New Haven Independent

Posted by: Strange Indeed | November 23, 2007 12:17 PM

Is there some point when articles like this are meant to defend the Independent and its reporter and not illuminate readership? Continuing to use language like "torture" and "dragged a mentally disabled man to the polls," when a potentially criminal investigation is pending is inappropriate. No one was "tortured" or "dragged".

How about some kind of illumination of what the law really is in cases like this? We have had reporter and newspaper posturing about what they think it should be.

The Independent's swing into NY Post style reporting is jarring to say the least. Maybe a week off for reflection would be in order. From comments that border or cross the line on racism, to reporting like this, the Independent has moved from being informative, investigative, and intelligent to a place for whining and screaming. Neither move this community forward -- apparently within the goal of the Independent to be "rooted in and devoted to the city."

Nothing wrong with reporting something that bothers you but then report on it. McGrath does not come off as some sicko when you interview him, he seems more than willing to talk (not hide) and still believes he did the right thing. He must have thought so since he brought the reporter with him. Who knows -- maybe he is wrong. I won't find out from reading the Independent.

Seems like some decent people believe that pulling the disabled voter is not too dissimilar from pulling the non-disabled. Is there a law that says this is not the case? Are there other examples of actions by the state to enforce on these matters? Is there a place where advocates for the disabled draw the line?

I have no idea and apparently I won't get an answer to any of these questions from reading the Independent. Or maybe now I will. Even if only done in response to this comment, that would be better than what we have read so far.

Is there a desire to write stories that generate comments? Thinking that number of comments equals journalism is scary. Just start reporting on the sex life of movie stars then or become a right wing rag. Either one will get the comments flowing -- from all over the country.

Talk about growing pains. Maybe do a gut check on where this "news" "paper" is and where it is going.

So much good is done when you give voice to the disenfranchised, smack city hall for a silly "gag" order, or cover the small gems polished by the common folk of this city every day. But at a certain point you lose that good when you eradicate perspective.

It would be interesting if your readership is going up from reporting so many things as "flaming traffic wrecks" or if over time there is a slow decline. I could not even hazard a guess.

Posted by: matt w | November 23, 2007 2:17 PM

Strange Indeed, I'm mostly in sympathy with your post, but I wanted to mention that "dragged" is somewhat of a precise technical term, referring to the common political tool of "knock and drags."

But absolutely, this brouhaha has much more to do with the charged use of language than politics or the law, and you're right to point out that the author and many commentators have pre-judged this matter.

What I'm interested in hearing is what those opposed to McGrath's actions think should be done to prevent the soliciting, persuading, or mobilizing of disabled adults who are registered to vote.

Throwing whoever the third party was who entered the polling place was entirely appropriate, as was the moderating judging each voter's fitness to vote. The system is working, imho.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | November 23, 2007 5:49 PM

"Seems like some decent people believe that pulling the disabled voter is not too dissimilar from pulling the non-disabled."

Really? I'd like to see Brian try the same tactics on Everit or St. Ronan Street and see if anyone would agree with you. Judging by the response that the story generated, I think that it hit a raw nerve and was reported rather fairly in light of the administration's reluctance to comment over the incident. Johnny "Sacks" is never at a loss for words or availability to go on camera.

Actually, I'm rather amazed that they did a story like this. The administration is pretty much in line with the politics of the NHI. Never thought that they would attack one of their own.

Posted by: king james v | November 23, 2007 8:03 PM

I also think it's commendable that a man who draws a check from city hall scare the hell out of a man and force him to vote for the captor's boss. It's also fun to see puppies cry and old ladies frown.
And you nasty press people better look out, the press passes were first (although it must save the city about $100 a year keeping the press from reporting on backdoor politics because they can't park anywhere). I think Mcgrath, Destefano et al should not just create thier own i.d. cards, they should amend the constitution while they're at it, and knock out the first, fifth and fourteenth amendments.

Posted by: JPN | November 23, 2007 9:12 PM

Reply to Strange Indeed: Obviously you are in need of a long vacation--for your scrupulous inquiries really show through your veil of pseudo intellectualism. It seems quite clear that the unfortunate victim in this article was abused--and McGrath who posted here, justifying his actions, said, "Vito is a bright kid, he knows who to vote for".

Now how in the name of impartial, rational, human logic can you explain away that quote from McGrath. Yes, Vito knows who to vote for!?!?!????

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 23, 2007 10:09 PM

Remaining silent for more than two weeks, Silverman finally finds her voice enough to say she has not lifted a finger to get to the bottom of what clearly shocked the hell out of most of us who read the original McGrath story. She diminished the state elections investigation as some trivial thing and then justifies browbeating a disabled person into voting for the machine slate as simply treating them the same.

Ina: Here's a tip. I want all people to vote - abled bodied and the disabled. However, normal people realize the tactics should be different because the mentally challenged have less ability to make their wishes known, let alone accepted by others claiming authority.

I find your comments as alienating and callous as McGrath's conduct that day. You're an attorney - look at the law and by the way, you have the responsibility to that disabled voter. Have you even bothered to call, stop by and chat with him to get his side of the story? You've exhibited the same dismissive attitude when questioned on your excessive and punitive escalation in taxes and spending.

Strange Indeed: It is clear you haven't bothered to trouble yourself with the large number of comments and weblinks provided by posters in the original Vito Torture story. Perhaps you could take some time to visit those links and do some research before you demean the NHI, this poster and others who found the conduct in this case disturbing at the very least.

Posted by: -fairhavener- | November 24, 2007 1:18 AM

Let me start with Silverman:

"Anybody can investigate anything they want," Silverman replied.

We are not really talking about "anybody" are we? We are talking about the State Elections Enforcement Commission. Obviously there is some type of protocol or procedure for them, otherwise, Andrews, the SEEC official, wouldn't have been reported as saying:

"...the commission doesn't automatically open investigations based on complaints." (See last article)

Regardless of whether they "can" or "can't" according to "Silverman Logic", they obviously have chosen to do so. It also appears that they did so, not on a whim, but because, "[t]here appear to be legitimate facts worth investigating" (see last article). Call me naïve, but it doesn't seem like the SEEC "wanted" to investigate anything they "wanted", rather, they are investigating something worth investigating.

And, the _pretend_ stance that we keep seeing reappear (in the last few articles) that the disabled should be treated like everyone else is growing tiresome:

"I think it's commendable that people treat people who are disabled the same way they treat able-bodied people, and ask them to come out and vote."

The reason I am confident it is a PRETEND position is not only because every time I read about it, it seems so phony (ie they can care less about the disabled), but because the same "crew" keeps offering the same phony argument. It seems as if this is the best position thought of so far, so it is adhered to systematically. And, guess what McGrath, DeStefano, Silverman & Co? You're right they should be treated like everyone else. That is, NOT "asked" (HA!) to vote like the 80-90% of the rest of New Haven's population. Right? Wouldn't THAT be EQUAL? Why were they the chosen ones? Obviously no other logic is getting through, so sink your teeth in that. (Don't come back with some pathetic tales of vote pulling all these other (supposed 100-200) non-disabled folks either, because the truth is NO ONE voted in New Haven and you did NOTHING about it - even with the pathetic "Democracy School" that has nothing to do with Democracy.)

I was going to end with a response to "Strange Indeed", but after rereading that comment I found nothing worth responding to. Well, except this:

"Is there a desire to write stories that generate comments? Thinking that number of comments equals journalism is scary."

In response to your question, it is interesting to see that you are the first to comment. Is your comment ironic? It is certainly amusing. In response to your second point, I am hardly (very hardly) an NHI spokesman, but I don't recall anyone at NHI (or reader) ever claiming that numbers of posts equals journalism. If I knew for a fact you were a journalist with a blog (or even a wannabe), I would have to accuse you of projectionism. I would also like to say that I look forward to you not commenting on my comment - for the sake of journalism. Get it?

Posted by: westvillecharlie | November 24, 2007 8:38 AM

Well, i'm bothered. Very much. And strange indeed, you are certianly much smarter than the rest of us, please tell me why the unsolicited verbal assault of a paid city employee to garner votes for his boss is ethical, because apparently none of us are enlightened enough to understand how it is both appropriate and legal - regardless of how long it's been going on.
Ina, you are either a very cold person, or very afraid to speak your mind. Either way, i'll be spending the next two years helping to find your replacement.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | November 24, 2007 9:40 AM

I, like most persons sick with this outrage, are done with commenting. We are hopeful that the commission will sanction this behavior. As far as your reading the NHI, Strange Indeed, if it is beneath you, then stop.

As you can see from the article, Ina did not agree to the interview, she merely replied to the reporter's questions after being approached at a meeting that she attended. I actually find it annoying that the NHI used a photo from a previous interview rather than one of her running away from the questions posed in this article, as she has done since the election. She still does not want to respond to her constituents' inquiries and while she can claim to be unaware, she spent most of the time when McGrath was at the school on election day by his side, so claiming not to know of his activities is absurd. Many of us were within twenty feet of both McGrath and Ina most of the day, and they were not in ignoring each other, rather they looked in panic mode, so during their discussions I am sure that they talked about more than the weather.

As far as the reporting of the NHI, it is more aboveboard than what we can find elsewhere on a local level. If not here, then no where. And more importantly, as far as moving our community forward, there has been nothing done by this administration to move us forward in years, so maybe the NHI is just falling in line.

A personal attack on the website and its character is not going to change the fact that what was done on election day was completely unethical and immoral. Most of us are just hoping that the commission agrees and finds out who knew what and punishes all the guilty parties.

My biggest question remains was McGrath paid for his services, and if so, then by whom? The answer to this question might lead to liability up the ladder.

Posted by: Bruce | November 24, 2007 10:40 AM

I still think the main issue here is that local politicians think this type of behavior is morally acceptable. They treat elections like a game and voters like cattle to be herded up into the polls. They are so accustomed to these obnoxious methods that they see nothing wrong. Their time would be much better spent (and the public better served) knocking on doors and convincing the public to vote for their candidate.

Posted by: Transituser | November 24, 2007 7:24 PM

The continued featuring of this silly tale that affects hardly anyone and appears as only some kind of personal vendetta against Alderwoman Silverman taints the integrity of what used to be a valuable community asset.

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 25, 2007 4:15 AM

I would not hold my breath on the results of the Commission inquiry. Ina's lack of concern and John's complete silence speak volumes about the likelihood of serious consequences.

It is only, as I have earlier implied something for the press to hang a story on and thus keep the issue alive in the public mind.

If this issue truly concerns you, WESTVILLECHARLIE and BRUCE have the right idea. Start now going door to door promoting change candidates.

If there isn't one in your Ward, find one or be one.

Posted by: Hartford Johnson | November 25, 2007 10:55 AM

Paul's paper has gradually lapsed into the style of the NY Times, in which a history of reliable fact-driven, muck-raking journalism has turned into a bulletin board for all sorts of (usually left-wing) causes. Who can count on the Times now?

The Courant has broken more ground than the Independent has in the last few years.

Posted by: matt w | November 25, 2007 1:14 PM

Still waiting for these commentors who are up in arms to describe what they'd like the outcome to be, and how the rules should prevent private citizens from contacting disabled, registered voters from persuading or mobilizing them during a political campaign.

Actually, if there was more coverage of the race in advance of E-Day, I suspect most of these same names would have been found rallying in support of Silverman's opponent. My guess is that all this complaining is meant just to promote the notion that somehow Silverman's victory was illegitimate.

Posted by: marge | November 25, 2007 7:01 PM

Why have you blacklisted my posts? I am getting tired of it.

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | November 26, 2007 12:14 AM

At this point, I look forward to seeing the result of the investigation. It should be remembered that the person "pulled" by McGrath took the initiative to register to vote. And then he was not stopped from voting by the poll moderators (which I believe they could do if they perceived incompetence). Also, McGrath got him to the polls but did not vote for him. It may be that the individual appreciated McGrath's push. Or he may have suffered by McGrath's prodding. Interesting case that shouldn't be prejudged.

Posted by: Paul Bass | November 26, 2007 7:28 AM

Marge -- A number of your posts have violated the Independent's commenting policy, which bars profanity, libel, and vicious personal attacks. I've emailed you several times to discuss it. The emails either bounce back or go unanswered. I recommend that commenters give real email addresses if they want feedback about this. (Hey, you could even try using your real name when you criticize someone else...)

Posted by: Juan Montalvo | November 26, 2007 3:01 PM

I am very disterbed by this. I think that Ina Silverman went about this the wrong way and her sarcastic comments to the media are not going to help her case. As for the man that was pulled out of the building against his will, I think that is very sad. Frankly, I think that more than the SEEC needs to investigate this!

Posted by: eli | November 26, 2007 3:54 PM

What if a group of westville voters, and some of us from outter wards, waited outside city hall next monday after the alderman meetings and ask her point blank on videotape why mcgrath was withing the bounds of good taste and good morals, and while we're there ask her fellow aldermen what they think of it? we'll put the video on channel 27 so the rest of the city can see why the new haven board of aldermen and us common folk are not the same.
I'm writing Bryson to ask him to publicly denounce these actions as one of his first priorities, i'd like to see the rest of us push their elected official to publiclly choose a side on this issue.

Posted by: king james v | November 26, 2007 9:31 PM

Just wondering, has anyone heard from Vito, his family, or the people who look after him.
By the way, to all of your Destefano / Mcgrath plants who've commented (and have never commented on nhi before) do you all think Mr. Vito walked over to the DMV and registered to vote? The out come I would like to see is the Destefano machine publicly denouncing Mcgrath's tactics (along with the greens, republicans ,libertarians and the rest) and, i want mr. mcgrath to stop by Vito's house, with reporters in tow, and take him out for lunch, maybe even a movie or a trip to the mall. He deserves that much.
... i like eli's suggestion, and will start the ball rolling at breakfast at bella's tomorrow. Melissa, thank you for breaking this story in a NON-SENSATIONAL way, and thank you to paul bass for keeping it rolling. By the way paul, i respect your no swearing policy, even though i want to curse these people out.
One last thing, is there anyway I, or we can make sure Vito and his apartment mates are protected, and even make sure there is some non-partisan folks out there who are keeping HIS best interests in mind, i think in all the outrage we've forgotten about him.

Posted by: westville1983 | November 26, 2007 10:56 PM

I worked election day for Tom Malone to get out the vote done mostly with telephone calling and some door to door contact as an unpaid volunteer. when a voter says they do not want to vote at any time, this was respected as his or her right.

Ina as usual is remote from what concerns her constiuents. The city machine was pulled from other wards that day to work Ward 25.

Let us recall this episode and Ina's late and anemic response two years from now when hopefully Tom Malone will run again.

Let us recall this episode in two years when To m

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 27, 2007 2:48 AM

Good idea, ELI!

And, yeah, Paul I am all for real names. Though, I do understand people's fears about the consequences, there is also real power in facing up to those consequences.

Plus, you offer a fine vehicle to report just what they are if and when they occur.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 27, 2007 8:57 AM

Chris,

I may not use my real name but most know who I am. I do agree how ever that alot of people do fear the rath. But with that said Paul's paper allows the story to extend into a larger story with the comments area. And he has never black listed any one. So "Marge" keep posting...just clean it up a bit. The beauty of the comment area is the two sides. It is not a place were all agree. And Paul allows all comment's to go through, with a few simple guide lines. So keep posting!

king james v
made a valid point, Vito. This is about him and the people that live in those buildings, as well as similar places in the city. I thought that no one was allowed off the street into these places in the first place?? I thought that management was suppose to offer rides to those who wanted it, not let someone roam the building pulling votes. Who the heck runs this building is an other question??

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | November 27, 2007 10:17 AM

RE: King James V

This matter is currently being reviewed at a public meeting of the New Haven Commission on Disabilities with it being the main topic at their next meeting on December 10th at 5:15 at City Hall with time allowed at the end of the meeting for public comment. The Commission meeting will have a planned speaker from the Secretary of State's office on voting rights of people with disabilities. According to Michelle Duprey, the enforcement authority for this matter lies with the State, and as such she's spoken with the state Office of Protection and Advocacy and they are investigating the matter. They will investigate to insure there were no civil rights violations and will work to correct the State Election Enforcement Commission's misperception that this issue is about the capacity of individuals with disabilities to vote.

Ms. Duprey encourages those of us interested in Disability Issues to see their website for info on the Commission and some of the projects they have worked on. Anyone that may be interested in joining the Commission can contact the Mayor's office, but you must be a New Haven resident, a person with a disability, related to a person with a disability or an advocate.