New Haven Independent

Posted by: Bruce | May 4, 2009 10:35 AM

I'm not sure it's fair to characterize Brison as the Green Party's "last" office-holder. It sort of implies that the Green Party will cease to exist if Allan loses the election. Do we also consider Arlene DePino the "last" Republican office-holder? The Greens have had a presence since the 80s and at least one elected official in city hall for close to a decade now. Allan has a fight ahead of him but it's hardly the final battle.

Good luck Allan.

Just a reminder, here is the extent of political diversity of New Haven's legislative branch:
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDGR

Posted by: Charlie Pillsbury | May 4, 2009 11:16 AM

On May Day, Melissa Bailey and I had a frank conversation about the challenges facing the Green Party generally in the City of New Haven in 2009 and Allan's re-election campaign particularly. At the end of our interview, I said to Melissa: "I know you're not neutral about these matters, but as a journalist, you have a responsibility to be impartial." And she agreed, appreciating the distinction I made between "neutrality" and "impartiality".

The headline and first sentence of her article are not "impartial". Referring to Allan as the Green Party's "last" office-holder, and Allan and me as the Greens' "last" leaders is a gratuitous slam at the only third party that has been successful in electing alders in the City in the last 50 years. That the Green Party has elected three outstanding alders - Allan Brison, Joyce Chen & John Halle - from three different wards - 10, 2 & 9, respectively - in the last 10 years is an historic accomplishment. In doing so, the New Haven Green Party has had a healthy impact on city politics and city life. The City of New Haven is a better place because of the hard, innovative work both the Green Party and its elected officials have done.

To suggest that the "party is over", so to speak, is Melissa's opinion that has no basis in fact, and no place in a news story. I chalk this up to her inexperience and immaturity as a journalist; she still has a lot to learn to be the kind of reporter I know she can be.

[Editor's Note: Charlie, I wrote that headline, not Melissa. You're right; it was sloppy. I didn't mean to suggest there will be no more people elected. Thanks for pointing it out! It's been changed. -- Paul Bass.]

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | May 4, 2009 12:06 PM

This is why we need Proportional Represtation now!!!!

Posted by: Pleased in Ward 10 | May 4, 2009 1:05 PM

Brison has done a great job helping his constituents, and working well with the Board of Aldermen. When he is re-elected City Hall will realize he is here to stay and start working with him, rather than spending their time trying to defeat him. It is nice to know that when that happens Allan will continue to represent Ward 10 to City Hall, and not the other way around. To me, that has been his most important, and most credible, campaign pledge.

Posted by: ward10resident | May 4, 2009 1:11 PM

I agree, Elicker displays some chutzpah, but isn't that what we want in an elected official? As a Ward 10 resident I support someone who will stand up for our neighborhood's interests. That someone is Elicker.

Posted by: Allan Brison | May 4, 2009 2:28 PM

Thanks, Paul for changing both the headline as it originally appeared, as well as Melissa's lead sentence, by removing the word "last" from the headline, and changing it to "only" in the lead sentence.

It was "shocking" to read that Green Party Co-Chair Charlie Pillsbury and I may not have identical views on all topics, such as the Mayor's coming fund-raiser.

The reality is that I have the greatest regard for Charlie and his long time contributions to the Green Party and New Haven. We share 10 Key Values, not a party line. We value diversity and find it healthy in a party and in the City of New Haven.

While it may make better copy to focus on factions within the Board, the reality is that I have good working relationships with most of the Aldermen, including both critics and supporters of the administration.

While the NHI may want to cast me in the role of a die-hard opponent of the Mayor's, the record will show that I have supported the administration on many issues, and opposed them on others. Some of the issues where I have supported the Mayor (some of which are listed in the story) include:

-more prison re-entry funding,
-complete PILOT funding,
-state and regional subsidizing of Tweed,
-the CELLO group, bringing a unified urban voice to the CT General Assembly,
-the Green Cleaning bill, and
-the Complete Streets bill.

Some of the issues where I have opposed the administration include:

-the retreat from Community Policing,
-the lack of Aldermanic oversight of the Board of Ed which represents over 60% of the budget when you factor in the city's pensions, and debt service,
-continued New Haven taxpayer subsidy for Tweed,
-investigating city hiring practices such as "double-dipping" (see the story linked to above), and
-opposing the selling off of City assets to plug one-time budget gaps as in the creation of the Solid Waste Authority, and the regionalizing of the WPCA.

More than ever, the city of New Haven needs representatives committed to voting on one basis only: what's best for the people of New Haven. And that has been and always will be my pledge as an Independent Voice on the Board of Aldermen.

Posted by: Paying Attention in Ward 10 | May 4, 2009 7:49 PM

While I don't take issue with Charlie Pillsbury's positions and comments as reported in the article, as a left-wing voter who sympathizes deeply with the Green Party's national platform I find disheartening, obnoxious, unhelpful and even somewhat troubling Pillsbury's use of the comments section to try to re-write the article through his narrow and self-regarding narrow prism -- and especially so when his charge of bias is so completely misguided and off-base.

Pillsbury's comments demonstrate a profound misunderstanding both of the press's responsibility to the governed, and a serious underestimation of the ability of the Independent's readership to grasp meaning from written words. He quibbles over one word, since removed, in a 1,400-word story dedicated almost exclusively to articulating the position(s) of the two people that constitute the entire public face of the Green Party (whether "last" or "only"). I'm certainly not ready to indict any member of the Independent's staff for any sort of bias, but if this article reflects anything, it reflects a willingness of the Independent to give voice to a political party that, by Pillsbury's own accounting, has abandoned any attempt to field a city-wide candidate (i.e., for mayor). If anything, this article gives too much to the Greens without voicing nearly enough skepticism of the party's ability to function even in this left-leaning city.

To the extent that party affiliation -- rather than, say, the staking out of meaningful positions on concrete issues over which the board of aldermen has jurisdiction; or a member's affiliation with or against DeStefano; or his proven leadership on matters affecting the residents of the ward the candidate seeks to represent -- matters at all in a contest between a Green and a Dem in New Haven, Pillsbury mistakes a single tree for a vast forest of positive coverage that is this article and this publication's coverage. As a review of articles published by the Independent -- including by Melissa Bailey -- would obviously have shown Pillsbury if he had bothered to do even a bit of the responsible fact-checking incumbent upon him, this publication has actually done an especially good job among local press outlets in ensuring unbiased, detailed, and relevant coverage, including to the Greens, at a time when fewer and fewer press outlets provide any coverage at all. Even if not all news is good news -- and for the Greens in this town, clearly it is -- this article reflects what is probably the most generous take possible on what is described most charitably as the "nuance" in the positions of the New Haven Green Party.

Pillsbury also demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the role of political parties in New Haven's local politics, which of course is horrendously ironic. He should understand that Greens have failed to gain meaningful representation on New Haven's Board of Aldermen because many Dems in this town (including Justin Elicker, who has focused during this race on issues that actually affect New Haven and Ward 10) stake out reasonable positions stemming from a basic understanding of the government's responsibility to its people that is fundamentally similar to the Green Party's -- and not because journalists have irrepressible anti-Green biases (which in fact the Independent's reports have not demonstrated). At this granular, local level at which New Haven's aldermanic elections are contested, people like Pillsbury make an obvious mistake and do us all a disservice by focusing on party label rather than substantive position.

When the ratio of the represented to the representative is as low as it is for the Board of Alderman, and when the represented are as well-informed and active as are most of Ward 10's residents, what matters are actual positions on actual, specific issues. Labels attaching to national parties obviously have no relevance here. What difference is there between the Greens' position and the Dems' position on cleaning up East Rock park with well-organized volunteer labor? On whether to put stop signs on Edwards Street? On whether Street A or Street B should be plowed first? On whether the police should engage in broken windows policing or community policing or some other strategy? On whether parking ticket fees should be raised? On whether to sell parcels of public land to private entities? On what to prioritize in, and how to re-style, the city budget as municipal revenues keep falling precipitously? These are the kinds of issues that the Board of Aldermen tackles, and over which it has control. (And as Pillsbury himself observes, one main issue has been whether to be pro- or anti-DeStefano; on this point, the Green Party doesn't even have a coherent position, having abandoned its former mayoral candidate.)

Regardless of whether a voter prefers Justin Elicker or Allan Brison, the aldermanic candidates' affiliation with the Dems or the Greens is functionally meaningless, and Charlie Pillsbury should get off his defensive and partisan high horse and engage productively on the merits and on the issues. As Melissa Bailey has noted here and elsewhere -- through unbiased reportage -- in the course of the Independent's extensive coverage, both candidates have done this.

Posted by: Seth | May 4, 2009 8:36 PM

I have gotten to know Elicker through his work with Friends of East Rock Park and New Haven Green Drinks - important community groups that he has helped lead; of all the people I have met, he is one of the most committed to New Haven. To accuse him of opportunism, is to falsely impugn his character and background - he is a Connecticut native and is dedicated to making New Haven a better place. We should be nurturing a new generation of leaders, and Justin has the knowledge and skills to get the job done.

As a young New Havenite, I think we could use more young blood on the board of Aldermen - attracting and retaining young professionals is key to New Haven's future. We need to build more bridges between Yale and New Haven for both to move forward together. He is the change we need.

Posted by: Brian Hornby | May 5, 2009 1:34 AM

As a ward 10 resident I have seen Justin's ability to motivate and organize people to get positive goals accomplished. Justin's work with Friends of East Rock Park, Green Drinks and many other projects I'm sure I'm not aware of has proven that he can inspire others to work with him to make New Haven a better place. Dismissing Justin's accomplishments and enthusiasm as Yale arrogance is short sighted and does not reflect the impact Justin has had in the area. Justin has spent the last two years of his life building connections in East Rock as well as around the city. As a citizen his accomplishments have been noteworthy and as an Alderman this trend will only continue.

Posted by: Bruce | May 5, 2009 9:28 AM

PAYING ATTENTION: Wow, talk about re-writing the article. You've used the Independent comment section to publish your first book!

While many issues are (or should be) party-independent, I hope you recognize that there are distinct advantages to having a choice of candidates from different parties. In wards where there is no challenge outside the Democratic party, candidates are selected by just a dozen or so votes from appointed ward committees. They walk into office election after election and have very little incentive to work hard for their constituency. If memory serves me correctly, two-thirds of candidates in the last election were uncontested.

Even if Allan loses, you all will have him to thank for Elicker even being an option.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | May 5, 2009 9:52 AM

Wake up both parties are crooks,One Plans the Burglary,The other supplies the Blue Prints.Vote
TeleTubs!!!!!!

Posted by: greenferret | May 5, 2009 10:09 AM

Dear Justin Elicker,

You sound like a bright guy with a lot of good ideas and energy. If you're down with basic Green values of nonviolence, justice, grassroots democracy and sustainability, I recommend that you check out the Green Party platform and consider joining. It's not the easiest way to make a career, but it is the best way to bring real change in the long term. Even with the best intentions, running against the city's only Green officeholder is not a good way to make the city greener. Returning New Haven to one-party rule is not a good way to ensure that the city is transparent and accountable to the voters. Wouldn't a healthy balance of Greens and Democrats make for better city governance?

Peace

Posted by: City Hall Watch | May 5, 2009 11:14 AM

Organizing a drinking party for green activitists to socialize and conspire; or working to clean up the park are fine activities. But it doesn't make up for a lack of life experiences or paying no property taxes. If Justin is really concerned about the 10th and the city, he would have filed and run for the office in any of more than 15 wards in this city where representation of the people is woefully lame and serious, thoughtful deliberation of public policy is non-existent.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 5, 2009 12:13 PM

hmmm and spending the left over $2000.00 campaign money on a birthday party for him self was really benefiting the ward! He called it a ward 10 party that just happen to be a birthday party to.
Your campaign contribution at work.
http://picasaweb.google.com/cedarhillcommunity/BrisonsParty#

I spoke with our office in charge why don't we ask allan how many time he has contacted her about crime in the whole ward???
And I am thankful that he had the legislative staff right a letter about us needing a barrier but if would of been nice if it happen when he was elected not when he found out someone was running against him. I can go on but I am trying not to be negative about this. But sadly I may have to bring to light many other things. As Charlie said they may not want to run a negative campaign but I will!! And I document!!
CHW not just cleaning massive projects!
http://picasaweb.google.com/EvanSmith8

Not to mention his involvement in Safe Streets, Rock to Rock a city wide movement, the cycling fest, homeless on the green. The list goes on. And his education can help tremendously in the finance end of the BOA. When we could not get anyone to help us with our playground he has been and made it happen. Among other projects we are working on. Don't judge some one you don't know. I have been working with him for quite sometime he will be a great rep in downtown for our ward and he will acutul do things with in the ward.

I spoke with our office in charge why don't we ask allan how many time he has contacted her about crime in the whole ward???

Posted by: robn | May 5, 2009 1:08 PM

CHW,

Does "lack of life experience" denote naiveté or fresh outlook?

Also..don't renters pay property tax via their rent?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 5, 2009 1:32 PM

oh and ps Charlie the guys had agreed to keep this a clean and fair race. And I felt for once it was going to be. But noooooo your the one that drew the line in the sand. Can we all stop the shenanigans and stop the media boo hoo ... and just let these guys run on there merit?? Allan has one term in his pocket so the only thing he should fear is if he did not do right by Ward 10.

Posted by: Rebecca Goldberg | May 5, 2009 3:52 PM

Rebecca,

As Allan's treasurer during last campaign, I know that of the $2024 raised, there was only $300 left over, all of which was donated to the New Haven Green Party. This is a totally legitimate use of leftover campaign funds.

Absolutely no campaign money was used for Allan's birthday party. Does that look like a $2000 party? There were few expenses, namely the cake and the band, both of which were paid for out of pocket. The party was held in East Rock Park, and the entire ward was invited.

I don't know how you can say the things that you do and still look my dad in the face.

Posted by: Pat | May 5, 2009 4:46 PM

A quick factual correction for CEDARHILLRESIDENT:
Allan Brison did NOT spend any campaign funds on his birthday party and no donations were solicited or made at the party. All the funds for the event were paid for by friends of Allan's. Charlie Pillsbury was one of them and he said he paid the musicians.

Yes, the people of Ward 10 were invited to a community event and will be again this year.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 5, 2009 5:05 PM

This is just what I was told. Rebecca that the last of the money was spent on the party. I stand corrected. And if I am wrong I can admit it an say I am sorry
Rebecca he did forgot about my community and got to busy with with his pet projects that our area went to the wayside. Which was one of his campaign issues. I wonder how he looks us in the face. we feel used.
I know I should of took the time to go down town and see the expense report on the campaign money. I will check that out this week.
And to you I truly apologize because you are such a good kid. This is about getting things done Rebecca. Next time I promise to double check my sources. Shame on me!

Posted by: Pat | May 5, 2009 9:06 PM

A clarification for CEDARHILLRESIDENT: the funds left over from Allan Brison's first campaign were donated to the GREEN PARTY, not the birthday party. Such donations are totally consistent with campaign finance law.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | May 5, 2009 10:28 PM

Lack of life experience means niavete not a fresh outlook. There is a huge difference. Renters do pay property tax via rent, they most certainly don't feel the pain as homeowners or car owners do when it comes to writing the check. If they did, there would be more than three people at budget hearings and at the mayor's door, ready to take them to task for the massive spending/borrowing that has lead to the current fiscal mess.

Posted by: Charlie Pillsbury | May 5, 2009 10:39 PM

I stand by the remarks I made about Justin, which admittedly are harsh, but I think accurate. But Melissa didn't quote everything I said about Justin or the contest between Allan and Justin, because, I'm convinced, she wasn't interested in an impartial, even-handed story; she was interested in stirring up controversy, and she succeeded.

At the end of our interview on May Day outside United Church on the Green, I told her that, in my opinion, Ward 10 is in a "win-win" situation with two very good people running to serve as alder; one of them will lose, but the ward will win.

Indeed, the Green Party has demonstrated that democracy works. In every ward where a Green was elected in the last decade, the Democratic Party has countered and recruited progressive, "green" Democrats to run. In Ward 9, John Halle's victory has produced two good Democratic alders: Elizabeth Addonizio and Roland Lemar (I apologize for misspellings of names). In Ward 2, Joyce Chen's victories produced Gina Calder, one of the best Democrats currently on the Board. Whatever happens in November, as I said to Melissa on May Day, Ward 10 will be the winner. Too bad these remarks ended up on the editing room floor.

Posted by: Chris Gray | May 6, 2009 1:07 AM

Hi!

Anyone think I wouldn't have something historical to say about this?

While building the network that grew into CTV, we (mostly Green activists) urged and lobbied for city funding to put BOA meetings live on a cable. We worked pretty well with the Dems, then, when we promised to make them stars. Which put me in the room with them for the better part of ten years (for which I earned a whopping $700, total, when the Citizens Cable Coalition got around to disbanding and disbursing our assets). That reminded them that being on tv made them somewhat accountable, since I had the record, verbatim.

It, also, got them to know me (a major representative of Green politics in the '80s, here), and in numerous cases to like and, even, respect me. That's where I met Johnny when he still looked like Bozo. Former Dem chair Vinnie was always pestering me to change parties, "because you work so hard", but never offered to support me for office.

It didn't hurt that I was also active with seniors and in the nightlife of the city.

After our first election in '85, all the smart Dems started to spout Green (as everyone is doing these days, it seems, even Ford) and getting recycling and even a plastic bag ban became much easier (though reversable, when support waned).

Then, there was the predictable fundi vs. realo split, when the realos wanted to endorse Republican Einhorn and run just an alder slate and the fundis (whom I resembled less in that I could maintain some cordially with the same alders who sometimes would walk out on my committee testimonies - in rage) backed me with a vote of about 50/50. Either proposal required 75% approval.

Neither Ralphs' efforts in "behalf" of the party did anything to help build it in any substantial way. Where was that ward by ward outreach Ferrucci promised after the last election?

Now, nothing against Brison, but he should have to face some reckoning with Cedarhillresident. I remember when she wrote so passionately about the work she was doing for him, then.

Charlie, I love you, but I'm thinking that this incarnation hasn't any better prayer for flourishing that our previous one. You certainly won't build a third party by supporting a king. Some of his ideas, maybe, but not the institution with which you have become too deeply tied.

We're a long way from Walden.

Posted by: Chris Gray | May 6, 2009 2:23 AM

P.S. When we first formed the party, we were constantly asked, What does this mean? Are you planning a big party on the Green?

Putting on a party in the park isn't an "accomplishment" with which to build a political base, other than for Tammany Hall.

Remaking a Grumman bread truck into the Health Dept.'s Community Outreach (read: Needle Exchange) Van with other civic-minded citizens, concrete action reflecting a pro-active position on public policy issues which concern the community, was. Even the opponent in my ill-fated run for Mayor issued me a commendation for that.

Fat lot of good that did either of us, come two years from then.

Posted by: Sabrina | May 6, 2009 6:13 AM

Rebecca Goldberg "The party was held in East Rock Park, and the entire ward was invited."

Oh, yes, we certainly were. And how were we invited? By U.S. mail. And who paid for that mailing to the entire ward? Taxpayers.

The legislative office at City Hall prepared, copied, stuffed and mailed this important communication to every resident in the ward.

This is how Alderman Brison chose to spend a chunk of the taxpayer money allocated for communicating with Ward 10 - all totally allowed, but to me was incredibly self-serving at a time where the city budget is under duress and there are far more important issues than the date of Allan's birthday party.

I am sure the NHI can ask for a copy of the letter and the total cost associated with its transmittal. I recycled mine.

Further, I was the person who shared my dismay over using taxpayer funds with CHR. Somehow city funds was heard as campaign funds, which is unfortunate, but I was speaking rather quickly. Sorry, CHR.

The devil is always in the details.

Posted by: Alan Felder | May 6, 2009 11:50 PM

Sleeping with the enemy.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | May 7, 2009 9:45 AM

hmmm Allan Felder
http://www.watchdogproject.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Itemid=253

Posted by: truthtopower | May 7, 2009 1:47 PM

All Alders have franking (free mailing) privileges, as do Congress people because communications with constituents is an important part of having a representative democracy.

The mailing was both legal and approved by City staffers as appropriate.

The birthday party was an opportunity to create a sense of community, to introduce people to each other and to come together in a positive way. This is what an Alder should do.

You should be congratulating Brison on doing his job; not nit picking.

Posted by: Sally Joughin | May 7, 2009 3:08 PM

Everyone has a right to run for Board of Aldermen. And Democratic party people have a right to try to make New Haven a 100% one-party city, if they think that is a good idea. I am one Democrat who doesn't think that is a good idea, because there is currently too much pressure on Dem Aldermen to tow the line and not express opposing views. As for running for office, I have always believed that you should not challenge a politician who shares most of your views, is honest and is doing a good job--whether in your own party or another party; wait until the person either vacates the seat or has been in it too long. This is not understood by Mr Elicker, who might otherwise be a great guy.

I voted for Allan Brison because I wanted his Independent Voice on the Board. As far as I can see, he is doing a good job. Aldermen have to deal with an amazing array of issues and decisions about running the city, and I feel he is informed and always supports what he believes is best for the people of New Haven, be it on environmental issues, economic development, workers' issues or the needs of less fortunate members of our community. He responds to people in ward 10 needing constituent services. I don't know what more is expected of an alderperson. I don't know why Allan is getting this scrutiny in the New Haven Independent that I'm not hearing about the other 29 alders. There is always more that any of us might do, no matter what we are involved in. Allan has already listed the Mayor's programs he supported and those he opposed and what he would like to promote if re-elected. Sounds OK to me.

Posted by: Chris Gray | May 8, 2009 4:43 AM

Sally, wonderful to hear your voice in this debate but your argument is somewhat weak. The part about supporting a different voice on the BOA holds but the part about not opposing candidates with whom you have substantial agreement and whose ethics you aprrove isn't so strong. Dave Weber and I both ran against Liz McCormick in Ward 24 to provide a Green voice in the elections in that ward, as even Roosevelt needed pressure from the electorate to pass reforms that otherwise might not have. It was similar in my campaign against Daniels.

You do not have to win elective power to have the power to control the agenda of the debate. Running, even without expecting to win, has benfits for the whole community that have marked representative democratic government since it began.

Ever the peacemaker, it seems to escape Charlie that, in the NHI, you aways have opportunity to correct a reporter's take or expand upon what she or he has missed in reporting. Meanwhile, let them sell a few "papers" with their 'slant' while actually helping to promote you before you get your say.

It is nice that you added some civility to the race. Dave and I never had anything nasty to say about Liz, other than that she contributed to the one-party New Haven system, as she still does, I believe.

Meanwhile, actual supporters of even Greens have a right to hold them accountable to their standards.