Connecticut Local Politics is officially moving to its new site, located at www.ctlocalpolitics.net, as of today, Wednesday, January 17th, 2007. This is the final new post that will be made on the current Blogger-powered site, as we are moving on to a new host and to new blogging software (WordPress).
The site you are reading now will continue to exist as an archive, but all new posts will be made at the new site. Please update your bookmarks to:
Please update RSS feeds to:
ATOM: http://ctlocalpolitics.net/feed/atom/
RSS .92: http://ctlocalpolitics.net/feed/rss/
RSS 2.0: http://ctlocalpolitics.net/feed/
Comment Feed: http://ctlocalpolitics.net/comments/feed/
Thanks to everyone for their participation in this site, and I hope you will join us at our new URL for more of the same quality content you've come to expect from Connecticut Local Politics.
Thanks especially to the Sunlight Foundation for providing the grant that made this move possible.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Second Anniversary
(Cross posted at the new site--comment here or there)
Hard to believe, but it's been exactly two years since I put up the first post on this site.
It's fitting, then, that we migrate to our new site today.
Thank you everyone who has stuck by this site over the past two years. I've gone places and done things I never imagined, and I've met many, many incredible people. Thanks especially to those who have contributed to the site, either here on the front page or in the comments. I'd just be talking to myself without you.
I can't wait to see where the next year takes us.
Hard to believe, but it's been exactly two years since I put up the first post on this site.
It's fitting, then, that we migrate to our new site today.
Thank you everyone who has stuck by this site over the past two years. I've gone places and done things I never imagined, and I've met many, many incredible people. Thanks especially to those who have contributed to the site, either here on the front page or in the comments. I'd just be talking to myself without you.
I can't wait to see where the next year takes us.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
May Elections: Nominating Conventions This Week
Political parties in towns that have elections this May are holding nominating conventions this week and next to determine their slates. All endorsements must be certified by town or city clerks by 4:00pm on Tuesday, January 23rd.
Towns with elections on May 7th, 2007:
Andover
Bolton
Bethany
Naugatuck
Woodbridge
Union
There are also May 7th elections in the following boroughs (parent town in parentheses):
Bantam (Litchfield)
Danielson (Killingly)
Fenwick (Old Saybrook)
Groton City (Groton)
Jewett City (Griswold)
Litchfield (Litchfield)
Newtown (Newtown)
Stonington (Stonington)
Woodmont (Milford)
Primaries, if there are to be any, will be held on Monday, March 12th.
(more information can be found on the Secretary of the State's website)
Towns with elections on May 7th, 2007:
Andover
Bolton
Bethany
Naugatuck
Woodbridge
Union
There are also May 7th elections in the following boroughs (parent town in parentheses):
Bantam (Litchfield)
Danielson (Killingly)
Fenwick (Old Saybrook)
Groton City (Groton)
Jewett City (Griswold)
Litchfield (Litchfield)
Newtown (Newtown)
Stonington (Stonington)
Woodmont (Milford)
Primaries, if there are to be any, will be held on Monday, March 12th.
(more information can be found on the Secretary of the State's website)
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Open Forum
I've been busy over at the new site. Go check out the updates, or chat on the forum.
What else is happening this weekend?
What else is happening this weekend?
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Possible Downtime Saturday, Sunday
I'll be moving files over to the new site (http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net) on Saturday and Sunday. I will try to do this during low-traffic periods, but be aware that there may be some downtime.
If this site goes down, come on over to the new site or to the new forum for news and chatter.
If this site goes down, come on over to the new site or to the new forum for news and chatter.
Pay Raise Possible for Legislative Leaders
Here's a sure-to-be-popular idea:
At least one leader, Speaker Amann, seems opposed to the idea, although Amann's spokesman did say he might be interested in "a modest, across-the-board increase for all legislators."
Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca disagreed:
I think all legislators, including the leaders, should have a raise in their pay. Here's why:
There's something to be said for the ideal of the citizen-legislator, who works a regular job and has a life outside the Capitol. This model made sense a century ago., but I don't believe it does now.
Public financing of campaigns will help to open the General Assembly to people who wouldn't otherwise consider running. A better wage for legislators would help to open it even further.
What do you think?
Source
"A Collection of Briefs From the State Capitol." Associated Press 12 January, 2007.
The independent Commission on Compensation of Elected State Officials and State Judges is studying the possibility of better compensation for legislative leaders.
The board's chairman, Lewis. B. Rome, said that while the legislature is a part-time entity, the top leaders essentially hold full-time jobs, the Republican-American of Waterbury reported.
Rome said there is a big discrepancy between the workload of leaders and other lawmakers. (AP)
At least one leader, Speaker Amann, seems opposed to the idea, although Amann's spokesman did say he might be interested in "a modest, across-the-board increase for all legislators."
Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca disagreed:
"I don't think there should be a pay increase for anybody," Senate Minority Leader Louis C. DeLuca, R-Woodbury, said. "If we are going to have a part-time legislature, we have to keep the pay commensurate with a part-time legislature." (AP)
I think all legislators, including the leaders, should have a raise in their pay. Here's why:
- The legislature is becoming less and less part time. There have been special sessions almost every year for a long time, and the legislature is certainly more than a full-time pursuit when it's in session.
- Find me a job, other than lawyer, which allows its employees to be gone for half of the year, not to mention extras like hearings, special sessions and campaigning. There are very few--and almost none of them are jobs that most middle-class people have.
- $28,000 is not enough to live on if being a legislator is one's only career.
- Therefore, it's no wonder the General Assembly is thick with lawyers and members of the upper class. I couldn't afford to be a member, and neither could a lot of others.
There's something to be said for the ideal of the citizen-legislator, who works a regular job and has a life outside the Capitol. This model made sense a century ago., but I don't believe it does now.
Public financing of campaigns will help to open the General Assembly to people who wouldn't otherwise consider running. A better wage for legislators would help to open it even further.
What do you think?
Source
"A Collection of Briefs From the State Capitol." Associated Press 12 January, 2007.
SOTS Agenda: Election Security
The Secretary of the State's office has released its legislative agenda:
That last one matters. Joe Lieberman could file to run as an independent the day after the primary--the new rule would move the filing deadline back to a month before the primary, which is where it was before the primary was moved to August.
The audits are a good idea, as is the code of ethics.
And sign me up for a political "do not call" list! I swear, if I never hear Bill Clinton coming out of my answering machine again, I'll be very happy.
Source
Phaneuf, Keith. "Secretary of the state would make Conn. national model for election security." Journal-Inquirer 12 January, 2007.
Hoping to make Connecticut a national model for safe elections, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz unveiled a proposal this week calling for mandatory annual audits of one-fifth of all polling places.
Other pieces of Bysiewicz's 2007 legislative agenda include:
* Requiring all cities and towns to adopt a municipal code of ethics.
* Creating a new "do-not-call" list for households that don't want to receive automated telephone calls containing political messages. The bill would make it illegal to place calls to such households, a system already in place in Connecticut to restrict commercial marketing calls.
* Returning the deadline for candidates looking to petition onto the state ballot without major-party affiliation to one month before the primaries. (Phaneuf)
That last one matters. Joe Lieberman could file to run as an independent the day after the primary--the new rule would move the filing deadline back to a month before the primary, which is where it was before the primary was moved to August.
The audits are a good idea, as is the code of ethics.
And sign me up for a political "do not call" list! I swear, if I never hear Bill Clinton coming out of my answering machine again, I'll be very happy.
Source
Phaneuf, Keith. "Secretary of the state would make Conn. national model for election security." Journal-Inquirer 12 January, 2007.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Legislative Updates
Some legislative ideas published recently by the Associated Press:
You may also be interested in a discussion held with Rep. Mike Lawlor, who is head of the Judiciary Committee, on My Left Nutmeg yesterday. A lot of the conversation is about the Krayeske situation, but Lawlor also talked about the search for the next Chief Justice and other issues.
- A penalty for not reporting lost or stolen guns, paired with a one-gun-per-month limit. These kind of seem like things you would charge someone with after they'd shot someone else.
- A bill that would allow "any member of the State Bond Commission to put funding requests on the agenda for action", which may seem dull. However, the governor currently controls the agenda, causing Republicans to accuse Democrats of a power grab. This is the type of bill that Jodi Rell will veto--and the Democrats will not override.
You may also be interested in a discussion held with Rep. Mike Lawlor, who is head of the Judiciary Committee, on My Left Nutmeg yesterday. A lot of the conversation is about the Krayeske situation, but Lawlor also talked about the search for the next Chief Justice and other issues.
A Reader Note on Interfering with an Officer
The following comment came in via email from reader CG (edit for format only):
The statute in question, Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-167a, is available here.
The decision in State v. Aloi is available here.
So, what do you think?
All this talk about Ken Krayeske’s recent arrest for interfering with a police officer and breach of peace got me thinking about what, exactly, it means to interfere with the police.
In a Hartford Courant article that you may have missed right before the holidays, Lynne Tuouhy wrote about a recent unanimous Connecticut Supreme Court decision that allows any person who peacefully refuses to show identification to a police officer to be arrested for interfering with an officer. The law, which is Connecticut Statute 53a-167a states that Interfering with an officer is a Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in prison). A person is guilty of interfering with an officer when, “such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any peace officer, special policeman appointed under section 29-18b or firefighter in the performance of such peace officer’s, special policeman’s or firefighter’s duties.”
The Connecticut Supreme Court last week reversed a unanimous Appellate Court decision and declared that peacefully existing on public property and simply refusing to show identification is either obstruction, resistance or hindrance punishable by up to a year in prison. I’m not sure which colorful verb they believe it falls under! The case, State v. Aloi, centered around a man who was suspiciously standing near a fire truck on public property near his home. Granted, he had been in legal trouble before for messing with the fire truck, which created loud noise and was a nuisance near his home, yet the precedent set by this case is somewhat startling.
I’m not sure exactly what this information adds to the conversation over Mr. Krayeske’s arrest, but I thought it might be interesting for your readers to know just exactly how easy it is to be arrested for interfering with an officer. I know that many “known protestors” visit your site regularly, so they may want to know that apparently doing anything contrary to exactly what you are told to do by a police officer anywhere in Connecticut is able to land you in jail, if not just until the last glass of champagne is poured at the Governor’s ball, then possibly for up to one year.
The statute in question, Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-167a, is available here.
The decision in State v. Aloi is available here.
So, what do you think?
Dodd on the Run
So it's official.
Sen. Dodd announced his candidacy for president this morning on Imus in the Morning, which seems a strange place to launch a campaign from. Why, for example, didn't he do this in Connecticut?
He'll be heading to Iowa and South Carolina soon, there to tout his experience, his opposition to the Iraq War, and the fact that he's a nice guy who isn't Hillary Clinton. He will be relying on his affable, personable nature and strong talents as an orator to rise above the crowd there.
There's a website: ChrisDodd.com, with plenty of multimedia, plays on the word "Dodd" (for example, the Dodd Pod seems to be a collection of podcasts) and the obligatory campaign blog. There are already some issues posted, although a quick glance shows little that separates him from the rest of what is becoming a crowded field.
There's also money: about $5 million in the bank. That may be the only plus so far.
What there isn't, at least yet, is any kind of buzz about the campaign. Kevin Rennie called Dodd's bid a "busman's holiday of a campaign" and suggested that state Democrats were less than thrilled with it.
This will be the most difficult campaign Dodd has ever run. His chances, let's admit, are not good. Even Joe Lieberman began the last cycle in better position, and he ended up in a three way tie for third in New Hampshire. There's no evidence Dodd will fare much better than that.
Which begs the question: why is Dodd actually running? Is it, as Rennie suggests, simple vanity? Is he really running for Vice President, or for a Cabinet post in President Obama, Edwards or Clinton's administration? Or it could just be a nice way to cap a long and generally distinguished career.
Then again, maybe he actually believes that he can win.
In any event, our senior senator is now officially running for president. What's your reaction?
You can also go post about it in the forum.
Sen. Dodd announced his candidacy for president this morning on Imus in the Morning, which seems a strange place to launch a campaign from. Why, for example, didn't he do this in Connecticut?
He'll be heading to Iowa and South Carolina soon, there to tout his experience, his opposition to the Iraq War, and the fact that he's a nice guy who isn't Hillary Clinton. He will be relying on his affable, personable nature and strong talents as an orator to rise above the crowd there.
There's a website: ChrisDodd.com, with plenty of multimedia, plays on the word "Dodd" (for example, the Dodd Pod seems to be a collection of podcasts) and the obligatory campaign blog. There are already some issues posted, although a quick glance shows little that separates him from the rest of what is becoming a crowded field.
There's also money: about $5 million in the bank. That may be the only plus so far.
What there isn't, at least yet, is any kind of buzz about the campaign. Kevin Rennie called Dodd's bid a "busman's holiday of a campaign" and suggested that state Democrats were less than thrilled with it.
This will be the most difficult campaign Dodd has ever run. His chances, let's admit, are not good. Even Joe Lieberman began the last cycle in better position, and he ended up in a three way tie for third in New Hampshire. There's no evidence Dodd will fare much better than that.
Which begs the question: why is Dodd actually running? Is it, as Rennie suggests, simple vanity? Is he really running for Vice President, or for a Cabinet post in President Obama, Edwards or Clinton's administration? Or it could just be a nice way to cap a long and generally distinguished career.
Then again, maybe he actually believes that he can win.
In any event, our senior senator is now officially running for president. What's your reaction?
You can also go post about it in the forum.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
McCain Claims Lieberman's Victory Means America is Anti-Withdrawal
On MSNBC today, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain claimed that Senator Lieberman's defeat of Ned Lamont meant that the American people were against withdrawal:
TPM Election Central's Eric Kleefeld neatly rips this absurd argument to shreds (click through to read the whole thing and see the video of McCain making the claim):
What he said.
Joe Lieberman would never have been re-elected — a strong proponent of the war — against an opponent who was for pullout, if that was the American people's attitude.
TPM Election Central's Eric Kleefeld neatly rips this absurd argument to shreds (click through to read the whole thing and see the video of McCain making the claim):
First, let's take a look at Connecticut's exit polls. They show that sending more troops had the support of — get this — 15% of voters! Meanwhile, 63% of voters said some or even all troops should be withdrawn, in complete opposition to Lieberman's real position.
Second, given the total number of people who cast their vote for Lieberman, it's nothing short of absurd to say that it's in any way indicative of anything national. According to the final results, a total of 563,725 people voted for Lieberman — in other words, just over half a million in a nation of 300 million people.
Finally, Lieberman won because he was able to misrepresent his views on Iraq, not because voters agreed with his actual views on the subject. Back in July, Lieberman actually said he thought we'd be able to draw down "significant" numbers of troops by now. What's more, Lieberman worked hard to blur the line between himself and Ned Lamont on the Iraq issue. In one ad, for instance, he spoke of wanting to "bring our troops home from Iraq."
What he said.
Monstrous Concessions
Stan Simpson’s column today is already provoking a lot of outrage and talk around here today, and for good reason. Here’s the most relevant excerpt:
Security and safety are gods in America today--and they have been for a long time, even since before 9/11. We want safer cars, safer schools, safer food, safer air, safer everything, and we're willing to make monstrous concessions in order to get them. This is another.
What Stan is suggesting seems so reasonable. Yes, detain him. Search him. He could have been a threat. He might have embarrassed or hurt the governor. The security of the state's chief executive is paramount. He was a known activist, he didn't like the governor. His bag should have been searched, at the very least. It would have been okay to hold him until the police were "reassured."
We can rationalize this, and smother it with the numbing and comforting "what ifs" that Simpson provides, but a cold truth remains: Ken Krayeske was arrested because he said the wrong things to the wrong people, and in the wrong way.
The state police had his photo because of verbal confrontations between himself and the governor's staff, regarding his candidate's exclusion from the gubernatorial debates. This, in Simpson's words, "unsettled" the state police, and so they provided his photograph to Hartford's police, and the chain of events was set in motion.
A man was arrested and detained for hours because of what he said and what he wrote. He was made known to police because his tone of voice "unsettled" the state police. He never threatened the governor.
This is not okay.
People can rationalize just about anything, from strangers rifling through a woman's purse at the entrance to a ball game to "free speech zones" for protesters at political events to the arrest and detention of innocent men if they believe it will make things safer. If you find that fog clouding your judgement, if you start to think that giving up a little freedom for security now and then is fine, if you begin to forget that our entire country is one great big free speech zone, remember what happened to Ken.
Then imagine it happening to you.
Sources
Pazniokas, Mark. "Activist Arrested At Inauguration Parade." Hartford Courant 6 January, 2007.
Simpson, Stan. "Protecting Rell Serves Public, Too." Hartford Courant 10 January, 2007.
Inviting as it may be, I'm not joining the piling-on party. When it comes to securing the safety of the state's highest elected official, you err on the side of caution. No, Krayeske should not have been arrested, and yes, the charges should be dropped. But please don't suggest that the guy should not have been detained for a while, at least until the point police were assured he had no bad intentions. Certainly, they had a right to inspect the nylon bag he carried while running along the parade route to make certain there was nothing more dangerous than a digital camera.
[...]
I don't think Krayeske was considered a "threat" in the physical sense, but someone who may be inclined to try to publicly embarrass the governor on her big day.
His incident got a mention in Tuesday's New York Times. Just imagine the news coverage if someone really did slip by security and harm the 60-year-old grandma in her first elected term.
The headline: "Where Was Rell's Security?" (Simpson)
Security and safety are gods in America today--and they have been for a long time, even since before 9/11. We want safer cars, safer schools, safer food, safer air, safer everything, and we're willing to make monstrous concessions in order to get them. This is another.
What Stan is suggesting seems so reasonable. Yes, detain him. Search him. He could have been a threat. He might have embarrassed or hurt the governor. The security of the state's chief executive is paramount. He was a known activist, he didn't like the governor. His bag should have been searched, at the very least. It would have been okay to hold him until the police were "reassured."
We can rationalize this, and smother it with the numbing and comforting "what ifs" that Simpson provides, but a cold truth remains: Ken Krayeske was arrested because he said the wrong things to the wrong people, and in the wrong way.
Hartford Det. Jeff Antuna wrote in his report that Krayeske drew his attention by rapidly riding up to the parade route near Bushnell Park, dumping his bike and running to a position in front of Rell.
"I immediately recognized the accused as Kenneth Krayeske from the photograph provided by the state police," Antuna wrote. (Pazniokas)
The state police had his photo because of verbal confrontations between himself and the governor's staff, regarding his candidate's exclusion from the gubernatorial debates. This, in Simpson's words, "unsettled" the state police, and so they provided his photograph to Hartford's police, and the chain of events was set in motion.
A man was arrested and detained for hours because of what he said and what he wrote. He was made known to police because his tone of voice "unsettled" the state police. He never threatened the governor.
This is not okay.
People can rationalize just about anything, from strangers rifling through a woman's purse at the entrance to a ball game to "free speech zones" for protesters at political events to the arrest and detention of innocent men if they believe it will make things safer. If you find that fog clouding your judgement, if you start to think that giving up a little freedom for security now and then is fine, if you begin to forget that our entire country is one great big free speech zone, remember what happened to Ken.
Then imagine it happening to you.
Sources
Pazniokas, Mark. "Activist Arrested At Inauguration Parade." Hartford Courant 6 January, 2007.
Simpson, Stan. "Protecting Rell Serves Public, Too." Hartford Courant 10 January, 2007.
Early Morning Open Forum
Judiciary Chairman Mike Lawlor will be liveblogging tonight on My Left Nutmeg. SpazeBoy has his press conference from yesterday in four parts.
CT Bob has an interview with Rosa DeLauro.
Opponents of Broadwater speak out - and it looks like the New York Department of State has misgivings.
An interesting challenge to the constitutionality of the Death Penalty is brewing in Hartford.
Rabid Raccoons? Yes, rabid raccoons.
State Dems look to change bonding rules to end Governor's monopoly.
An economics Professor takes George Will's latest Courant column to task.
What else is going on?
CT Bob has an interview with Rosa DeLauro.
Opponents of Broadwater speak out - and it looks like the New York Department of State has misgivings.
An interesting challenge to the constitutionality of the Death Penalty is brewing in Hartford.
Rabid Raccoons? Yes, rabid raccoons.
State Dems look to change bonding rules to end Governor's monopoly.
An economics Professor takes George Will's latest Courant column to task.
What else is going on?
Hartford: Matthews Expected to Announce Today
From the Courant:
Others currently in the race are former State Rep. Frank Barrows and current State Rep. Art Feltman, both Democrats.
The consensus this year is that Perez has made a lot of enemies in Hartford, and he is seen, among other things, as power-hungry and out-of-touch with the residents of the city. He still remains a powerful force in Hartford, however, so it remains to be seen whether any of the current crop of challengers can take him down.
Above all of this is the quiet but persistent rumor that Denise Nappier might join the fray, although she hasn't said anything either way.
Source
Goren, Daniel. "Another Mayoral Candidate." Hartford Courant 10 January, 2007.
I. Charles Mathews, a blast from Hartford's political past, is expected today to announce his candidacy to run against Mayor Eddie A. Perez in the 2007 election.
Mathews, a former deputy mayor in Hartford, joined a growing list of candidates seeking to oust Perez, who on Tuesday made official his bid for re-election by registering as a candidate with the city clerk.
[...]
Mathews said his candidacy will concentrate on a revision of the city's strong-mayor charter, fine-tuning the document to provide enhanced checks and balances against the mayor.
Mathews wants to focus city dollars on a handful of issues - jobs for city residents, improved education for its children, economic development downtown and in local neighborhoods and revitalizing some of the city's most downtrodden areas. (Goren)
Others currently in the race are former State Rep. Frank Barrows and current State Rep. Art Feltman, both Democrats.
The consensus this year is that Perez has made a lot of enemies in Hartford, and he is seen, among other things, as power-hungry and out-of-touch with the residents of the city. He still remains a powerful force in Hartford, however, so it remains to be seen whether any of the current crop of challengers can take him down.
Above all of this is the quiet but persistent rumor that Denise Nappier might join the fray, although she hasn't said anything either way.
Source
Goren, Daniel. "Another Mayoral Candidate." Hartford Courant 10 January, 2007.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Ken Krayeske Arrest: The Police Report and Provable Reality are at Odds
Much of the online coverage of the arrest of Ken Krayeske has, rightfully, focused on the existence of a "Threat List" kept by law enforcement officials (see here, here, and here).
I want to take a moment to talk for a second about a tangential issue: the arrest itself. According to the police report:
When I spoke with Nancy Mulroy, spokesperson for the Hartford Police, she indicated that the arrest was made as a reaction to "aggressive behavior." And the behavior, according to the police report, certainly sounds aggressive.
But the police report omits a glaring object: the camera in the hands of the accused. We know for a fact that a camera was present, because the photographs that Ken Krayeske took that day have been published on his website:
In fact, according to his website (which, given the potential for litigation, I am taking for accurate as he will have to produce the time stamped photographs in court), he had time to take 23 photographs at that location before he was arrested. This does not line up with the timeline provided in the police report.
It does, however, fit perfectly with a witness statement in the Courant that directly contradicts the police report:
When I asked Nancy Mulroy where the camera was when the arrest was made she indicated, based on the listing of "Nylon bag... containing photographic equipment" in the property section of the police report, that the camera was in the nylon bag. Again, the photographic evidence makes this difficult to believe, and it is equally hard to believe that Ken Krayeske's behavior could be perceived as "aggressive" if he had a camera up to his eye.
Finally, Ms. Mulroy conveyed to me that the arrest, setting of bail, resetting of bail, and release timeline was not based on the end of the inaugural ball, but on the logistics of arrests in Hartford. The Hartford Police Department has holding cells, but not a jail, so the original bail was set ($75,000) at the police department by a Marshall and the delay was caused by the wait for a regularly scheduled shuttle to the jail. The bail was changed to a promise to appear at the jail and the further delay was caused by the wait for another regularly scheduled shuttle back to the Hartford Police Department for processing for release.
Assuming this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, its fine as far as it goes, but it is not an adequate justification for the extremely high original bail. Ms. Mulroy indicated that the original bail was set with an eye toward Mr. Krayeske's previous criminal record. But his criminal record contains only three arrests for non-violent civil disobedience - hardly the stuff that makes for high bail.
Taking all this together, and in the prism of the existence of a "Threat List," the question that emerges is Was Ken Krayeske arrested because of his actions or for some other reason? More information than the police report will be necessary to adequately answer the question and it is encouraging that Governor Rell and Judiciary Chairman Mike Lawlor are interested in investigating further.
Update: I should add that, given the police department's knowledge of its own procedure and of how long Mr. Krayeske would be in custody if he made the trip to the jail, the high setting of the bail could have been undertaken with the knowledge that it would ensure him remaining in jail until midnight or one in the morning.
I am not arguing that this was some nefarious plot; I am just arguing that the simple fact that the regular procedure caused him to remain in jail for so long doesn't let HPD off the hook - they could have been using the procedure as a tool.
Sources:
MARK PAZNIOKAS, "State Called Man `Threat'", Hartford Courant, January 6, 2007.
Ken Krayeske Arrest Report, Hartford Courant, January 6, 2007.
I want to take a moment to talk for a second about a tangential issue: the arrest itself. According to the police report:
At approximately 13:20 I was in an unmarked Police vehicle at the corner of Ford Street and Pear Street when I observed the accused suddenly ride a mountain bike at a high rate of speed directly up to the parade route, dump the bicycle, jumping off it, and then running up to the parade procession directly in front of where the Governor was passing by in the procession.
...
As I exited my vehicle and ran towards the accused I observed State Police Detective Pedro Rosado approach the accused just as the accused was stepping off the curb into the parade route, toward the Governor. Detective Rosado had placed himself between the accused and the Governor's path, I then grabbed the accused by his right arm and escorted him away from the Governor, and the parade route, which he resisted by attempting to pull away from me.
When I spoke with Nancy Mulroy, spokesperson for the Hartford Police, she indicated that the arrest was made as a reaction to "aggressive behavior." And the behavior, according to the police report, certainly sounds aggressive.
But the police report omits a glaring object: the camera in the hands of the accused. We know for a fact that a camera was present, because the photographs that Ken Krayeske took that day have been published on his website:
In fact, according to his website (which, given the potential for litigation, I am taking for accurate as he will have to produce the time stamped photographs in court), he had time to take 23 photographs at that location before he was arrested. This does not line up with the timeline provided in the police report.
It does, however, fit perfectly with a witness statement in the Courant that directly contradicts the police report:
But one witness to the arrest, Eliot Streim, contradicted the police account.
Streim, a Hartford lawyer who was watching the parade with a colleague, said police did not intercept Krayeske as he ran into the parade route. On the contrary, Krayeske photographed the governor without incident and was detained by police only after Rell had passed by, Streim said.
When I asked Nancy Mulroy where the camera was when the arrest was made she indicated, based on the listing of "Nylon bag... containing photographic equipment" in the property section of the police report, that the camera was in the nylon bag. Again, the photographic evidence makes this difficult to believe, and it is equally hard to believe that Ken Krayeske's behavior could be perceived as "aggressive" if he had a camera up to his eye.
Finally, Ms. Mulroy conveyed to me that the arrest, setting of bail, resetting of bail, and release timeline was not based on the end of the inaugural ball, but on the logistics of arrests in Hartford. The Hartford Police Department has holding cells, but not a jail, so the original bail was set ($75,000) at the police department by a Marshall and the delay was caused by the wait for a regularly scheduled shuttle to the jail. The bail was changed to a promise to appear at the jail and the further delay was caused by the wait for another regularly scheduled shuttle back to the Hartford Police Department for processing for release.
Assuming this is accurate, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, its fine as far as it goes, but it is not an adequate justification for the extremely high original bail. Ms. Mulroy indicated that the original bail was set with an eye toward Mr. Krayeske's previous criminal record. But his criminal record contains only three arrests for non-violent civil disobedience - hardly the stuff that makes for high bail.
Taking all this together, and in the prism of the existence of a "Threat List," the question that emerges is Was Ken Krayeske arrested because of his actions or for some other reason? More information than the police report will be necessary to adequately answer the question and it is encouraging that Governor Rell and Judiciary Chairman Mike Lawlor are interested in investigating further.
Update: I should add that, given the police department's knowledge of its own procedure and of how long Mr. Krayeske would be in custody if he made the trip to the jail, the high setting of the bail could have been undertaken with the knowledge that it would ensure him remaining in jail until midnight or one in the morning.
I am not arguing that this was some nefarious plot; I am just arguing that the simple fact that the regular procedure caused him to remain in jail for so long doesn't let HPD off the hook - they could have been using the procedure as a tool.
Sources:
MARK PAZNIOKAS, "State Called Man `Threat'", Hartford Courant, January 6, 2007.
Ken Krayeske Arrest Report, Hartford Courant, January 6, 2007.
More Site Trouble
Blogger was down for much of the late morning and early afternoon. This, if anyone is wondering, is why we are switching soon to our beautiful new site at:
http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net
Bookmark it now! Whenever Blogger is down over the next week or so, go and check this site. You can also check the forum for all the latest chatter at:
http://forum.ctlocalpolitics.net
In honor of the site's second anniversary, we will be leaving Blogger and going live exclusively on the new site by January 17th.
Go bookmark both sites now!
http://www.ctlocalpolitics.net
Bookmark it now! Whenever Blogger is down over the next week or so, go and check this site. You can also check the forum for all the latest chatter at:
http://forum.ctlocalpolitics.net
In honor of the site's second anniversary, we will be leaving Blogger and going live exclusively on the new site by January 17th.
Go bookmark both sites now!
Another Update on the Arrest of Ken Krayeske
Cross posted at the new site
From the Courant:
Obviously there should be a probe. Why was Ken on that list, or why did he meet "federal guidelines," as is stated here? Are blogs and other sites actually being monitored by law enforcement?
And Pattis is correct--the high bail, then the release after the ball was done, are both highly suspicious.
More light, please.
Source
Keating, Christopher. "Probe Urged After Arrest Of Activist At Rell Parade." Hartford Courant 9 January, 2007.
From the Courant:
Several lawmakers said they were outraged, calling for legislative hearings and saying the incident reeks of a secret police force and should not be tolerated in Connecticut.
[Commissioner Leonard] Boyle Monday denied the state police keep a list of political enemies, saying that the notion is "completely incorrect."
"We do not maintain such lists," he said.
[...]
Krayeske's lawyer, Norman Pattis, said police had no reason to detain Krayeske on a high bail, and then release him without bail once the governor's inaugural ball had ended.
"The courts say bond is intended only to ensure appearance at trial. They don't say you can use it to ice someone out of the governor's ball," Pattis said. "That to me is far more troubling than the arrest itself." (Keating)
Obviously there should be a probe. Why was Ken on that list, or why did he meet "federal guidelines," as is stated here? Are blogs and other sites actually being monitored by law enforcement?
And Pattis is correct--the high bail, then the release after the ball was done, are both highly suspicious.
More light, please.
Source
Keating, Christopher. "Probe Urged After Arrest Of Activist At Rell Parade." Hartford Courant 9 January, 2007.
Did Lieberman Mislead Voters?
Let's see. This is from an article in the Stamford Advocate, but there's lots more in many other places:
However:
Lieberman's Iraq policy was never all that clear during the campaign, so this, which appears to be more of a modification of his earlier pro-war stance and not an about face, probably won't either surprise or alarm most voters.
Still, Lieberman hasn't been entirely consistent as he claims, and he certainly never suggested a troop "surge" like what he is proposing now. The campaign may have gone differently if he had. Lieberman effectively neutralized his nebulous stand on Iraq as an issue, instead focusing on partisanship, but if he had expressed support for the "surge," which is turning out to be an unpopular position, he probably would have had a tougher time of it.
Lieberman needs to explain why and how his thinking on Iraq has shifted. To claim that this has always been his position, and that he has always been consistent on Iraq, is to rewrite history.
Source
Lockhart, Brian. "Critics rap Lieberman position on troops." Stamford Advocate 9 January, 2007.
Lieberman and U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., co-authored a letter to President Bush "strongly encouraging" him to send more troops "to improve the security situation on the ground."
However:
In a July 6 debate with Lamont, Lieberman said he was "confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops."
[...]
After losing the Democratic primary to Lamont and forming his own party running as an independent Democrat, Lieberman outlined a 10-point plan for Iraq in which he called for increasing the number of U.S. troops embedded in Iraqi units two- or three-fold. But he said this should be done by redeploying existing troops "not adding new troops to the region." (Lockhart)
Lieberman's Iraq policy was never all that clear during the campaign, so this, which appears to be more of a modification of his earlier pro-war stance and not an about face, probably won't either surprise or alarm most voters.
Still, Lieberman hasn't been entirely consistent as he claims, and he certainly never suggested a troop "surge" like what he is proposing now. The campaign may have gone differently if he had. Lieberman effectively neutralized his nebulous stand on Iraq as an issue, instead focusing on partisanship, but if he had expressed support for the "surge," which is turning out to be an unpopular position, he probably would have had a tougher time of it.
Lieberman needs to explain why and how his thinking on Iraq has shifted. To claim that this has always been his position, and that he has always been consistent on Iraq, is to rewrite history.
Source
Lockhart, Brian. "Critics rap Lieberman position on troops." Stamford Advocate 9 January, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)