Search This Blog

Sunday, May 13, 2012

THE RACE FOR REGISTRAR OF VOTERS

I want to start off this posting with a short disclaimer, these are my opinions and do not necessarily express the opinions of the 7th District Hartford Democratic Town Committee or the Hartford Democratic Town Committee overall. I say that to make it clear since I am also a member of the Democratic Town Committee. These opinions will not be news to anyone on the HDTC since I have already expressed them openly and publicly.

With that being said, the race for Registrar of Voters is a mess. At least three candidates have more baggage than an Amtrak station. At least one other newcomer has arrived on the scene and actually seems to be gaining some momentum.

The Registrar of Voters position is one that is mandated by State of Connecticut statutes. It is also probably the last position left for true political patronage. There are no requirements such as level of education, no background checks and really no day to day supervision of their operations. The Secretary of the State supervises their required filings and election results, but other than that the Registrars answer to no one, except in theory the voters.

Even though the Registrars are technically Department heads for the City, neither the Mayor nor the Council have any administrative control over their operations, with the exception of approving their budget. Complaints against the Registrar of Voters operations usually seem to land in the hands of the State Elections Enforcement Commission for review and action.The Mayor can not hire, fire or discipline them as he can any other Department head serving at the pleasure of the Mayor.

This year the Registrar of Voters Office has been highlighted in mismanagement as they exceeded their budget and had gone back to the Council and Mayor asking for almost a quarter of a million dollars in additional funding since they over spent their budget. The reason for that might have been quite obvious to those who attended recent interviews for Registrar of Voters held at the Annie Fisher School. All four candidates were asked the annual budget for the ROV office and not of them knew, including the current Democratic Registrar.

As a department head, it seems incomprehensible that the current Registrar would not know her annual budget as well as a pretty accurate number as to what has been spent and what remains to be spent . I'm also unable to give a free pass to the three challengers as I think that if you are really concerned about running for the office, it is incumbent upon you to know as much as possible about the operations, including an approximate budget number and staffing positions. That is all public information and readily available.

I had mentioned the three "baggage handlers" as well as the new comer. Just for clarification, the newcomer is Charmaine Waul. The other three are current Registrar of Voters Olga Vazquez, Kelley Kirkley-Bey and Ramon Arroyo.The major drawback to Waul is her lack of experience in politics in Hartford. When you look how political the Registrar's Office is when it is actually supposed to be non partisan, that might actually be a benefit rather than a drawback.

At this point, from everything I have been able to find, Waul may be the only one in the race able to enter the Registrar's Office with what they call " clean hands". No Elections Enforcement complaints or lawsuits against her and no solid ties to anyone politically that might try to "own" her, no criminal arrests for prostitution charges or drug arrests no claims of "losing" or altering election documents to favor one slate over another, no appeals or court cases pending questioning her integrity.

Rumors were swirling that since the 4th District Democratic Town Committee was the first district to interview her, then she must be put up by the DiBella's as their candidate. Several districts were uncomfortable with that and the rumor continued to swirl that last week Hartford Democratic Town Chair Marc DiBella actually sent out an e-mail claiming that there were no ties and he only just met her at the request of one of his members.

The interesting part is that no one seems to have the required 51% of the overall Town Committee votes to prevail in the nomination. That might change though between now and the HDTC Convention for the Registrar of Voters nominations. It seems as though it is imperative that members of the HDTC ask some tough questions between now and that convention. The Registrar's Office should be beyond reproach and in this case integrity really does matter.

When it comes to voter's rights and the need for elections to remain 100% above any question or suspicion, the choice for the next person to fill that office should not be made based upon political favors or allegiances when those decisions are potentially rewarding past criminal behavior, malfeasance and incompetence.

Hartford has a unique situation where we are the only municipality in the State to have a third Registrar. Urania Petit and the Working Families Party were able to research Connecticut Laws and found in 2007 that they could run a candidate for the position and the only statutory requirement was that she get one more ballot cast for her than the votes of the low vote getting major party also running. That would be the Republican Registrar, and WFP did it and Petit was added to the Office of the Registrar of Voters.

The Republican Registrar of Voters position is also up fro grabs this year and Hartford resident Nyesha McCauley has announced her intention to run as a challenger for that position. Word for months has been that Republican Registrar Sal Bramante is considering retiring, but was possibly going to do that after the election so he could name his successor. This might be the time for Republicans to come together, show some leadership, avoid the cost of a primary battle and let some new ideas from McCauley rebuild the Republican side of the Registrar's Office. More on this scenario in another posting soon

Word has also been for years that the Registrar of Voters Office was prime real estate because of the salaries. There aren't too many positions that pay $85,000 for political hacks, I mean elected officials, with little or no education required above high school, and I don't even think that is a requirement. That might be changing now though as I am being told by sources that the annual salary may actually be reduced through budget cuts to something closer to $55,000 a year and the position of the Deputy Registrar may actually be no salary or reduced to a part time position.

State law requires a Deputy registrar position for each party but no salary is mandated. The Deputy Registrar is only in place to serve as the replacement for the Registrar if they need to be replaced through death, retirement or some other removal.

It would be nice to see the Registrar's Office actually run as a professional operation and see the taxpayers get their money's worth out of this office. That includes greater voter involvement and participation, more voter education and empowerment and a real level of "customer service" for those using the office.

In this case , integrity really does matter and those endorsing the candidates need to do what they were elected to do and endorse the best possible candidates, not the candidates best at cutting dirty deals and overlooking their past.

And like I stated in the beginning, none of this information comes from any "inside" information from the Town Committee. This is all public information for anyone to find on their own whether it is the SEEC website, Judicial records or other means.

And by the way, the question that even the current Democratic Registrar of Voters couldn't answer, the annual budget for the ROV office is roughly $760,000 , unless of course when they overspend by almost a quarter of a million dollars like the Republican and Democratic Registrar's did this year.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

MAPLE AVENUE REVITILAZATION GROUP TO MEET TONIGHT

The Maple Avenue Revitilization Group, MARG, will meet tonight at 6:00PM in the basement of St. Augustine Church at 10 Campfield Avenue.

Tonight's special guest will be Hartford Police Chief James Rovella. If you haven't had the opportunity to meet Chief Rovella or if you would like to hear his plans for the Hartford Police Department, feel free to stop by. The meeting is open to the public

A MUCH GREATER PROBLEM FOR HARTFORD

There was a lot of finger pointing going on at the Capitol the last few days, much of it coming from Mayor Segarra and his dynamic duo.

In a statement released this morning, Segarra , who happens to be in San Francisco , said “The result tonight is a reckless disregard for the residents and business owners of the City of Hartford. After months of meetings, proposals and conversations – and six days of continuous discussions with all stakeholders – the entire legislative delegation finally came together to support House Bill 5156 (LCO Amendment 5565). It was not a perfect bill, but it would have made essential technical corrections to Public Act 11-212 and allowed the City the ability to generate the additional revenue that was assured 3 weeks ago when a previous compromise was struck and my recommended budget was due. The continual back-and-forth, the brinksmanship, the willingness by some to kill a bill or concept simply because it wasn’t 100% of what they desired will only end up hurting residents and business owners."

I guess I have to ask who was actually responsible for "the reckless disregard" as Segarra states? It seems that much of the proposed Segarra budget is based on phony revenue projections and non-existent dollars he used to balance the budget. In the private sector I think it would be called fraud, and I think more than a few corporate people have gone to prison for similar actions.

The real facts are that Segarra and his budget team used  projected revenue that  the failed legislation would have raised to balance his budget. There was no firm commitment that the legislation was going to pass and it seems both reckless and irresponsible, and possibly fraudulent, to count on those numbers. It feels the same that if I purchase a lotto ticket, I may actually win so I am going to go spend that money before I even have it. In this case, Segarra's bid for the lotto win failed and we are left with a $9 million budget hole that now needs to be filled.

It may actually be worse than the $9 million hole though. Segarra's budget also seems to be counting on more "funny money" , including $1 million dollars in Union concessions. As of today I don't believe that there is a single penny being given back yet by any of Hartford's unions. It may actually be a tough sell to union leadership to get any voluntary givebacks considering that Segarra handed out large raises to his inner circle while many lower paid employees haven't received raises since 2007.

Then there was the $45 million Segarra and Chief Operating Officer David Panagore claim the State of Connecticut owes Hartford for school building projects dating back over 8 years. As you might expect, Governor Malloy and the State of Connecticut have a different take on that. Even though both Segarra and Panagore claim they are using that money to close budget gaps over the next five years, there is no commitment that the money even exists or is owed to Hartford.

The failure of the bills to pass may just be a blessing in disguise though. First of it is going to make the Council take a long hard look at the budget and actually force them to cut City spending. The Charter requires a balanced budget and the Council needs to make that happen. Council President Shawn Wooden told me last night that the Council was well underway in making substantial cuts to the Mayor's proposed budget to reduce spending.

The loss of Segarra's version of "Monopoly" money now makes the council's job even more difficult. This action is long overdue though as Hartford has relied on the annual "band-aid" fixes from the Legislature to address budget and revenue issues rather than take the hard look at it's spending. Hartford's annual budget spending has increased over $130 million a year since 2001. Most people would also say that the budgetary increases have not corresponded to an increased delivery of city services.

In Segarra's press release today he stated that the bills failed "because of disingenuous motives and an inexplicable unwillingness to compromise". Hopefully he wrote that comment while looking in a mirror with his Chief of Staff Jared Kupiec and COO David Panagore behind him. If nothing else, Segarra may be forced to realize now that his tactics aren't working. How much more can his crew embarrass him before he realizes that he is being made a fool of and it is time for change?

For anyone that reads this blog regularly, you already know I am not a fan of Senator John Fonfara. But I can give credit when it is due. Fonfara stood his ground on these bills right up until the final minutes. Much of that was due to pressure from Metro Hartford Alliance President Oz Griebel, but he still held his ground. I think in this case his constituents are actually going to benefit from his actions.

I had a long conversation with Griebel at the Capitol Wednesday night, and he clearly understands what it is going to take to start turning Hartford around. It is not going to be a higher mill rate or higher taxes on a City that is already the highest taxed in the state. It is going to take a common sense  business approach, not poorly conceived political solutions.

Although Segarra claimed that the bill would have been the right thing to do, nothing could have been further from the truth. What it would have done was bail him out from his fraud budget, but at what cost?

The proposed legislation would have directly put a $ 9 million burden on the backs of Hartford residents who are renters. The proposal would have upped the assessment percentage on rental properties and most property owners and investors would not absorb the additional tax costs, they would pass it on to their tenants. How does that benefit Hartford's residents who are renters, many of them already living on the financial edge?

These failures by the Segarra administration need to lead to a few very important conversations. First off needs to be with the Council, and they should be very upset with the precarious position Segarra has placed them in with the phony money budget. The second conversation needs to lead to some deep soul searching by Segarra. How much more can he allow Panagore and Kupiec to conduct business in this manner.

It seems like this "Cabinet" and Segarra's management team should be compared to the gang who couldn't shoot straight. They have alienated just about everyone who is in a position to help Hartford, but if you read the press releases and letters, it is everyone elses fault except theirs. When is Pedro going to realize this isn't working.

And finally the real discussion needs to be how are we going to reduce spending and start living within our means as a City. All the band aids don't matter one bit if we can't realize we have a real problem with revenue vs. spending

In the meantime we need a Mayor who can put the social worker mentality aside and start making the tough decisions he was elected to make and stop listening to those who have no clue what Hartford needs or even how to get there.

Hopefully Mayor Segarra is enjoying his trip to San Francisco, some real work needs to be done when he returns

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

DEAD AGAIN

Word from the Capitol is that the budget closing deal for Mayor Segarra that was killed then resuscitated has once again died.

I have to really ask why Segarra would build a budget around money he never had and then wait until the final hours of the Legislative session to try to get a commitment for the funds? It sounds both reckless and deceptive

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

PLEASE , STOP LAUGHING , IT'S NOT FUNNY

This is what is running our City.

I posted a comment earlier that I wish I had Adobe Photoshop when someone came up with the caped crusader and his "boy blunder" to describe Hartford's Chief Operating Officer David Panagore and his loyal sidekick, Chief of Staff Jared Kupiec.

 Within minutes this picture appeared in my e-mail.

Thank you to my faithful readers

WHO MAKES THESE DECISIONS ?

I just watched the breaking news on Channel 3 that the University of Connecticut Women's basketball program has ended their relationship with CPTV to televise the women's games. This is wrong on so many levels. Let's start off that the company chosen, SNY isn't even Connecticut based, it is in New York. Hopefully Governor Malloy might have something to say about this as we look at more jobs being lost in Connecticut by the people that produced the UConn games. According to Uconn, the winning bid for SNY was $20,000 more than the CPTV bid which was somewhere in the $4 million range over the next four years. UConn needs to realize why they are the popular program they are today. It's the loyalty of their fans and the people who have supported them over the years. CPTV was airing their games back when no one was watching women's basketball. The success of Uconn can be tied largely to the fan base built by CPTV. Should the UConn program be driven entirely by dollars or should they also consider their fans, many or them who are senior citizens who don't have cable or satellite packages. It just seems like a state university should be about pride and support from their local fans who also support the college through taxes paid and not so much "broadening the UConn appeal" as the media reports stated. Maybe it is time for a boycott of the UConn Women to remind them what is important and who supports them.