Aldermen: No Nukes

by Paul Bass | January 8, 2008 7:37 AM | | Comments (7)

gina%20c.jpgClose your eyes, and you might have thought New Haven’s Board of Aldermen was the U.S. Senate, as city lawmakers voted to stop the war in Iraq and stop developing nuclear weapons.

Actually, they voted to advise the U.S. government to do those things, in non-binding resolutions.

The two votes were the only points of contention at Monday night’s board meeting at City Hall. It resembled the Senate not just because the topic was foreign policy — but because the chambers also assumed the air of a debating society against a backdrop of passionate citizen lobbying.

Dare we call it the city’s Greatest Deliberative Body?

For while the two measures passed with solid majorities, both sides of the discussion — including Dwight Alderwoman Gina Calder (pictured at top), attending her first meeting — offered thoughtful and unpredictable differences of opinion. Some aldermen voted in favor of one measure but not the other.

The first measure up for a vote, submitted by the Peace Commission, urged “cessation of combat operations in Iraq and the return of U.S. troops.”

allan%20b.jpgIt passed by a voice vote. Green Party Alderman Allan Brison (pictured) read a speech in favor of the measure, twice — at a pre-meeting press conference organized by peace activists, then again on the floor.

“Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, was a bitter enemy of al-Qaeda, and was militarily impotent after 10 years of sanctions,” said Brison, who represents East Rock and was attending his first meeting as alderman. “This was is about oil.”

Fair Haven Heights Alderman Robert Lee said he’s “tired” of young people coming home in body bags.

“No” votes included not just the board’s lone Republican, but some Democrats, including Moti Sandman of Beaver Hills.

“I think President Bush created a scenario we totally dismembered any semblance of government” in Iraq, Sandman reasoned. “We have a moral obligation to be there to recreate their infrastructure, before we pull out.”

Fellow Beaver Hills Democrat Carl Goldfield, too, voted against the Iraq resolution, echoing the “You make it, you break it” argument.

The 15 or so peace activists in attendance clapped and cheered when the measure passed, until Goldfield, the board’s president, instructed them to “refrain from expressing emotions.”

Nukes Targeted

A more extended debate took place over the second proposal. This one “urged the United States Congress to support [U.S.] House Resolution 68 calling for a comprehensive nuclear disarmament program.”

“We just want the [Bush] administration to follow the law” and abide by a three-decade-plus old nonproliferation treaty, said Fair Haven Alderwoman Erin Sturgis-Pascale. She introduced the resolution along with colleagues Dolores Colon of the Hill and Westville’s Sergio Rodriguez.

She said the U.S. spends $6 billion a year developing its arsenal. She called “every dollar spent… a theft of education and jobs.”

“In a perfect world,” responded Republican DePino, who represented Morris Cove, “I would support the principle of comprehensive nuclear disarmament.” But Resolution 68 “avoids the question of whether nuclear weapons are good or bad for security.”

DePino said she worries about “undermining” national security against “terrorists and hostile nations.”

Dwight’s Gina Calder said she has the same worries. Although she voted for the Iraq resolution, she voted against the nukes measure. She said she knew she’d be voting on foreign policy on New Haven’s Board of Aldermen, and she thought hard about the issue.

When the U.S. first signed a non-proliferation treaty, the word knew of only three nuclear powers, she said. “Now we’re doing with nine,” some of which are “rogue states” like North Korea. That changes the issue because such governments are less responsible, and harder to deal with, she said.

Carl Goldfield voted in favor of this resolution. He acknowledged, when reminded, that in the 1990s he spoke out against the Board of Aldermen taking on foreign affairs, which he considered beyond the local solons’ purview.

“I still think it’s a bad idea,” he said Monday night. “I gave up” trying to fight it.

The anti-nukes measure passed 17-7, with three abstentions. Voting yes: Brooks, Perez, Colon, Clark, Smart, Brison, Antunes, Pascale, J. Rodriguez, Castro, Paolillo, Edwards, Jones, McCormack, S. Rodrigues, Goldfield, Sepulveda. Voting no: Calder, Rhodeen, DePino, Morehead, Silverman, Lehtonen, Sandman.

cliff%20graves.jpgActivists who spoke at a pre-meeting press conference urging the aldermen to vote yes on both measures included the NAACP’s Clifton Graves Jr. (pictured), Peace Commission macher Al Marder, Gwen Mills of the Central Labor Council, and Gary Holder-Winfield, president of the Connecticut Federation of Black Democrats.

Click on the play arrow to watch Gary Holder-Winfield’s presentation.







Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 8, 2008 4:00 PM

Glad to see so many supported this!

Posted by: Bill Saunders | January 8, 2008 10:38 PM

Why is the Mayor's yen for creating 'faux' federal policy trickling down to our community representatives?

Our Aldermen needs to deal with Local Issues, not Federal ones. What a wasted effort on the taxpayer's dime.

Well, the BOA is used to voting for toothless measures -- it must make them feel important.

What a progressive start for the New Year.....

Posted by: Observer | January 9, 2008 10:04 AM

Were this not so pathetic, it would be laughable. This Board of Aldermen is the product of a woefully undereducated electorate. No wonder our schools are permitted to remain "dropout factories"...were they otherwise, these people would be out of a job.

Posted by: Steve Thornton | January 9, 2008 1:28 PM

The best foreign policy has always started in city halls, union halls and church basements. That's how opposition to the Vietnam War grew. There is nothing faux or pathetic about citizen bodies taking stands on the critical issues that face us and our cities. When the federal govt can't or won't take a stand, someone has to. My guess is that the writers above support the war and nukes. Good for you. Try to get your own initiatives passed.

Posted by: cedarhillresident [TypeKey Profile Page] | January 9, 2008 6:29 PM

I agree with Steve. I starts with the towns then the states. I was told that 17 states are already on board. We the people!!!
Not to read into this, but I am hoping this is a sign of the NEW Board of Alderman. One were the people matter. A united one! As goldfield stated it is the begining of a creative board.
Just like our canidates for president have relized, goverment is about the people and makeing this country a better place for all to live.
Here's to HOPE of a better tomorrow and Bravo again.

Posted by: Observer | January 9, 2008 8:58 PM

With regard to Steve's comment, my memory of the Vietnam War period is at odds with his characterization. When I was living in the Steel City, union members pretty much supported the war and most churches largely stayed out of politics, unless they were connected to universities. Opposition started and flourished in the universities and colleges and other groups followed much later. His comment about the federal government implies that we are in some kind of a Communist state---we do, in fact, elect our federal politicians, as you know. The aldermen should be working to effect change on the federal level on their own time--not on my dime. Some people feel that democracy is only working when their candidate gets elected...I know because I sometimes feel that way about the almost 100% Democratic (one-sided) govt. in New Haven, but we choose to stay here because we like city life and hope springs eternal, I suppose. As for CedarHillResident, you sound very idealistic but that's okay---I once was, too ...that was before 25 years in New Haven have left us broke from the high taxes and putting kids through private school. There's nothing wrong with idealism as long as it doesn't interfere with the reality of dealing with the issues at hand--in this case a city with horrible poverty, education and crime problems. Marder's Peace Commission has been around a long time---I've seen them come and I've seen them go and not much changes, unfortunately.
Except that this is still a country where a kid who grew up in the "projects" (like me) can make it to an Ivy League institution (not Yale), which is a much better outcome than can be expected in most of the world. Let's hope the Board of Aldermen is working toward this goal for all the children of New Haven (when they're not playing "Senator"). God bless the USA.

Posted by: edward_H | January 9, 2008 10:28 PM

Nice to see that after solving all of New Haven's problems the BOA has time to delve into foreign policy.

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35