New Haven Independent

Posted by: Kevin | July 10, 2009 2:10 PM

Arghhh. I know I sound like a tired refrain from one of the "haters", but can someone please run? This can't be the best we've got. Clearly no-one thinks that they can beat DeStefano, because its only our anonymous comments that are telling people that they should run. I'll do my part and call the people I know would be great Mayor's and could beat DeStefano NOW. I'll tell them that I will personally find 10-15 more people to give them money? Will you do the same?

I'm calling Toni Harp, Pat Dillon, Roland Lemar, Alex Rhodeen, Will Clark, Jorge Perez and maybe one or two others.

Make your calls and maybe we can convince a few legit people to run? We have to follow through on our promises though if they are going to win.. will you join me?

Posted by: James FP | July 10, 2009 2:34 PM

So just for clarification, it seems like the two main elements of the Watley platform are:

1) Noncompliance with Federal Civil Rights law and almost four decades of settled case law, and

2) Let's get rid of school buses

Um, next.

Posted by: ED | July 10, 2009 2:42 PM

Does anyone else think that it is awfully convenient for Ms. Watley to claim she would promote Ricci after the fact?

Posted by: Peace Frog | July 10, 2009 2:45 PM

"We've spent a lot of money building these schools -- only to close them because they're failing? You knew they were failing before you built them," she said.

Mrs. Watley's misunderstanding of school closure in the context of reform is an embarrassment to her involvement in education as a parent, activist, and politically involved citizen. School closures consist of a restructuring of the teaching staff and/or administration in an attempt to improve the quality of education imparted to students. The school buildings, which were important investments at a time when the structural infrastrucure of many of our school buildings were in abject disrepair. The two initiatives, while both important to improving the overall quality of education in the New Haven Public Schools system, are really quite independent of each other, and the order in which they are carried out has little to do with one another. I believe that Mrs. Watley's candidacy would be well served by reviewing the content of major policy issues at hand, as opposed to building their policy based on taglines that they think they understand.

Posted by: helloworld | July 10, 2009 2:51 PM

Hindsight is always 20/20, and I find it hard to believe that Ms. Watley was even thinking about the Ricci case when the Mayor made his decision years ago, let alone would have chosen to promote the firefighters.

Why doesn't she give us a platform for what she wants to do? I can see she has big goals if her next step is to translate a handout into Spanish. Dream big.

Posted by: RicciWho? | July 10, 2009 3:01 PM

How come nobody remembers this about Ricci and the whole case? I wonder what Ms. Watley thinks about discrimination law in general? Its really easy to cherry pick this case without having to formulate a coherent policy on how to act in discrimination cases. Maybe she'll have a fully formed opinion before people have to really decide to vote for her.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/new-haven-firefighter-originally-hired-by-claiming-discrimination.php

Posted by: citizen | July 10, 2009 3:16 PM

At least there is someone running just maybe she will win.

Posted by: angelo | July 10, 2009 5:24 PM

uh, Citizen, exactly why do you think her winning would be anything short of a disaster? She an assistant police dispatcher? Has she ever run anything? Does she know anything about government? Can she put together three thoughts without contradicting herself?

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | July 10, 2009 5:57 PM

Run Sarah Palin for mayor!!!

Posted by: whatever | July 10, 2009 6:40 PM

You folks talk about what she has or hasn't managered or run, but please tell me what Roland Lemar or Alex Rhodeen has run.

Posted by: Oh, the Irony | July 10, 2009 7:50 PM

New Haven Firefighter Originally Hired By Claiming Discrimination
By Brian Beutler - July 10, 2009, 1:26PM

Deserved or not, the biggest political thorn in Sonia Sotomayor's side has been one Frank Ricci of New Haven, CT. Ricci is a firefighter who sued the city claiming reverse discrimination in 2003 after officials there discarded the results of a firefighter's promotion test after the test was revealed to have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics.

But flash back, if you will, to January 25, 1995, when, according to the Hartford Courant Ricci was singing the opposite tune: "A decorated firefighter has filed a lawsuit against the city, saying he was not hired because he is dyslexic."

The lawsuit, filed recently in federal court, could shed light on the selection process used by the city, which has been beset with criticism over politics and nepotism.

Frank Ricci charges in the lawsuit that the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.

Ricci, a Wallingford native who now lives in Maryland, was one of 795 candidates who were interviewed for 40 openings. Ricci told interviewers that he has a learning disability, the lawsuit says.

Fire commissioners have said that although Ricci was qualified, many others also were qualified because they passed the Civil Service examination.

Two years later, that case was resolved. "In a confidential settlement, struck two years later, Mr. Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees."

If you were Frank Ricci, you might say something like, "Frank Ricci got a job and somebody who wasn't dyslexic didn't." Remember, this is the same Frank Ricci who took his reverse discrimination suit all the way to the Supreme Court, where lower court rulings against him--including one by Sotomayor's Second Circuit--were overturned.

Ricci will testify against Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week--this despite the fact that his views on jurisprudence seem to begin and end with the proposition that legal protections against discrimination are great when they work in his favor, and unconscionable when they don't.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/new-haven-firefighter-originally-hired-by-claiming-discrimination.php

Posted by: Brian V | July 11, 2009 1:01 AM

KEVIN:

You took the words out of my mouth! I will knock on doors and help raise money too! Love your list!
HE CAN BE BEAT!

Posted by: title7 | July 11, 2009 4:56 AM

"If the test was given, then he should have gotten his promotion. I mean, why not?"

Why not? Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, that's why not...in short, federal law is why not. I might add, the Supreme Court determined that the city was correct in attempting to follow federal law. Would Ms. Watley still have promoted the firefighters at the time the vity made its decision knowing full well that doing so would be a violation of federal law and would most likely have resulted in an even MORE "embarrassing" case for the city? I think not.

Also, 1958 was over half a century ago; I'm CERTAIN the test has changed in that time. It's definitely not the same test.

I'm in favor of an election with more than one candidate as much as the next person, but please don't insult the voters' intelligence like this.

Posted by: Morris Cove | July 11, 2009 12:57 PM

She seems like a nice lady, but she's her rambling about the test shows that she shouldn't quit her day job. John D, would eat her alive in a debate.

Posted by: JOSIAHBROWNFORMAYOR | July 11, 2009 1:39 PM

Kevin,

Are you serious about Will Clark? Do you not think that would be a bit of a lateral move?

Angelo,

I think she has a snowball's chance, but honestly do you think two years of potential ineptitude is really going to make things worse than a continuation of today's policies?

BOA members,

I cant remember if there is a window to amend the city charter anytime soon; however, I believe Allan Brison has said he would like to see at least a few elected members on the BOE, another suggestion might be to add mayoral term limits. DeStefano may have done some good in his nearly two decades in office (shame on the voters if he hasnt) but the old adage "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," is cliche for a reason- even if there is no wrong-doing (in legal terms) you would have to be blind not see that cronyism runs rampant.

the city needs a change of underwear. a fresh face with new ideas. The sitting mayor of sixteen plus years makes himself out to be the change candidate? Gimme a break.

Posted by: kamb | July 11, 2009 3:31 PM

This is why King John wins hands-down! We need a legitimate contender to get him out of office.

ANYONE? We just need a fair, decent, person with the city's interest at hand.

Posted by: Pedro d'Ibazo | July 11, 2009 6:07 PM

Watley has no chance whatsoever. Can't anyone REAL run against deStefano? Who will rid us of this monstrous mayor? He is such an embarrassment. A stain on this could-be-great city. Does anyone else feel that New Haven could explode with excitement and innovation if we could just rid ourselves of the corruption, racial politics, and incompetence of deStefano?

Posted by: Moreorless | July 12, 2009 7:22 PM

You people are funny. You pick on Frank Ricci now. Face it, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor because his Civil Rights were violated under Title VII.---So to Title VII--you are wrong--the law did not support Sotomayor's decision, in fact, it did just the opposite and she failed to adhere to it.

Frank is only 1 of 20, you may throw jabs at him for his past lawsuit against NH, but the other 19 members of the NH20 did not. They are just as committed to Public Safety and Fire Protection in the Elm City as Frank is, and have every right without disgrace to have rightly won their claim against New Haven.

People like Destefano and Sotomayor are your enemy, not Frank Ricci--he has in no way, shape, or form, any political power to devastate lives like the a fore mentioned individuals have and have done in the past, and surely will do in the future.

Posted by: James FP | July 13, 2009 11:51 AM

What I don't think some people realize here is that Frank Ricci has literally sued or threatened to sue every employer he's ever had. It may just be me, but I don't think there's a Woody Guthrie or Bob Dylan folk ballad about hyperlitigious civil servants who made their careers by suing their way up the chain of command. Yes, there were 20 other firefighters, but Ricci was a) the lead plaintiff and b) to my knowledge, by a wide margin the most litigious of the bunch.

It also seems that many people the point on Title VII--as the law stood when Sotomayor ruled on it, she reached the right decision. It should be noted, by the way, that the 2nd Circuit opinion was of the unsigned variety, meaning that it's not even clear whether she herself wrote it--it may well have been written by another judge, maybe even Robert Sack, who is himself a bonafide white male. But I digress: had Sotomayor ruled in Ricci's favor, it would have gone completely against good 2nd Circuit law. Only two legal bodies are situated such that they can overturn 2nd Circuit law--an en banc panel of the 2nd Circuit, which declined Ricci's request for a hearing, and the Supreme Court, which sports a 7-2 Republican majority and has in recent years been seen gutting fair pay law (see Ledbetter v. Goodyear), expanding exceptions to the exclusionary rule (see Herring v. United States), etc. So great, a narrow 5-justice majority of the most conservative Supreme Court since the 1930s set a new standard of case law, which did not apply when Sotomayor ruled on the case. Let's not forget that even Ken Starr has endorsed her nomination.

Posted by: LastStraw | July 13, 2009 1:19 PM

Call me ignorant, but what is it exactly that makes this test so hard for minorities to pass? Now I'm not a firefighter, nor have I ever seen the test, but I'm thinking the test has something to do with firefighting sciences, some math, maybe a little verbal, who knows.
I've really been racking my brain during all this to come up with something related to firefighting that only whites would know. Any ideas???

Posted by: James FP | July 14, 2009 12:28 AM

The question about the test that you ask is an important one. It's been suggested that the main problem was that the exam focused almost exclusively on the minutiae of fire science, which put those who had not been raised around firefighters (i.e. minorities) at a disadvantage. It seems fairly intuitive that someone who is raised around firefighters and decides to become one him or herself will have had significantly more exposure to the minute details of the profession than someone who has not had that upbringing. If my dad had been a basketball coach and I aspired to be one as well, I might have been able to quote rules extensively and rattle off an extensive array of set plays by my senior year of high school. Meanwhile, former NBA MVP Tim Duncan did not even play basketball until age 13, and thus would not likely have been able to match this level of knowledge.

Granted, this gap does close over time--perhaps this explains why six blacks and three Hispanics, and presumably several whites who were not raised around firefighters, passed. Regardless, there should be an effort to determine just what the hell happened and prevent it from happening again. Indeed, one lesson of Ricci may well be that the cities now need to get it right the first time.

But, Laststraw, regardless of why the results came out the way they did, the point remains that the usefulness of the exam is itself in question. Much like the Tim Duncan example above, I guarantee you that a sizable chunk of Yale's Chemistry and Engineering professors could blow Ricci, Vargas, and co. out of the water in the exam. But would you really want those guys leading the charge to protect us from fires? It's worth considering that exams that gauge one's knowledge of the minutiae of fire science may only be useful to a point. I don't think anybody could seriously argue that a blatantly unqualified candidate should ever be put in a position where someone's life depends on said candidate's decision. But as Stanford professor Richard Thompson Ford has asked, "would encouraging the equivalent of intense cramming for the final really help employers select the best firefighter for the job?" Furthermore, isn't it possible that there's some point at which a candidate's connection to the community, leadership capability, ability to handle stressful situations, and creativity in the face of adversity (and that does NOT mean filing creative lawsuits!) would outweigh the marginal value of an additional point on an exam?