New Haven Independent

Posted by: Really? | January 31, 2008 6:58 PM

By order of committee importance....

1)Finance - Shah as Chair? Yikes. Doesn't Finance need a republican or green Party member by Board of alderman rules? Why isn't Depino on this? Aren't there supposed to be 11 members on Finance, not nine? Otherwise seems like a good committee - watch for Silverman, Sandman and Rhodeen join Perez and Jackson-Brooks to take a wack at the mayor's budget.

2)Community Development - Edmonds-Sepulveda is Deputy Majority leader, is she even allowed to be a committee chair? Depino as Vice-Chair? She's a republican- are the other dems upset about this choice? Sepulveda, Clark and Lemar will drive this pretty good group.

3)Legislation - Lemar is the closest the Board comes to having a "true progressive", so having him chair a very conservative committee with very conservative members is a poor choice. It would have made more sense to make Lehtonen or Sandman chair of this and Lemar chair of Community Development. Otherwise this committee should have been structured to Lemar's liberal mindset. He'll be lucky to get anything done here. Maybe Goldfield is trying to screw Lemar, but this is too important of a chairmanship to play with. Something is up.

4)Public Safety - Antunes is a retired police captain and doesn't deserve to be chair of public safety? Rhodeen is a little too outspoken for my taste and given that we are changing our PD so much over the next two years, we should be worried about Rhodeen using this position to run for Mayor.

5)City Services and Environmental Policy - Sturgis-Pascale has a great opportunity to redefine municipal services. She just has to stop being a one-trick "traffic-calming" pony. This is a slam-dunk committee for her, so she should be able to get what she wants out of it.

None of the other committees really matter, but some notes...

Is Goldfield trying to repay Perez's people for not running against him with the Aldermanic
Affairs and Education Committee chairs and vice-chairs?

Is Sergio allowed to be Vice Chair of Human Services if he is Pro Tem?

Goldfield supporters Clark, Jones and Blango are on four committees a piece - Interestingly, Perez's people like himself,castro,Jackson-Brooks,Smart,Brison,Lee,Antunes,Mccormack J.Rodriquez,paolillo and Edwards are the only people with only 2 committee assignments. Lemar only got two assignments as well, coulpled with the odd legislation commitee structure, it looks like goldfield and Lemar had a falling out.

Posted by: Re: Really | February 2, 2008 2:35 AM

Interesting analysis, but seems off on a few things.

Finance: I think you're right that it's missing its minority members (and normally is 11).

CD: Agreed, except as for DePino. Most everyone likes and respects her, thus I doubt anyone has a problem with her as a vice-chair.

Leg: My hunch is that the majority of that committee will respect Lemar's leadership and be supportive of him, even if he goes outside the box a bit. I don't see why we'd assume a "falling out" with Goldfield, since Lemar probably got everything he wanted. He probably specifically requested to be chair of legislation (not sure why he'd want CD). Note that he's also on the rep to City Plan, which he also would have really wanted (and is really time-intensive, hence only 2 other committee assignments).

Public Safety: Rhodeen was already the chair, so should get to continue. While Antunes was a captain, he's never shown too much leadership on the board (has he?), and he's never been supportive of Goldfield. Seems like a no-brainer.

City Services and Environmental Policy: Agreed.

Education: Makes sense to have Jackson-Brooks here. She was vice-chair, so if Silverman doesn't want it, she moves up. She was also chair in the past, and really knows her stuff. Would be disrespectful to her not to make her chair.

Aldermanic Affairs: McCormack was made chair by Goldfield last time, even though she didn't support him. So nothing abnormal here.

Human Services: Leadership members (ie: Rodriguez) have always held vice-chairs in the past.