Open Forum

Municipal elections are starting to get more interesting. A lot of municipal candidates have websites this time around (far too many to list here right now), and I'm even starting to hear some radio advertisements for candidates. I heard one today attacking the mayor of Middletown for messing up a new high school project.

One of the pieces of campaign finance I hope will pass (if anything passes) is the option for municipalities to use public financing of campaigns. There can be some pretty large disparities at the local level.

What else is happening today?

Special Session Called

Gov. Rell is calling the legislature back into session next month to work on campaign finance reform. It isn't too much to say that this is probably their last shot:

A tentative bill being offered by Rell would include a system for publicly funding campaigns in Connecticut. It also would impose immediate bans on campaign contributions from lobbyists, state contractors and their political action committees.

Candidates also would be barred from using lobbyists, state contractors and their political action committees to solicit donations. (AP)

We'll see if the legislators and their leaders can overcome their reservations and pass a workable bill. I hope so. If campaign finance reform isn't passed now, it may not get a chance again for a long time.

Source
"Rell Calls Legislators Into Special Session." Associated Press 29 September, 2005.

Vance: Johnson Should Give DeLay Money to Charity

A quick response to the DeLay indictment from 5th District congressional hopeful Paul Vance:

"Perhaps some good can come out of today’s news, that is why I am asking Rep. Nancy Johnson, who in the past voted for Rep. DeLay for Majority Leader and accepted campaign contributions from Rep. DeLay to give those contributions to the Red Cross to aid the families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita."

"This may be the only way," said Vance, "that the dirty money Rep. Johnson accepted can become clean once again."

Vance also called in his press release for the Republican Majority Leader to resign.

This is not the first attempt that's been made to tie Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons and Chris Shays to Tom DeLay and George Bush. So far, that strategy hasn't worked well for challengers.

However, if Republican scandals and miscues at the national level continue to appear in the news, they might have more of an effect. We'll see. For now, though, Johnson will stay as far away from DeLay's troubles as she can manage.

Bring Back County Government?

Revived Counties, Increased Regionalization Offered as Solutions to High Property Taxes

In 1960, Connecticut abolished its eight county governments, citing them as antiquated and redundant. Counties have been reduced to lines on a map for forty-five years. Now a group of Fairfield County politicians have proposed bringing them back.

The region's municipalities should devise a strategy to work together to leverage state government for what they need, because they're not getting it now, several area chief elected officials said Tuesday at a Greater Bridgeport Regional Business Council breakfast.
...
[Bridgeport Mayor John] Fabrizi believes that county government is one way to help promote regional cooperation.

A form of county government — which was abolished in 1960 — would enable towns and cities to share vital emergency management resources and streamline what can be expensive local programs, he said.

In fact, Connecticut is one of the few states without county government, putting it at odds with a federal government set up to work with — and give money to — counties.

So the state's towns and cities lose out on funding that could ease local property taxes, the officials said.

"I truly believe that [county government] is an issue that needs to be explored," Fabrizi said. (Drew)

The basic problem is that Connecticut is split up into 169 little fiefdoms, each with its own structure of services. Regionalization of some services could eliminate redundancy and help to lower high property taxes. Cities like Bridgeport, which have a high demand for services but a shrinking property tax base, would benefit the most from such an arrangement (see my earlier post for more detail: Hartford Demand for Services Outstrips Revenue).

Counties sort of work this way. However, counties' primary function is to oversee and provide services to territory that isn't governed by municipal governments. For those who have lived in New England all their lives the thought of land that isn't safely within a town border is alien, but most of the rest of the country functions this way. Incorporated towns become a rarity west of the Hudson River, replaced by a confusing (to us) tangle of counties, various classes of city, boroughs and villages.

Our counties, such as they are, probably shouldn't be revived. For one, they're just too big. Hartford County is a good example of this. What does Enfield have in common with Rocky Hill? If we are to head towards regionalized services (and possibly some sort of regional governments) they should be appropriately sized for our dense, closely-packed population. Hartford and its inner ring suburbs of Newington, West Hartford, Bloomfield, Windsor, South Windsor, East Hartford and Wethersfield could pool services, and it would make a lot of sense (you could expand the region to include New Britain and Manchester, too) because those towns are already tightly interconnected.

Secondly, county lines split communities that might otherwise work well together (like Meriden and Southington, for example). If we're going to try regionalized services, we should do it in a way that makes sense for the 21st Century instead of following lines drawn on a map three hundred years ago.

Is this an answer to our property tax problems? It could be part of one. It might be worth trying, although getting towns to surrender even an inch of their soverignty to regional governments would be difficult at best. The alternative is to watch property taxes continue to climb as the demand for services increases, with no end in sight.

Source
Drew, Daniel. "Counties could be regional strategy." Connecticut Post 28 September, 2005.

Open Forum

Saturday, October 1st, is the day that a host of new laws passed by the General Assembly this sessions, including civil unions, goes into effect across Connecticut. Other new laws include keeping kids in car seats until they are seven and the elimination of the disparity in the requirements for being found guilty of possessing crack and cocaine.

What else is happening around the state?

Charitable Corruption

Courant: House Speaker Uses Position to Raise Funds for Employer

In an article that ran this weekend in the Courant, columnist Kevin Rennie accuses House Speaker Jim Amann's use of his considerable influence to raise money for the Greater Connecticut Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

This wouldn't be so bad if Amann weren't employed by that charity to do just that. They pay him $60,000/year, in fact.

This winter, spring and summer, Amann, members of his legislative staff and a select group of lobbyists helped raise money for an MS fund-raising event honoring Gov. M. Jodi Rell and singer Michael Bolton July 13...
...
He admits that he solicited lobbyists and their clients during and after this year's legislative session. Among those helping him were state Rep. Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, and lobbyist Shelly Rubino, who are colleagues at the Hartford office of law and lobbying firm Brown, Rudnick. Cafero and Rubino also were listed on literature for the Wallingford event as members of the planning committee.
...
Ignoring lines and guardrails that the law constructs, Amann hosted at least one meeting of fundraisers and others in his Capitol office.
...
Amann says that his subordinates did help him raise money for his employer, but that it was "strictly voluntary." In the pyramid of power, helping the boss succeed at his civilian job is usually not a choice.

Amann staff members - some of whom already have reputations for being especially aggressive in their constant pursuit of contributions for political and other causes - made calls during the legislative session that included this subtle incentive: The speaker is waiting to hear if you are going to contribute to his event.
...
The speaker of the House has flouted the law with the assistance of plenty of accomplices. Subpoenas should fly. (Rennie)

I have no problem with charitable giving. But this is clearly a conflict of interest and probably a violation of ethics rules. Does Amann forget how he got his position? He wouldn't be Speaker if Kevin Sullivan hadn't been bumped up to Lt. Gov. following John Rowland's resignation and Jodi Rell's assumption of the governorship.
(Correction: Not true. Amann was not in the line of succession, but was elected after Moira Lyons left.)

Is this the sort of thing that could lead to Amann's ouster? Probably not. That guy's like a barnicle on the side of the Capitol. However, legislative Democrats can't afford to let this one go. Investigate. Censure. Vote him out of the leadership. Democrats are steadily losing the moral high ground they had after Rowland's departure, and Amann's poor leadership and questionable ethics are partly to blame.

I, for one, won't be sorry to see him go, if it comes to that.

Source
Rennie, Kevin. "For Speaker, Charity Begins With A Shakedown." Hartford Courant 25 September, 2005.

New London Wants NLDC Out

City to Gain More Control of Fort Trumbull Project

Last week, the New London city council expressed no confidence in the Fort Trumbull project, and demanded that the New London Development Corporation's leadership be replaced. This is seen by many as the first steps toward the city reasserting its control over the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project and perhaps even disbanding the quasi-public NLDC altogether.

On Tuesday, the New London City Council voted unanimously to express no confidence in the development authority. It ordered the corporation to dismiss its president and chief operating officer, and threatened to dissolve the agency within a week if it did not do so.

The vote came after the corporation angered state and local officials by sending orders to vacate to five Fort Trumbull residents living on property being seized for a hotel and office space. The corporation rescinded the notices under pressure by Gov. M. Jodi Rell. (AP)

Perhaps this should also raise a larger question about the role of partially private development corporations in cities. The problem with the NLDC is that it has never been directly accountable to citizens, and its relationship with the city council is complicated, to say the least. The city can dissolve the NLDC, but it would be complex, legally speaking, to do so. The NLDC isn't, strictly speaking, run by the city. This, as New London is finding out, can be somewhat problematic.

So why have a quasi-public agency?

"You create an entity whose sole purpose is to do these development projects, so their sole purpose is getting these projects done, and done on time," Michael Cicchetti, the undersecretary of the state's budget office, told The Day of New London. "Instead of having city employees take on that responsibility, setting up an entity whose sole purpose is getting these done just streamlines the process." (AP)

In essence, when the city doesn't have the money or the staff to oversee such a big project, they can create a private corporation to do it for them. This is part of a larger national trend away from "big government" towards the private sector. This trend has existed since the early 1970s, and peaked in the 1990s. President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security is one of the results of this trend.

Outsourcing government functions to the private sector can sometimes bring good results, but sometimes not. Either way, it's more difficult for the public and its representatives to exert control over private companies than government agencies, and therefore much harder to hold them accountable. The tradeoff is that they don't use as much taxpayer money as public agencies.

Is trading money for control worthwhile? New London, burned by seven years of slowdowns and public ire, is starting to think not.

Source

"City of New London wants to take control of Fort Trumbull project." Associated Press 26 September, 2005.

Rell Planning a Run

No surprise here.

Rell convened a series of strategy sessions this week and offered at least one operative a role in a campaign for governor in 2006, the first concrete signs that Rell will seek election to the office she assumed July 1, 2004, upon the resignation of John G. Rowland.

On Friday afternoon after a speech in Stamford, Rell told reporters for the first time that her mind is set about 2006 - though she declined to elaborate. (Pazniokas)

Put those two together, and we should have an announcement some time next week.

That's when the questions will begin, such as:

1. How will she raise enough money, considering the head start her Democratic opponent will have? Does she have to raise a lot of money to win?

2. What is her economic plan for the state? Is there one?

3. Will hard core conservatives accept her? Will it matter?

4. Will the national party campaign for her? Will we see her alongside President Bush?

5. Will public perception of her change now that she is actually running for something? How will Governor Rell be different from Candidate Rell?

And so on. I think we can assume at this point that Richard Blumenthal and Kevin Sullivan are not running, and that Gov. Rell's likely opponent will either be Dan Malloy or John DeStefano. DeStefano looks like the front-runner at this point, but that could change.

It will be interesting to see what form the announcement will take, when it comes. It will also be interesting to see what sort of web presence she will establish.

The most pressing question for the governor at present is whether she'll be able to translate her current high approval ratings into votes next November. She begins in excellent position, but thirteen and a half months are an awful lot of time for that to change.

Source
Pazniokas, Mark. "Rell's Eye Is On The Prize." Hartford Courant 24 September, 2005.

Open Forum

Summer has come and gone, with no indication from the governor about next year's election. One has to wonder what she's waiting for.

Municipal elections are starting to gear up. I've seen yard signs sprout here and there. I do love election season.

What's happening in Connecticut today?

Campaign Finance Reform: What We Might Get

Panel Endorses "Framework" for Legislation

The campaign finance reform working group has finally endorsed an outline for broad campaign finance reform legislation. However, major sticking points such as bans on lobbysists and contractors, were not resolved.

Here's the basics of the system endorsed by the committee:

Wednesday the working group unanimously recommended public financing of legislative races in 2008 and statewide races in 2010. The grants would vary by office:

# State House: $8,000 for primaries; $25,000 for general election.

# State Senate: $50,000, primaries; $150,000, general elections.

# Statewide offices other than governor: $375,000, primaries; $750,000 general election.

# Governor: $1.25 million, primaries; $3 million, general election.

To qualify, candidates would have to demonstrate a degree of public support by raising certain amounts, relying on small contributions. The qualifying levels would range from $5,000 for the House to $250,000 for governor. (Pazniokas)

While this still means that candidates have to raise money, it's better than the system currently in place. The problem with the system is that it's voluntary: wealthy candidates or candidates who know they can raise more than the system would give them could opt out. To keep pace, their opponents would opt out to raise more money, too--and we're back to square one.

As for the sticking points, it's the Democrats who are once again dragging their feet:

In a series of partisan votes, however, the group could not agree on the timing and extent of restricting or banning contributions from lobbyists, state contractors and political action committees. Republicans want immediate restrictions on those sources, while Democrats said the fund-raising rules should not change until after the 2006 election. (Pazniokas)

Obviously Democrats want to keep the current system going as long as they can, or for at least one more election cycle. There is little danger of Republicans capturing a majority in either chamber any time soon, but Democrats want to protect each and every one of their seats:

"PACs can give unlimited amounts of money ... and we are going to tell the people we have reformed the system?" asked Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield. "Give me a break."

But Democrats said they need to assure rank-and-file legislators, especially those in poorer districts, that they'll have a stream of cash for their campaigns until the public funding system is up and running - 2008 for legislative races and 2010 for statewide races.

"You can't expect a virtually 2-to-1 majority in both the House and the Senate to commit political suicide," said Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford. (AP)

By opposing campaign finance reform, however, Democrats are, if not committing political suicide, at least shooting themselves in the foot.

Compromises on these issues will probably be hammered out if a special session is called this fall, and we'll end up with a new campaign finance system that isn't perfect, but will be better than the system we have now. For legislative races, at least, the playing field will be somewhat more level (if not entirely so: incumbents will be able to raise the qualifying money much faster). Bans on lobbyist and contractor contributions will help ease corruption in that specific area, although it will doubtless crop up somewhere else in time.

A special session has yet to be called to deal with the matter.

Sources
"Working group finds some common ground in reform report." Associated Press 22 September, 2005.

Pazniokas, Mark. "Campaign Reform Edges Ahead; Details Unresolved." Hartford Courant 22 September, 2005.

Audrey Blondin Stays In: For Now

Democrat Audrey Blondin is keeping her campaign for Secretary of the State running for the time being, despite current SOTS Susan Bysiewicz dropping out of the governor's race and announcing she'd be running for re-election instead.

From the Blondin campaign newsletter:

For the past two weeks, I have been speaking to supporters and political leaders around the state, and I am very grateful to all those who have reached out to our campaign. We all know that there are major leaders on both sides of the aisle who have yet to make their decisions. The political situation statewide is tenuous and fluid, and is not the atmosphere in which a serious statewide office seeker can make an informed decision about next year’'s political races.

Interesting.

So far, Landino and Fleischmann have bowed out, Blondin is staying in, while Mantilla, Nussbaum and Rodriguez-Reyes haven't said a word.

Newton Pleads Guilty to Three Felony Charges

If there was any doubt, this ought to erase it:

Newton, who resigned Monday, acknowledged in court that he accepted a $5,000 bribe in exchange for helping the director of a nonprofit job training agency secure a $100,000 grant.
...
Newton also admitted filing false tax returns and diverting $40,000 in campaign contributions for personal use over five years, which is considered mail fraud because the financial reporting forms were mailed.

Prosecutors said Newton used the money as his personal piggy bank, writing checks for services that weren't actually performed and then having those checks signed over to him. (Apuzzo)

Newton, as is often repeated, rose to the State Senate from the poorest neighborhood in Bridgeport. He's been a constant champion of the poor, and is still widely admired in his district. But he succumbed, in the end, to... what? Greed? Power? Madness?

Newton is a tragic figure, more like Jason or Macbeth than the Moses he claims to be. Even now he is at once noble and wicked: his plea deal is sparing another from prosecution. Newton, corrupt though he was, fell on his sword for someone else. Unlike the dramatic fall of Governor Rowland last year, Newton's resignation and conviction brings neither satisfaction nor triumph... only relief.

...The special election to replace him has been set for November 14th. Newton will be sentenced December 19th.

Sources
Apuzzo, Matt. "Newton Pleads Guilty." Hartford Courant 20 September, 2005.

Rell Still Popular: SurveyUSA

Rell's Popularity High Among All Except Youth

Jodi Rell is the second-most popular governor in America, according to a SurveyUSA poll released today. According to that poll, 75% of Connecticut residents approve of the job she is doing as governor, while only 21% disapprove.

Her approval ratings have remained consistently high for a year, ranging from the mid-60s to over 80%.

Rell did very well with all segments of the population, according to the broken-down results. The only group she didn't score above 60% approval with was adults 18-34, who gave her a 58% approval rating and a 36% disapproval rating.

SurveyUSA is not known for having the most reliable polls, but their polls about Rell have been very consistent thus far.

Town Proposes Eminent Domain Restrictions

Norwalk Ordinance Change Could be a Model for Other Towns, State

Norwalk's Common Council is considering changing town ordinances to severely limit the town's eminent domain powers:

Common Councilman Michael Coffey ... placed on the agenda an ordinance limiting the city's powers to seize private property solely to build public facilities, such as schools or roads; to preserve open space; or to address health or safety hazards. (AP)

This proposal comes as eminent domain returns to the front burner in the wake of the issuance and quick withdrawal of eviction notices to Fort Trumbull, New London residents. Such a limitation on eminent domain powers could provide a model for other communities looking to safeguard property rights in the wake of the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision.

Perez Defends Economic Usage of Eminent Domain

There are plenty, however, who feel that the use of eminent domain for private development is necessary for urban revitalization. Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez is one of them.

Perez told lawmakers that legislation that hamstrings local and state governments' ability to use eminent domain would undermine economic-redevelopment efforts.

Eminent domain "is a powerful economic development tool used sparingly that helps cities create jobs, grow business and strengthen neighborhoods. No locally-elected official whom I know would use eminent domain to undermine the integrity of or confidence in homeownership in his or her community," Perez said. (Watts)

Very reassuring, especially given Hartford's sledgehammer approach to redevelopment.

If I were running for office in any town in Connecticut this fall, I would take the language of the Norwalk resolution and promise to propose such a measure for my town. People may not understand the finer points of economic redevlopment, but they do understand that private property ought not to fall victim to profit.

Sources
"Councilman proposes severe restrictions on eminent domain." Associated Press 20 September, 2005.

Watts, William L. "Limits urged in eminent-domain authority." MarketWatch 20 September, 2005.

Newton to Plead Guilty

WTIC-AM is reporting that former Sen. Ernest Newton, who is in federal court in Bridgeport today will plead guilty to an unspecified offense this afternoon as part of a plea deal.

I'll update this post as we find out more.

Open Forum

Ernest Newton submitted his official resignation today around 1pm. A special election for his replacement will take place during the first few weeks of November. Because voting machines are sealed for two weeks following an election, and state elections cannot by law take place on the same day as municipal ones, it may be difficult to get voting machines. Perhaps Hartford, which isn't having elections this year, can loan them some.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan stopped by the city of President Bush's birth and college education yesterday. Sheehan drew about 1,000 people or so, according to estimates; apparently none of them city or state leaders.

What else is going on?

NLDC Taking on Water

Development Corporation Losing Support on New London City Council

The New London Development Corporation was supposed to save New London. Instead, it may leave the city much worse off than it found it... and it may leave soon. Tonight, the city council of New London will hold a vote of no confidence in the the NLDC's leadership.

City officials have said that the Fort Trumbull development can not go forward unless the current agency leaders step down.

The president of the agency said it would rescind notices telling Fort Trumbull residents to leave properties being seized by eminent domain.

Michael Joplin agreed to pull back the notices after a meeting with state officials last week on a same day Governor Rell had demanded that the agency rescind the notices it sent to residents telling them to vacate the properties within 90 days. (AP)

The NLDC seemed like such a good idea when it was formed back in the mid-1990s. The city didn't have any money to spare for redevelopment (it still doesn't), so they decided to create a quasi-public "development corporation" to oversee and raise funds for New London's rebirth. The NLDC hit its stride when eccentric Connecticut College president Claire Gaudiani headed up the organization. Development plans were drawn up, and neighborhoods crossed out.

A major move forward came when Groton-based Pfizer located offices near Fort Trumbull: the city and the NLDC figured it would only be a matter of time before the economic engine of Pfizer combined with a new retail, hotel and entertainment complex nearby to get New London moving again, and to protect the city from the loss of a big chunk of the defense industry it had previously depended on.

Fort Trumbull proved to be a bigger stumbling block than they figured, however. The move was never especially popular (many of the city council members who voted for the resolution were not re-elected) and residents began to dig in their heels. Some of these residents were irate Connecticut College faculty, who put pressure on Gaudiani in their own way.

Gaudiani, who had become unpopular on and off campus, left in 2000, and the NLDC has remained mired in Fort Trumbull since. A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to vindicate their position, but the national outcry was so strong that the city and the corporation found they had to tread lightly. Gov. Jodi Rell and others put pressure on the developers to include the remaining houses in the plans.

A turning point came last week when the NLDC issued eviction notices to the remaining residents without notifying the city or, indeed, anyone else. The city and state reacted angrily, prompting the NLDC to rescind the orders. But the damage had been done. Few in New London have confidence in the NLDC's leadership, and tonight that leadership may find itself out.

What will happen if the no-confidence vote passes? The NLDC will continue to exist, and the development probably will still go forward (although perhaps in a very different form). However, the city will have reasserted control over both, which could lead to better accountability and a decline in the NLDC's authority.

What may come out of all of this (besides a hotel complex no one needs) is a revision of state eminent domain laws that would make it much more difficult for large-scale private redevelopment projects like Fort Trumbull to go forward. Perhaps, if we're lucky, such a revision will finally force city officials to realize that a city's problems can't be solved by high rises, movie theaters, hotels and convention centers.

Source:
"City Council schedules 'no confidence' vote." Associated Press/WFSB 19 September, 2005.

New Polls

Finally.

First one is about campaign finance reform, which has been delayed until next week. Second is about Bysiewicz's withdrawal from the governor's race. Feel free to defend your answers here.

Open Forum

Campaign finance reform still hasn't happened. Maybe next week...

As for some of the issues brought up in the last open forum: Anonymous posts, while sometimes a bit confusing, will remain for now. The alternative is a registration system, which is a barrier to participation. However, if you are an anonymous poster, you may want to consider checking the "Other" option when you comment, and filling in a handle. It just makes it easier for others to talk directly to you. This is not a requirement, but a suggestion.

Newton Places Blame Elsewhere

Apparently, when Sen. Ernest Newton resigned, he blamed everyone but himself.

The media, the racist FBI, and racial injustice in general took the brunt of his invective.

A choice Newton quote: "I have been the Moses of my people and all I've ever asked for is to let justice be served." (Pazniokas)

"Moses?" I'm not sure what to make of the racial elements of Newton's speech. Does he really believe that race played a part in the FBI "targeting" him? ...Did it? I have a hard time believing that, especially following Warren Godbolt's admission that he bribed him.

As for who will replace him, the Connecticut Post has interviews with many possible candidates, including Bridgeport NAACP chair and Newton supporter Carolyn Nah, community activist Cecil Young, Rep. Robert Keeley (D-Bridgeport) and others.

A special election has to be called within 56 days of Newton's resignation letter being delievered to the Secretary of the State. Late October/early November are the most likely times, although a state legislative election can't take place on the same day as a municipal one.