New Haven Independent

Posted by: Good to hear | December 4, 2007 2:09 PM

It's good to hear that these two guys won't be fighting again. They both have good ideas and serve the city well when not fighting over posts. They also usually agree on just about everything with 1 or 2 exceptions. But the shakeup was probably good last time for 2 reasons:

1. It created an opposition which provides oversight.

2. It produced board leadership which is more progressive which led to the initiatives (muni id, 311; recycling; elderly tax freeze; etc.) cited in the article. While Perez is a great guy some of his supporters are quite problematic and the board would have been chaotic and pretty dismal.

It is interesting that few items other than the BOA race are ever split along these alleged "factions." And I would guess even that vote is closer to 17 to 13 or 18 to 12 at this point.

Since several of Jorge's supporters are quite progressive, they tend to vote with the progressive crowd. Their ties to Jorge are either geographic or are based in the respect of having worked together for a long time. So, folks on this site can get worked up a lot about the factions but they really only exist on one vote every two years.

I actually don't remember something where Carl and Jorge voted differently in the last 2 years, other than their own elections.

And as to the taxes question, that so vexes NHI commenters, the BOA membership's lower taxes advocates (to the extent they really exist) are equally split between people who vote for Carl and those who vote for Jorge. The budget is a consensus document for lots of reasons and the structural elements of the budget that drive increasing costs are in areas that only a few alders would be willing to touch. Only layoffs that hit the Board of Ed, police and fire would make much difference.

Both Carl and Jorge understand that so they don't lead their teams off a cliff just to curry favor.

Posted by: Inside out | December 4, 2007 2:24 PM

I can't believe the team which was supposed to signal the "Rise of the Progressives" is annointing Sergio and Yusuf as its top leaders. Not as bad as empowering the [people] that Perez would, but still, I expected more out of Goldfield. Anyone who pays attention to the BOA knows that Goldfield's power rests in Destefano buying off half his team, that Silverman and Rhodeen keep people in line, that Lemar is the only one driving a progressive agenda and that Pascale and Sandman are still figuring out how to be alders and how to have an impact. Goldfield better hope that Pascale,Sandman, Plattus and Calder can join Lemar in policy development and that those guys can grow into leaders on the Board or else it will be another two years of Destefano kicking their respective asses.

Posted by: Strategist | December 4, 2007 4:06 PM

Why didn't Perez offer the "young guns" something? people like Lemar and Sturgis-Pascale can't be bought off, but if Katrina Jones can be majority leader, why not Pascale? If Shah can be chair of Finance, why not Lemar? If Rodriquez can be Preseident Pro Tem, why not Rhodeen? If this were the State or national legislative bodies, where Democrats cam together to put the best people in leadership positions,regardless of who was president of the BOA, Rhodeen would be majority leader, Paolillo, Perez, Lemar, Silverman would be the chairs of the powerful committees and they would round out the "leadership positions" with racial/gender balance. Maybe Sturgis-Pascale as Deputy Majority Leader, Paolillo as Pro tem.

Posted by: Sergio Rodriguez | December 4, 2007 11:26 PM

Melissa,
I am not sure where you are getting your facts. The fact is that I never committed to President Goldfield in return for any job or chairmanship. I believe I got the job at HANH because I was qualified to do the work with over thirty five years of social service and public service experience, having served as a Director of Residential Services for an all spanish speaking drug free inpatient program, Senior Vice President of an affiliate office of the National Urban League, Substance Abuse Coordinator for the City of New Haven including an interim term as the Director of Fighting Back and while in the Substance Abuse Coordinators position played a pivitol role in the development and organizing of the well known Community Management Teams. As far as the Finance Chairmanship goes, I took that on with no strings attached there wasn't any committment to do anything for anybody. Just to set the record straight. My support for President Goldfields second run came three weeks ago and I look forward to running on his slate.

Posted by: bugupit | December 5, 2007 12:48 AM

Progressive Agenda?

City ID: I am not a fan and see evidence of my belief that it is a promotional gimmick to pump the reputations of City Hall insiders in the recent NHI photo of Rob Smuts in his office, "I Support ID" sign framed and prominently hanging behind him.

311: I have no faith in the quality of service to be provided. First, this weeks Leaf article, where callers were runaround Public Works and LCI, make clear what crappy information one gets when calling the agency directly. A 311 clearinghouse will be more removed and more innacurate. Second, the City website is poorly maintained. For a fraction of the cost of 311, the Mayor could mandate that his department heads submit current information, a technician could update the site, and the Library could expand its in-person and by-telephone research services to residents who do not have Internet access. Third, if I call police dispatch and don't get an answer, can I call 311 for a cop?

As presented to my management team, the Recycling plan was based on poor logic that (City Supplied) larger garbage bins were attracting material that should be recycled, but larger recycling bins (City Supplied) would rebalance the situation. I support resident education about recycling. I support offering larger bins on a voluntary basis to households that want/need them, I do NOT support the City "trashing" my blue bin which I use appropriately but do not fill and using my tax dollars to give me a larger bin.

I don't know enough about the elderly tax freeze, but I do believe such a plan should be based on an inability to pay taxes, not age alone.

The Mayor and the Aldermanic leadership may well be progressives, but this is a spendthrift take-a-new-idea and run with it cost-be-damned agenda based on ego and mutual backstroking using, apparently, excess energy in City Hall that would otherwise be better spent on crime prevention, school truancy, schoolteacher recruitment, drug rehab and life skills for the homeless and job training and other fundemental "progressive" programs where DeStefano has had only a marginal impact over his two plus decades in City Hall.

Posted by: New HAven Taxpayer | December 5, 2007 7:01 AM

Strategist,

What is so racially balanced about your proposed leadership team, other than the fact that it has no African Americans and only one Hispanic?

Posted by: concrenedwestvilleres | December 5, 2007 12:16 PM

This article brings up some good points and makes accusations that may be troubling. I have yet to see proof that Alderman Rodriguez got the job as a result of Goldfield or the Mayor. All I have heard are accusations. I saw Alderman Rodriguez's point above and he does have the experience to do the job. Unless you can prove that the job came from a call from Goldfield or the Mayor the charge is better left for another article and not to be couched in another article without substantiation and using only innuendo.

That said, I am not impressed with either Goldfield or Perez. I have attended committee meetings and Board of Aldermen meetings and neither one has impressed me in their questioning and their ideas. Alderman Goldfield appears to me to be a lackey of Mayor DeStefano as I could see in his appearance at the Board of Finance Committee meeting discussing the Mayor's salary (he was the one who suggested that the salary be $131,010 because he did the research and calculated it and not because that's what the Mayor really wanted). Alderman Perez appears to be one who will oppose what the Mayor is doing regardless of the effect on the city.

It is time that we look at restructuring the Board of Aldermen. Does New Haven really need 30 Aldermen? When the population of New Haven was over 160,000 in the 40s we had 33 Aldermen. Population has decreased 21% but the Board of Aldermen has only decreased by 3 positions and not by the same percentage. I really think that we could go down to 18 Aldermen by combining wards and establishing at-large aldermen from each state assembly district in accordance with the city charter. New York City with many more citizens than New Haven has only 51 members of its City Council. Granted that the population is high density but New Haven's population is not that much more spread out than New York City's. Also, it would be time to look at ethics, qualifications, and responsibilities of the Aldermen. The sad thing is that to restructure the Board of Aldermen, the charter has to be revised. The agency responspible for appointing a chater revision commission is the Board of Aldermen. Fat chance they would do that and end some members' service on the Board.

Posted by: WEBbloger 1 | December 5, 2007 12:28 PM

Sounds more like another round of musical chairs.
Switching Rodriquez for Shah is not a change of any rules, policy or procedures. Both sat on the finance committee for the past two years, what ever the mayor proposed Rodriquez supported wholeheartedly and Shah never opposed.

This sounds more like the two-headed donkey drinking from the same trough.

By the sound of Segio's statement repeated below:

"As far as the Finance Chairmanship goes, I took that on with no strings attached there wasn't any commitment to do anything for anybody. Just to set the record straight. My support for President Goldfields second run came three weeks ago and I look forward to running on his slate".

It appears to be a commitment to more of the same.

The morel of the story is; if it sounds too good to be a change, it's not. (CHANGE, WHAT CHANGE?)

Posted by: andy ross | December 5, 2007 3:48 PM

There should be 12 to 16 Alderman Maximum. I would pay them more money for the additional responsibility, or provide some additional staff. In the alternative, I would suggest considering as few as 6, on a full time basis.

Posted by: marge | December 5, 2007 8:02 PM

So, what you are telling us is Goldfield is the next mayor.

Seeing that that appears to be the case, I hope his being more proactive is not a mere hope but an achievable ambition. His 'lack of' is my number one concern about him. I don't see a lot of passion in this crew.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | December 5, 2007 9:42 PM

Alderman Rodriguez:

I will grant that you are qualified for the position based on the resume you proffer - the question is whether you would have gotten it if you weren't an alderman needing a job, and the mayor and Goldfield weren't in need of a reliable vote. There is no way to prove it either way.

Since you know New Haven so well - you also know that one doesn't have to fill in all the blanks up front to activate the quid pro quo on a job that is delivered, qualified or not, to an alderman needing one. In my opinion, alders should not work for the city - directly or indirectly - because it stifles dissent and limits public discourse of any consequence. There are ample votes and disputed public policy discussions to prove it. That's why they call it plantation politics - it keeps alders on the plantation via their pocketbook. There are more than a few aldermen with city jobs or city related jobs. Does any rational person believe that an alderman who works for the city is going to vote independently, in the best interests of his/her ward? With the exception of Alderman Gerald Antunes who works for the parking authority, there certainly is no evidence that they do or you do.

As for the impending changes to board leadership -I'll get hopeful when I see taxpayer friendly initiatives that appreciates the sacrifices we make to ante up more and more money each year in the face of spending gone wild. Yeah - when pigs fly.

Posted by: da hill | December 6, 2007 12:28 PM

The funny thing about these discussions is that there is no accountability across the board. We know that political favors are abundant within the boa. We know that the city offers a hand here or there for a vote here or there. This is not a conspiracy theory, but reality. As for qualifications...very few board members are actually qualified. How smart do you have to be to do as you are told? In a recent story regarding ethics, there was issues regarding speaking for pay...I found this one of the funniest things ever, seeing how most can't put a proper sentence together let alone an actual speech. ... Ethics don't exist in the city of New Haven, nor the State of Connecticut. It's all about who you know and exactly how much power they possess. The BOA needs five board members with two at large members. With Term Limits. This makes it more competitive to be elected and it makes your accountability to the City more valuable. Two Three year terms should be more than enough time to show your value. This will never happen, cause we don't actually care about the city, we care about our image as a BOA member. I've actually heard Board members walk into restaurants that had a wait and say "I'm a member of the Board of Alderman", as if that would encourage some prompt attention...Too Funny. The problem is not exclusive of New Haven, but politicians need to realize that they are not celebrities, they are salt of the earth representatives of the Community.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | December 6, 2007 2:00 PM

DaHill: You're right on target. I like the 5 and 2 formula - and I'd take it a step further. If your ideas about term limits and a smaller, more accountable BOA were enacted, they should be paid $80,000 and made to work full time with two weeks vacation. We'd get real competition, smart folks and maybe some competition for the Chief Executive's job.

Posted by: da hill | December 8, 2007 1:03 PM

No readers are following this anylonger, but I would make it a part time position. Increase the annual ammount to 100-150(K) with the alder being limited to an annual salary of 35-45K, with the remainder being for staff, and constituent relations. If we allow them to take an annual of anything higher it would not encourage actual action. they need to bust their butts not be sitting on them.