New Haven Independent: Aldermen Cutting Back On Meeting Notices

Aldermen Cutting Back On Meeting Notices

by Andrew Mangino | June 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Picture%203gfjn.jpg There was nothing unusual about the scene playing out in the Board of Aldermen chambers at 6:30 Tuesday night: one member of the public attending a hearing held exclusively for, well, the public.

That one individual was budget watchdog Ken Joyner (pictured, right, with Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield), a regular to aldermanic meetings.

On one hand, Joyner came to ask a single question of the Committee on the Whole, which was meeting for the expressed purpose of complying with statutes mandating public hearings in advance of large city purchases: How much, he wanted to know, will creating the long-awaited Solid Waste Authority cost “me, the taxpayer?”

On the other hand, Joyner simply wanted to make a point about citizen involvement at City Hall.

“I’m here,” he began his testimony, “in an attempt to legitimize this process.”

That’s why the New Haven Citizens’ Action Network member was, at least at first, not happy when he learned afterwards that another board committee — Aldermanic Affairs — unanimously endorsed a plan this week to eliminate the city’s announcing of public aldermanic committee hearings in the legal notices sections of local newspapers.

“That’s a big change!” he said.

The resolution, proposed by Goldfield (pictured) and slated to be voted on by the full Board of Aldermen in August, was, he said, an attempt “to run the Board of Aldermen and its operations at a lower cost.”

The proposed change could save the city upwards of an estimated $15,000 a year.

Goldfield — a proponent of saving costs by migrating toward paper-free governance — and some other leading aldermen say they believe the move would have minimal tangible impact otherwise.

Edgewood Alderwoman Liz McCormack, the chair of the Aldermanic Affairs Committee, emphasized that full board meetings would still be publicized, and controversial committee hearings would still garner free press. The city is also migrating to an electronic mailing list for aldermanic notices — one need only call Legislative Services at 203-946-8371 to sign up — and usually posts agendas online.

“We already comply with more than we’re required to by law,” McCormack said. “It’s not a question of wanting to shut anybody out. It’s a matter of saving money and still being accessible to the public.”

Hartford’s Turnouts Higher

The matter raises a larger (and perhaps Herculean) challenge for New Haven’s elected representatives: how to make hearings like Tuesday night’s more interactive and well-attended. Interviews suggest the city might have fallen behind one of its urban rivals in keeping its constituents engaged at City Hall.

In Hartford, where a nine-member City Council reigns as opposed to a 30-member Board of Aldermen, a typical “slow” regular meeting (held, as in New Haven, twice a month) attracts upwards of “30 to 40” people, if not more, according to Petrel Maylor, the executive assistant to the Council’s majority leader.

“We have our regulars come in here for everything,” she said.

Hartford, however, has not relied on legal notices. Maylor said each committee chair handles his or her own publicity, and usually electronically, by taking advantage of either a central mailing list or e-mailing targeted individuals directly.

But New Haven’s structure may not allow for such empowerment. The Hartford City Council members have executive assistants since there are relatively few members, Goldfield pointed out. “It sounds like a huge responsibility for the committee chair.”

And even if the city’s e-mail list were employed liberally, it would — as it stands — be unlikely to yield much more public interest in committee meetings, which tend to be well-attended only when massive word-of-mouth campaigns are launched.

A review of the subscribers, as provided to the Independent on Tuesday by the Office of Legislative Services, indicates that there are fewer than 53 who could, by any stretch, qualify as regular residents. In total, the list contains 133 names plus the 30 aldermen; the vast majority are city officials and employees, Yale administrators, directors of local non-profits and reporters.

Asked whether the city might put a sign-up box on its website for e-mail updates in light of the possible legal-notice change, Goldfield said he would consider doing so as long as the technology proved to be in place.

Picture%203lh.jpg Beaver Hills/West Hills Alderman Tom Lehtonen (pictured), who sits on the Aldermanic Affairs committee, had some concerns about a system that relied to heavily on the Internet, to which he noted not all residents enjoy easy access. Ultimately, though, he said he was convinced that the cost-saving benefits outweighed the cons.

“We’re not trying to keep anyone in the dark,” he said. “The time has come to move to the electronic age.”

As for Joyner, he, too, ultimately said he could live with the change given its fiscal benefits. But, he said, the city will have to make up for the loss of legal notices inventively.

“They should substitute other ways of doing it,” he said, suggesting posting public notices at central city locations. “If they don’t, how are they really going to legitimize themselves as a body of the public and for the public?”

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 25, 2008 1:23 PM

I was itchy I could not go.

But as Alderman Lemar stated at the East Rock management meeting..in this story
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/06/east_rock_talks.php#comments
...the hearing is a legal requirement before the asset transfer between the city and the new authority's Board of Directors can take place

by law they have to have 2 public hearings too make this happen.....and oopppss they only had one before it was voted on in the board of finances alderman meeting....so to make it right they had this second one. Which made no difference what the publics opinion was because it was already approved like it or not!

Posted by: Ken Joyner | June 25, 2008 2:32 PM

The central two issues here involved, whether the BOA had acted in compliance with Public Act 07-218. before passing the ordinance.

Public Act No. 07-218

AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE, LEASE OR TRANSFER OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2007) (a) The legislative body of a municipality, or in any municipality where the legislative body is a town meeting or representative town meeting, the board of selectmen, shall conduct a public hearing on the sale, lease or transfer of real property owned by the municipality prior to final approval of such sale, lease or transfer. Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper having a general circulation in such municipality where the real property that is the subject of the hearing is located at least twice, at intervals of not less than two days, the first not more than fifteen days or less than ten days and the last not less than two days before the date set for the hearing. The municipality shall also post a sign conspicuously on the real property land that is the subject of the public hearing.

The very fact that the city was having this hearing was an admittance that the provision of the Public Act was not initially adhered-to. By testifying, I hoped to provide legitimacy to the process.

The second important issue surrounding this matter is the question I presented to the committee of the whole related to the short and long term cost of this transaction to the New Haven taxpayer.
We know that this transaction is being carry out in order to.......
Bond 10.5M in order to receive cash to pay one self to finance more debt. This type of transaction is equivalent to an individuals misuse of their own credit card. Since this new debt will likely be for twenty years bonds, coming due in the year 2028, your kids will be straddle with the bond debt, plus the then prevailing interest rate. (18- 28%)?

The answer to this fundamental question was met with silence, Alder Jorge Peres did attempt to provide cover for the board, but his response about a previous finance department power point presentation about cost, could not be verified by the joint committee meeting minutes.

Neither the Comptroller, the Finance director nor the CAO, bothered to show up to provide answers for potential questions from the no show citizen tax payers.

The committee of the Whole was left dumb founded in search for the answer, the majority present failed to ask.

Is it worth showing up for a public hearing even if you feel your voice will not be heard?

The aldermen I talked to said yes.. I agree.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 25, 2008 3:50 PM

Gee dose that not sound hmmmm****holding pinky to lip like Dr Evil**** a bit unconstitutional???? hmmmm

Posted by: Chris Gray | June 25, 2008 3:53 PM

This phenomenon is testimony to the irrelevance of, first, the Register and is one more death knell for newspapers in general.

It is also testimony to the irrelevance of representative governance in New Haven, since the public realizes that its voice has no power and only a change at the top can mediate the huge forces at work in our lives determined, it seems, to crush us.

Unfortunately, a change at the top nationally will do nothing to aid our need of change at the top locally. Perhaps we can hope for some modest change in the make-up of our State Legislature, but isn't that already majority Democratic? That hasn't seemed to inspire much effective action.

Posted by: You commenters are all wet.... | June 25, 2008 4:12 PM

i know you cranks are always looking for a conspiricy, but There is no requirement to hold two public hearings, just one, which the BOA did BEFORE approving the City to enter into the sale. This was another technical hearing that they held because of an interpretation issue about when the sale actually takes place.. and there was some concern that the city did not put a sign on the property in a conspicous enough place the first time around.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | June 25, 2008 5:03 PM

Like other families, I was working. Yesterday, happened to be a 14 hour one. I'm glad Ken was there and asked his question. Where were the city employees and why didn't the alders at the meeting have the answer? Pretty simple, basic question. It's one that should have been asked and answered long before now.

But at the end of the day, what difference does it make? The fix was in. The deal was set. You could have had 100 people there - it wouldn't have made a thimble worth of difference.

Why don't people come out?

Answer: It never makes a difference. The mayor and poitical establishment have dumbed down the electorate in New Haven to the point where they don't even turn out to vote once every two years let alone attend 6 or 7 meetings at City Hall in one month. When we're working 10 - 14 hours a day, making time to attend a meeting with people who couldn't give a tinker's damn what we think is a heroic effort and takes a strong stomach.

Sometimes, we have to choose to take care of our families before we can afford to waste time with people with their fingers in their ears who would rather wait on the mayor to nudge them to do his bidding or bring him some more water.

Posted by: Ken Joyner | June 25, 2008 6:07 PM

To: You commentors are all wet.

For the record, your comment which follows....

"This was another technical hearing that they held because of an interpretation issue about when the sale actually takes place.. and there was some concern that the city did not put a sign on the property in a conspicuous enough place the first time around".

.....is not consistent with the provisions of PA 07-218. The act does not require a city to hold "two hearings" or "Another" as you put it. Nor does the act require hearings based on "technicalities", or for the city to "replace a sign in a more conspicuous place", your second point. The act simply requires the city to provide a "Notice of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper having a general circulation in such municipality where the real property that is the subject of the hearing is located at least twice, at intervals of not less than two days, the first not more than fifteen days or less than ten days and the last not less than two days before the date set for the hearing". This technicality could have easily been rectified by the Corporation Council, who was present, but, Goldfield elected not to call him for testimony.

No allegation of a conspiracy has been mentioned in any postings.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | June 25, 2008 6:38 PM

Ken's question: How much will it cost me?
Answer: Plenty and more than it does now. Every time the city has spun off or created another entity with its own overhead, pricing etc. the net result is, it costs taxpayers more.

Only a nitwit would believe city projections that this will save money. This is about plugging a budget hole and has absolutely nothing to do with operating more efficiently.

Just put your hands in the air: You're being robbed once again by the mayor and his merry band of rubberstampers.

Posted by: fac Chek | June 26, 2008 6:17 PM

"Aldermanic Affairs -- unanimously endorsed a plan this week to eliminate the city's announcing of public aldermanic committee hearings in the legal notices sections of local newspapers".

Not so fast McCormack and the aldermanic affirs committee. See the State law governing municipal/town hearing notice below.

CHAPTER 90*
TOWN AND OTHER COMMUNITY MEETINGS

Sec. 7-3. Warning of town and other meetings. The warning of each town meeting, and of each meeting of a city, borough, school district or other public community or of an ecclesiastical society, shall specify the objects for which such meeting is to be held. Notice of a town meeting shall be given by posting, upon a signpost or other exterior place near the office of the town clerk of such town and at such other place or places as may be designated as hereinafter provided, a printed or written warning signed by the selectmen, or a majority of them, and by publishing a like warning in a newspaper published in such town or having a circulation therein, such posting and such publication to be at least five days previous to holding the meeting, including the day that notice is given and any Sunday and any legal holiday which may intervene between such posting and such publication and the day of holding such meeting, but not including the day of holding such meeting; but any town may, at an annual meeting, designate any other place or places, in addition to the signpost or other exterior place, at which such warnings shall be set up. The selectmen shall, on or before the day of such meeting, cause a copy of each such warning to be left with the town clerk, who shall record the same. Notice of a meeting of a city or borough shall be given by posting, upon a signpost or other exterior place nearest to the office of the clerk of such city or borough or at such place or places as may be designated by special charter provision, a written or printed warning signed by the mayor or clerk in the case of a city or by the warden or clerk in the case of a borough, and by publishing a like warning in a newspaper published within the limits of such city or borough, or having a circulation therein, at least five days previous to holding the meeting, including the day that notice is given and any Sunday and any legal holiday which may intervene between such posting and such publication and the day of holding such meeting, but not including the day of holding such meeting.

(1949 Rev., S. 493; 1953, S. 211d; 1963, P.A. 212; P.A. 84-146, S. 1.)

Posted by: Chris Gray | June 28, 2008 12:57 AM

Saved by the State Legislature, for the time being! The Constitution and its Ammendments seem to be beyond the scope of some on the Board, so State law is asking a bit much.

And never forget what Rosa said to me, "I don't even read them. I just vote the way they tell me to." This she said to a newspaperman who was about to put her on t.v.! Could she have believed that was off the record?

New Haven Independent

Aldermen Cutting Back On Meeting Notices

Comments

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

News Feed