Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, November 15, 2009 11:44 pm

As reported by Cityline, rJo Winch’s recent taxpayer-funded trip to Texas for a conference cost $2600. Continue reading 'Math Problem of the Day'»

Comments (8)

By Kerri Provost, May 10, 2009 9:30 am

A few months ago when the revision process began, there was a public hearing. Subsequently, at every meeting of the Charter Revision Commission, the public have had the opportunity to vent voice their concerns for a few minutes. During the regular meetings, less than a handful of people bothered to show up to express their opinions. Predictably, some have already begun to complain about the outcome. This kind of kvetching into the abyss is purposeless and would be more effective if directed to those who have at least a semblance of control over the matter. Draft revisions are being made available beginning on Monday and can be picked up in the Town Clerk’s Office and in City Council Offices, as well as online. Since there are actually some major suggested changes, I do think it’s worth taking the time to read through and show up at the public hearing if Hartford’s politics even remotely matter to you. This Wednesday (May 13th) a public hearing will be held at 6pm in the Hartford Public Library.

Here is a preview of some of the revised sections:

Composition of the Court of Common Council. (it is changing!)

The Council shall consist of thirteen members, consisting of one member elected from each of five Districts and eight elected at large. The Council shall designate such council districts by number. The maximum number of at-large members of the Council who may be members of the same political party shall reflect the requirements of the General Statutes with respect to minority party representation.

The following section explains how the districts will be determined, providing an idea about why there is this desire to switch from At-Large to Hybrid.

Sec. 6 Establishment of Districts for Court of Common Council.
(a) No later than thirty (30) days following the completion of reapportionment of the General Assembly, as required by the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, as further set forth in the General Statutes, the Council shall appoint a districting commission consisting of seven (7) to fifteen (15) members, no more than fifty (50%) percent of whom shall be members of the same political party (“Appointment Date”). The districting commission shall report to the Council no later than seventy (70) days following the Appointment Date, setting forth the recommended boundaries of the five (5) Council districts.

(b) Council districts shall be:

(1) of substantially equal population and otherwise consistent with all federal and state constitutional and statutory requirements;

(2) to the extent possible, consistent with preceding, maintain the integrity of recognized neighborhood planning areas;

(3) geographically contiguous and compact; and

(4) to the extent possible consistent with the preceding, consistent with existing legislative districts.

(c) The districting commission shall be supported in its work by appropriate City staff which shall have available to it the necessary support to facilitate the work of the commission and well as such other professional assistance (subject to appropriation) as it shall choose.

(d) The districting commission shall hold a public hearing at least one week before it submits its report to the Council, and shall make a tentative map of its proposed districts available to the public electronically, in hard copy available at the City Clerk’s office, and by causing it to be published in one or more newspapers of daily circulation in the City at least three (3) days before the public hearing. The districting commission may modify the tentative districts before submitting its report to the Council.

(e) The Council shall vote on the establishment of Council districts within three (3) weeks of its receipt of the districting commission’s report. The Council may amend the district boundaries recommended by the districting commission before approving districts, but the districts approved by the Council must comply with the standards of subsection (c) of this section. A resolution approving districts must be affirmatively supported by a majority of the members of Council, and shall not be subject to veto by the Mayor.
Continue reading 'Revised, Ready, and Waiting'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, March 26, 2009 11:29 pm

In a burst of uncharacteristic fervor, Chairman Richard Wareing told the Hartford Charter Revision Commission that the City Council has power, just no willpower. This was in response to what he described as a succession of council-members coming forward with the complaint that current Corporation Counsel is unresponsive to their needs. Continue reading '“Only Power They Lack is Willpower”'»

Comments (1)

By Kerri Provost, March 20, 2009 6:30 am

What I am learning from attending these meetings is that legalese is every bit as convoluted as reputed to be; hence, lawyers should be as far away from writing/modifying the language of law as is humanly possible. Given that EmGee has broken issues down into plain English, I know that some lawyers are capable of clear writing and thinking.

The Charter Revision Commission took a recess to decipher the draft amendments of Chapter III of the charter; it appeared that Attorney Mednick, who was not present, had omitted some information discussed at the previous meeting. Later, Commissioner Anderson asked for Discussion Item 4 to be better explained, as the language was misleading.

Most of the meeting seemed focused on discussion of four items. Continue reading 'Hartford Charter Revision Commission: March 19, 2009'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, March 12, 2009 6:10 am

There will be a public hearing in Council Chambers on Monday March 16th at 7pm regarding two proposed resolutions and ordinances:

1. Resolution de Naming the corner of Main Street and Albany Avenue as Keith L. Carr, Sr. Corner.

2. Resolution de Authorization to enter into and execute a lease with MDM Golf, LLC to manage Goodwin Park and Keney Park Golf Courses.

3. Ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article V, Division 1 of Code de Generally.

4. Ordinance repealing Chapter 36 and replacing it with a new Chapter 36 of Code de Public art.

An upgrade from resolution-to-ordinance is being pushed for item four. This would ensure that 1% of the total budget for any capitol improvement project is designated for the arts.

Comments (1)

By Kerri Provost, February 5, 2009 10:49 pm

An agitated Councilman Kennedy, with his back to the Charter Revision Commission mouthed that he was “not going to cut down the at large.” Continue reading '“Not Going to Cut Down the At Large”'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, February 4, 2009 6:49 am

The job of the City Council is to vote.
Yesterday, Veronica Airey-Wilson failed to do her job.

The message that I got from her decision to abstain was this: Airey-Wilson wants to be everyone’s friend. Airey-Wilson wants to make no enemies. Airey-Wilson is unable to summon the courage to do her job, which, by the way, requires that tough decisions be made from time-to-time. In a time of economic meltdown, in a time when many people are losing their jobs, Airey-Wilson should show a little gratitude to at least have a job by performing one of the central tasks that she is being paid to do.

Much is being made of Cotto’s vote and remarks, some of which you can read on CT News Junkie. I have to wonder if anyone on the Council cared when he announced that he was “not down with the way this is happening.” Applause or lack of in the chambers is not what I’m referring to. Did anyone else voting (or in Airey-Wilson’s case, not voting) yesterday try on some empathy? Did anyone question the unethical and painful attempt to strip someone of power when he had not shown any wrongdoing other than having poor choice in friends?

Here is the full text of the statement given by the Working Families Party (Cotto and Deutsch) regarding the attempt to remove City Council President Torres from his position yesterday:

It is time for change in Hartford. Just as change has been needed at the national level and is now happening in Washington, it has also been needed for a while here in our city – and not just for the past week. We’ve been calling for change since the day we took office.

Throughout the past week, we’ve heard many people say they want to do what is best for the City. What’s best for the city is measured in terms of the quality of life of our residents. That’s the kind of change that we need and the kind of change that we in the Working Families Party are committed to.

What is our job in city government? It is to serve the people, honestly, directly, responsively.
Continue reading 'Calixto Torres Retains Position'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, February 3, 2009 5:22 pm

What could Ritter possibly have to say for a whole three pages on this subject, you’re wondering? Here it is, uncut:

I would like to welcome everyone and thank everyone for being here tonight. I am encouraged by the amount of feedback I have received regarding this matter, because it demonstrates that residents care about the critical issues we will be facing over the coming weeks. These are certainly the types of situations that test our resolve and force us to dig deep for the courage to do what is right, not what is easy; to do what is necessary, not what is politically appealing.

Continue reading 'Councilman Ritter’s Statement Regarding City Council President'»

Comments (0)

By Kerri Provost, January 30, 2009 3:18 pm

In a letter to the members of Hartford’s City Council, Calixto Torres says that he will finish out his term as Council President, even though some of his colleagues are asking him to resign from that position.

Comments (5)

By Kerri Provost, December 11, 2008 12:12 am

On Wednesday evening, the public was invited to contribute our two cents on the discussion regarding the Hartford Charter Revision. Commissioners include Richard Wareing (Chair), Monique Rowtham-Kennedy (Vice-Chair), Sara Bronin (Secretary), Marcia Bok Anderson, Alex Aponte, Heather Brandon, Yvonne Duncan, Matt Fleury, Mathew Jasinski, Marquita McElya, Julian Pelaez, Jeff Stewart, and Edwin Vargas. The meeting was held in the downtown Hartford Public Library, which despite its recent bad press, has been accommodating to community events; in this case, they are maintaining a web page devoted to providing information about the Revision Commission and its proceedings. It, however, can’t bear to fix the acoustics in the large room where panels are frequently held. As a result, it becomes a challenge to hear speakers (who use microphones) if the heating system is on (check) or if audience members use this kind of function as a social gathering (check). Beyond the poor sound and failure to introduce members of the Charter Revision Commission, this meeting was disappointing because it was not doing what it said it would. Over the course of the two hour meeting, eight people addressed the commission. Of those, four were from City Council, one was the mayor, one was a state senator, one on the Connecticut State Board of Education, and one was an actual member of the public (though he has served on City Council in the past). On one hand, it makes sense to have officials go first, to present their researched ideas. But their expertise should not be permitted to fill the space of two hours in such a disorganized manner. The meeting came to a screeching halt at 8pm when the library closed, which cut off the ability for the public to actually contribute. The meeting will resume on December 18th at 6pm in City Council chambers.

With that said, the positions presented were interesting. Councilmen Ritter, Kennedy, Deutsch, and Cotto presented their viewpoints, along with Mayor Perez, Connecticut State Senator Fonfara, chair of the Connecticut State Board of Education and former City Councilman (1981-1987) Allan B. Taylor, and Mike McGarry, a newspaper columnist and former City Councilman. There was some disagreement over why the City Charter was even up for discussion. According to information provided by Councilman Ritter in the 2008 Charter Reform Public Hearing Summary Report, the City Council “can offer guidance on what items should be considered, but ultimately the commission can decide what areas of the charter it wishes to review.” It appeared that several members of the Council were offering guidance and/or directives for the Commission tonight.

During the summer of 2008, four hearings were held in different locations of the city–Farmington Avenue, Park Street, Main Street, and Coventry Street–so that the public could get an understanding of the charter revision process. Ritter claimed that during these meetings, the possibility of switching to a district electoral system was the most spoken about issue. Right now, Hartford has at large representation, which means that it is possible for three City Councilmembers to live in one district, while other districts may have only one member residing there; this is the case in Hartford, where there are even districts without their own representation. Councilman Cotto said, “If you start on Broad Street (at Maple Avenue) and draw a line due north connecting to Garden Street (until Love Lane), you have a North-South line splitting the city almost exactly in half…no elected official lives east of that line. The poorest sections in the city are the NorthEast and Southeast.” Senator Fonfara concurred, “It’s not by accident that there is no representation of the East side of the city.” Continue reading '“Take as long as you need to complete this task” —Mayor Eddie Perez'»