewer checks and balances to a strong mayor, it is easier for a strong Mayor to rig the political electoral system in support of candidates beholden to a strong mayor,so that the system is never "bucked" when obsequious candidates win.
ReplyDeleteAs to district elections,it is clear to me that some of our problems in Hartford are citywide in scope...crime,blight,vacant and deteriated housing.etc. and not present in only one district but are citywide and would be amenable to a citywide solution.Correspondingly there must be at-large Council voted in who have a citywide scope of the issues and problems pertaining to Hartford,which wouldn't be prevalent under strictly district elections.I suppose that was the reasoning for the "hybrid" proposals of the past and I think the logic of that was sound.
I do agree with what you said about "people making a difference" like Mr Feldman or Mayors DeStefano and Malloy. But for every one of them that are elected or appointed you also got Ganim,Giordano etc.
As always Rich, you present alot of food for thought...Best,Bruce
Your mentioning of Mr Page's Council loss proves my point.Mr Page,proceived as a reformer and an antagonist of the Mayor, failed to receive the endorsement of the DTC,which was greatly influenced by the Mayor and proceeded to run an independant race and lost.Had Mr Page for a period of time prior to the nomination kissed the Mayor's ring and agreed to be obsequious perhaps he would have received the endorsement.In any event it is clear that strong Mayor's under the system we live by in Hartford have an undue influence over candidate selection to the detriment of good candidates whose only crime is their wanting to remain independant.
Bruce - fair points on Mayor Mike and The Hat, though it is interesting to note that, although both bucked the DTC at the outset, both quickly found their way back into the fold (or the fold found its way over to them) and, after their 1st term, were DTC-endorsed.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Waterbury Republican, just fyi:
ReplyDelete"FOILED AGAIN There remains strong sentiment in favor of electing aldermen by district in Waterbury, especially with the current board's membership clustered in the city's better neighborhoods. The problem, exemplified by the Charter Revision Commission's rejection of two proposals April 22, is not lack of support but a persistent inability to figure out how to do it. Commissioner Bryan Baker suggested creating 15 districts with one alderman each, or dividing the city into its five state House districts, each served by three aldermen. Both failed after commissioners raised technical and practical objections. What's the solution? Commissioner Jason Van Stone, who ran for alderman last year as a Republican, said it should be up to the city's political parties to improve the geographical diversity of their slates. But how about putting the obligation for putting forth candidates where it really belongs — in the unrepresented neighborhoods — without mucking around in the charter?"