New Haven Independent

Candidates are running in Democratic primaries for aldermanic seats in seven wards. Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Click here to find out where to vote and who’s running.

In New Haven, Democratic primaries are generally tantamount to a general election. Democrats hold 28 or 30 seats on the Board of Aldermen. The last non-Democratic mayor won election in 1951.

Tuesday’s primaries — in Fair Haven, Edgewood, Dixwell, Newhallville, Westville, West Rock, and Beaver Hills — cover less than a third of the city.

But they’ve been hard-fought. And the city has no mayoral primary this year, or a competitive mayoral general election campaign in sight. So, while aldermanic races hinge on block-by-block issues and personal campaigning, Tuesday’s primaries have also become the closest facsimile New Haven will have in 2009 to a referendum on the city’s direction.

It could also determine the balance of power on the Board of Aldermen, which is dominated by City Hall allies.

Both the DeStefano administration’s allies and its critics see a chance to shift that balance, as evidenced by a flow of outside dollars and door-knockers into the local races. (Click here to read about that.) Tuesday’s vote could determine whether Beaver Hills Alderman Carl Goldfield retains the presidency of the board, or if the predecessor he dethroned, Jorge Perez, returns.

The two slates of candidates reveal sharply divergent views on city issues ranging from oversight of public schools to taxpayer subsidies for Tweed-New Haven Airport.

“What is at stake is a progressive agenda that looks toward educational reform and prison reentry, and people who really want to have a dialogue,” said Democratic Town Chairwoman Susie Voigt, who has worked hard to support pro-City Hall candidates. She said she has chosen to back candidates “who will not narrowly define themselves by the union or the mayor or Jorge or Carl,” but by their relationship to issues.

Jorge Perez said he “welcomes” Voigt’s candidates “to this agenda. I am happy to hear the town chair wants to support people who are for progressive reform,” Perez said. He said “the so-called ‘opposition side’” originally spoke out on behalf of educational reform and other progressive issues over the past three years, for instance in the Black and Hispanic Caucus’s annual “State of the City” addresses.

The Independent surveyed candidates in all seven wards on specific questions ranging from the foreclosure crisis to the Board of Aldermen’s relationship to City Hall. Most candidates generally support Mayor John DeStefano’s nascent school reform drive. Beyond that, the candidates revealed stark differences that amount to two visions on how the city’s legislative branch should work with the city administration. One slate is generally pleased with the direction of city government; the other sees a need for more active, independent oversight by aldermen.

(Two of the 15 candidates running Tuesday declined to answer the issues questions. Both of them — Ward 30’s Carlton Staggers and Ward 24’s Marcus Paca — complained about Independent coverage of their criminal records. Staggers also said he wasn’t comfortable addressing questions about city issues without having incumbent Alderwoman Michelle Edmonds-Sepulveda, who recruited him to run, beside him; told that would be OK, he nevertheless failed to respond to repeated calls to arrange an interview. You can read earlier interviews about their campaigns here and here.)

Following are the questions asked and where the candidates’ positions:

Should The Board of Aldermen More Closely Scrutinize The Education Budget?

The issue: The aldermen have only an up-or-down vote on the entire public schools budget, even though it’s largest part of the city budget. The Board of Aldermen has no line-item authority. In the past the aldermen still held hearings on line items and grilled school officials about how they were running the schools. In recent years that practice has ended. A citizens budget commission this year called for renewed oversight.

The argument for: There’s little if any public oversight of school spending now — just a Board of Education, whose members are appointed by the mayor and rarely raise objections in public. Aldermen could exert leverage, withholding final approval for the entire school budget until their concerns are addressed, and at least could put a public spotlight on how money’s spent. Though perhaps scared off by racial politics surrounding schools in the past, aldermen should understand and influence how millions of dollars being spent on administrators each year, for instance. That’s their job.

The argument against: The schools were a political hot potato in the past. Members of The Board of Education should scrutinize school spending. That’s their job, not the aldermen’s job. Keep politics out of the schools. This is City Hall’s argument.

Where they stand: Ward 14: Stephanie Bauer, yes. Joan Forte, yes. Ward 21: Katrina Jones, “Do we really have any say? Because it’s federal money.” Moses Nelson, yes. Ward 22: Lisa Hopkins, yes. Greg Morehead, no. Cordelia Thorpe, yes. Ward 24: Liz McCormack, no, too “unwieldy” to “micromanage” schools. Ward 26: Sergio Rodriguez, finance committees of board of ed and aldermen should work together. LaShell Rountree, yes. Ward 28: Moti Sandman, no. Robinson-Thorpe, yes. Ward 30: Darnell Goldson, “absolutely.”

Should Board of Ed Employees Be Allowed To Serve On The Board
of Aldermen?

The issue: By law, city government employees can’t serve on the Board of Aldermen; it’s considered a conflict of interest. Because of a loophole, Board of Ed employees can, because the schools aren’t technically a city agency. Three pro-City Hall aldermen currently work for the Board of Ed and loyally vote with the city administration; one tried for years to get a job there, and was appointed only after winning her first aldermanic election.

The argument for: Aldermen can recuse themselves from votes affecting the Board of Ed, and they can be trusted not to exert undue influence. This is City Hall’s argument.

The argument against: It’s a bogus loophole, because schools employees are very much a city agency, run by mayoral appointees and doing city business with city tax dollars. Political patronage is at the root of some of the school system’s problems; buying off aldermen with city jobs makes them less independent overseers of government. And aldermen should be free of conflicts so they can vote on school issues, which are among the city’s most important.

Where they stand: Ward 14: Bauer, no position. Forte, no. Ward 21: Jones (a Board of Ed employee), yes. Nelson, yes. Ward 22: Hopkins, yes, if they scrutinize the budget. Morehead, yes. Thorpe, no. Ward 24: McCormack, yes. Ward 26: Rodriguez, yes. Rountree, no. Ward 28: Sandman, yes. Robinson-Thorpe, no. Ward 30: Goldson, “absolutely not.”

Should The Board of Education Be Elected?

The issue: New Haven is one of only a handful of cities with a Board of Education appointed by the mayor rather than elected by citizens.

The argument for (an elected board): The public should have more say in how the schools are run. Board members should be more accountable to the public. They’d be more engaged if elected, and less beholden to a powerful mayor, therefore able to provide independent scrutiny.

The argument against: Elections would inject too much politics into the schools. Other cities with elected boards prove that. Voters can weigh in on the mayor’s choice of board picks when he runs for reelection every two years. New Haven’s board members work hard and are independent-minded. This is City Hall’s position.

Where they stand: Ward 21: Jones, “I don’t see where the [appointed] board has not been doing a good job.” Nelson, “We should seriously look at it.” Ward 22: Hopkins, yes. Ward 24: McCormack, Put it to a vote and “let the people decide.” Ward 26: Rodriguez, no position. Rountree, yes. Ward 28: Sandman, no. Robinson-Thorpe, yes. Ward 30: Goldson, yes.

Should The City Continue To Subsidize Tweed-New Haven Airport?

The argument against: The city can’t afford it. The business community and Yale care about Tweed; let them pay for Tweed. Decades of subsidies haven’t made the airport viable, and never will. It should fly on its own.

The argument for: The city can’t afford not to. A viable airport is crucial to growing the economy — therefore producing jobs and tax revenues. Some argue that it could cost more to stop subsidizing the airport, because if it closes the city will be on the hook for federal improvement loans. It’s appropriate for government to subsidize transportation infrastructure. These are City Hall’s arguments.

Where they stand: Ward 14: Bauer, yes. Forte, no. Ward 21: Jones, “No comment; I’m not very knowledgeable about it. ” Nelson, “Yes and no: Yes if it works, if we can make revenue for it. If it continually costs us money to keep it operating, then it’s not good business.” Ward 22: Hopkins, no. Morehead, yes. Thorpe, yes. Ward 24: McCormack, yes in short term, no in long term. Ward 26: Rodriguez, yes. Rountree: Eventually, no, once an “alternative,” such as federal subsidy, is found. Ward 28: Sandman, yes. Robinson-Thorpe, no. Ward 30: Goldson, no (nor the Shubert or Pilot Pen).

Would You Have Supported The Mayor’s Raises For Non-union Appointees?

The issue: The mayor quietly raised the salaries of 41 non-union appointees on July 1, some making as much as $110,000, without any public discussion, after lengthy public negotiations with unions on layoffs and givebacks from other workers.

The argument for: Some of these employees don’t make much, already had salary freezes and givebacks, and deserved the raises. This is City Hall’s position.

The argument against: The raises for lower-paid employees aren’t the issue. The process is: The city loses credibility in negotiating painful givebacks with other workers when the mayor’s appointees get quietly taken care of. Some also question the need to pay a mayor’s chief of staff, for example, $110,000 a year, especially in tight budget times.

Where they stand: Ward 14: Bauer, non-committal; Forte, no. Ward 21: Jones, no. Nelson, no. Ward 22: Hopkins, no. Morehead, no. Thorpe, no. Ward 24: McCormack, no, because of timing. Ward 26: Rodriguez, no. Rountree, no. Ward 28: Sandman, should have been more public. Robinson-Thorpe, “hell no.” Ward 30: Goldson, no.

Is The Police Department Moving In The Right Direction?

The issue: A new police chief, James Lewis, has restructured and made widespread policy changes over the past year in the wake of a corruption scandal and growing city violence.

The argument for: It’s a new day. Crime’s down. The department has regained strong leadership and credibility. The reconstituted narcotics unit has been making smart busts; cops have responded to a public outcry for greater traffic and quality-of-life enforcement. The chief has promptly investigated and punished rogue cops. And the department is finally reporting statistics to the FBI again. This is City Hall’s position.

The argument against: The city has abandoned community policing. It’s using military-style dogs and Tasers more, rather than beat cops and greater partnerships with civilian groups like the street outreach workers.

Where they stand: Ward 14: Bauer, yes. Forte, yes. Ward 21: Jones, hasn’t heard many complaints. Nelson: No, has heard many complaints. Ward 22: Hopkins, no. Morehead, yes. Thorpe, no. Ward 24: McCormack, yes, but wants to see more walking patrols. Ward 26: Rodriguez, no. Rountree, yes. Ward 28: Sandman, yes. Robinson-Thorpe, no. Ward 30: Goldson, no.

Should The Board of Aldermen be smaller — say, 10 members?

The argument for: The board has little effective power as a check on the executive branch because it has too many members. With each member having so little power as only one of 30, he or she can easily be bought off on vital citywide issues in exchange for small favors like sidewalks or jobs for friends. Having fewer aldermen would also enable the city to pay them more so they can spend more time on the job.

The argument against: As the legislative branch, the board is the citizens’ voice. Having more aldermen means having smaller wards — which means more citizens get to know their alderman and can influence them, so their voice can be heard.

Where they stand: Ward 14: Both say they need to think further about it, though Forte said she likes the idea if all four Fair Haven wards are united. Ward 22: Hopkins, no. Morehead, no. Thorpe, no. Ward 24: McCormack, no. Ward 26: Rodriguez, yes (15 members). Rountree, no. Ward 28: Sandman, “concept needs to be hashed out.” Robinson-Thorpe, yes (20). Ward 30: Goldson, “yes/ no” — yes only if members on a smaller board get more staff to deal with constituent issues and if “the voices of lesser heard communities wouldn’t get drowned out.”

Should The City Pressure The WPCA To File Fewer Foreclosure Suits?

The issue: In the midst of a foreclosure crisis, the regional sewer agency has become one of the most aggressive filer of foreclosure lawsuits. City Hall created a foreclosure task force charged in part with trying to prevent foreclosures from being filed in the first place, reasoning that that makes it harder for people to keep homes and therefore destabilizes neighborhoods. City Hall used to run the agency; then it spun it off into an independent agency in order to plug a one-year budget gap with one-time revenues. But the city still have appointees to the agency and can influence what it does.

The argument against: It takes a long time to accumulate enough of sewer debt to be foreclosed on. By that time people are in deep financial trouble already and probably won’t keep their homes. The WPCA needs to act fast to protect other ratepayers. That’s City Hall’s position.

The argument for: The WPCA’s tactics mirror those of Yale-New Haven Hospital years ago — tactics the hospital ended in part from pressure from City Hall, which called them cruel. Aggressive (and sometimes politically connected) lawyers hired to do the foreclosures have an incentive to file suits and drive up fees, and plunge people into further trouble.

Where they stand: Ward 14: Bauer, yes. Forte, non-committal. Ward 21: Jones, no; “it’s not the city’s place to intervene.” Nelson, yes. Ward 22: Hopkins, yes. Morehead, yes. Thorpe, yes. Ward 24: McCormack, no opinion. Ward 26: Rodriguez, yes. Rountree, no position. Ward 28: Sandman, yes. Robinson-Thorpe, yes. Ward 30: Goldson, yes.

Allan Appel, Melissa Bailey, Paul Bass, Leonard Honeyman, Riquee Blackman Jarmon, Thomas MacMillan, and Melinda Tuhus reported this article.