New Haven Independent

Posted by: City Hall Watch | December 8, 2009 9:49 AM

According to Goldfield, he has tried to change the way the city does business and to go beyond checks and balances. As examples, he likes Safe Streets and Lemar's environmental initiatives. That's fine as iniatives go but the primary role of the board is to be a check and balance against unwise, unsafe and unchecked power of the city's chief executive. Otherwise, you have tyranny, bad decisions, and process violations that carry even greater risk to the people you are supposed to be representing. To be an effective board president, you can't just encourage initiatives and neglect the checks and balances. It's more gratifying and fun, I suppose but it's also more dangerous. Sadly, under Goldfield, there has been little exercise of checks and balances. If there had been, Mayor DeStefano would have been forced to be a much better mayor and we would all be grateful for it.

Posted by: Anon | December 8, 2009 9:50 AM

So her platform is get victor bolden? That makes sense to me. The Board should have a negative agenda and clearly this is a high priority amongst other less-important issues of lower taxes, violent crime, bikeable streets, illegal drugs, ethics, budget woes, new sidewalks and youth.

Posted by: Dig Deeper | December 8, 2009 9:51 AM

Ms. James Evans is suggesting that the Aldermen should vote for her because she is African American and a woman. So what? This argument would have us believe that we should celebrate that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court because he is black, yet he has done more than most other judges to turn back the clock when it comes to civil rights and womens rights.

What has Ms. James Evans done so far to advance the "inclusive" agenda she talks about? Most of the time when we read about her is because she is trying to shut something down or derail a project or is loudly criticizing the administration's agenda. I say it's time to stop playing the race card and get on with the business of learning to be an effective Alderman.

Posted by: Curious | December 8, 2009 9:57 AM

Carl Goldfield said "you want to pick the best person for the job". That's an interesting concept. which I believe was the premise of the New Haven 20 Firefighters law suit. However, I don't recall Mr. Goldfield voicing any support for the firefighters. He supported the City's position, as he always does, right or wrong. In the interest of fair and open goverfnment, the las thing we need is a rubber-stamp leader of the Board. Whan was the last time this Board President disagreed with the Mayor or said "no" to him?

Posted by: Jim | December 8, 2009 9:57 AM

I believe Carl's work record speaks for itself. I know for years he has been involved in his community, participating and organizing neighborhood clean-ups (long before he was Board President), an active member of his local blockwatch, and someone who has proven that we can count on him. He is a leader in his community and a leader for our Alderpersons. I wish Carl the best of luck in his bid for re-election, because I truly believe that he is the best person for the job.

Posted by: JAK | December 8, 2009 11:05 AM

CHW, Just a fine point to make. The word "tyranny" has been tossed around quite a bit recently especially by ultra-conservatives idealogues when describing Obama's agenda.

Don't you agree that this is pure hyperbole? Tyranny does not truly exist in a functioning democracy. A REAL tyrant wouldn't let a small thing like the results of a popular vote in a general election, or a constitution, or even the rules spelled out in a city charter get in the way of continuing a great dynasty!

You could use the words "politically dominant" maybe. But c'mon, "Tyranny"?

Just like the words "Liberty" and "Freedom", "Tyranny" is now just another once descriptive word in our lexicon which has been rendered contextually meaningless by the 21st century version of the "Know-Nothings", the Tea-Baggers.

Posted by: Insider | December 8, 2009 11:35 AM

Anon - "So her platform is get victor bolden?" Jackie, in this interview never brought up or commented on the Victor Bolden issue (for which she was correct by the way). So how do you now make this her platform? In the matter of fact, Carl was the only one to comment, so shouldn't it be identified as his platform?

Dig Deeper - you are the only one playing the race card here. Again, in this article never does Jackie suggest that someone vote for her because she is African American, or a woman. She merely states that if she were elected, she would be the first of each. Do you have a problem with that? Or are you one of those folks that thinks that since Obama was elected, "us black folks have enough"?

Posted by: Funky Chicken | December 8, 2009 11:42 AM

In following the BOA and City politics for the past while I would like to make the following comments.

It appears to me that James-Evans has no agenda and that she is asking people to vote for her for no other reason then that she is black, a woman & against the Mayor. I would hope that our elected officials would choose their leader not by race or sex but based on who is best person for the job.

Evans has no examples of how she tried to include people over the past years or what she tried to do under her chairmanship of the Ad Hoc Committee on Affordable Housing. What leadership has she shown in the past?

Additional her only examples on Goldfield’s lack of inclusiveness is that he did not want to do her bidding and push to get rid of Bolden. Evans should realize that Goldfield is NOT her water boy and was not willing to take part in her little underhanded scheme to cause problems for Bolden. (Who as an aside is probably the best Corp Counsel that we had black or white, but by Evans’ definition she should have supported Bolden just by the color of his skin). When her sneaky attempt failed and she would have to subject her request to an open public forum she backed down. I wonder why?

I think Goldfield undersold his leadership and has much more to be proud of. He has shown himself to be someone to work with all sides and if the only thing Evans’ can come up with is that Goldfield wouldn’t do her dirty work for him, all the better.

Posted by: Dig Deeper | December 8, 2009 11:51 AM

Insider:

Before flashing your race card in my face, I suggest you read the article again. According to Ms. James Evans, "her campaign is about a style of leadership that’s “inclusive” — and the chance to break barriers of gender and race." Where is the substance? What is her platform? If she cares so much about her community, what is she advocating for?

Identity politics for the sake of identity politics has done nothing to advance the cause of social justice. I also note for the record that Mr. Bolden is African American - so you may well pose your last question to Ms. James Evans herself.

Posted by: Stay in your lane | December 8, 2009 12:55 PM

... Really, if Goldfeild is the leader of the board of alderman and controls agendas and is supposed to create checks and balances regarding the mayor. Lets think about the past antics of the city. Most recently this whole fire fighter mess. Downtown looks great, thanks mayor. the inflated bond rating of the city is orgianl concept. I mean when you control who is issuing the rating by paying them that goes with out saying. Oh, did I forget to mention taxes? Opps, my fault. all the properties were reaccessed which means all of the home owners propety taxes have doubled and will continue to do so. Inclusive. Let's see. About 30% of the people who live in New Haven own their homes the rest are renters. Goldfeild lives in a ward that is mostly single famlily dwellings so they receive more new sidewalks and curves. James-Evans live in a ward of low income mostly tranisent population, i wonder what they get. Oh i know durg dealers and shootings, those folks dont pay enough into the tax rolls so they will get less service. Is a little more police preance too much to ask? We all know where the real power lies and the only non white poeple that have been included are the uncle toms that do what they are told. I am not sure what it is James-Evans proposes she will do. But what i am sure of. She is not one of the mayors uncle toms. So anytime a black women voices concern she is discontent, if she ask questions she is unaware, any praise is preferential treatment, if she stands up for herself she is defensive, and is she dose not turst evey word that comes out of the mouths of the people who are in power she appreshensive, and worst of all, if she is defiant she's angery. If the public is to have any sway in which way their alderman votes for the next preident i suggest a form that is open to the public of which Goldfeild and James-Evans discuss what it is they have done, attemted to do but was blocked from doing, or propose. Please do not make this a black and white issue. I for one am sick and tired of it but i do relize that some of us can't help oursleves. How dear James-Evans think she can outseat this white man. She really should stay in her place. Oh, i forgot. This is not abour race...

Posted by: City Hall Watch | December 8, 2009 2:07 PM

Jak:

If your question is do I think the mayor is tyrannical in the classic sense? No. In the teabagger sense? No. However, consider these as synonyms: absolutism, authoritarianism, autocracy, coercion, domination, high-handedness, imperiousness, monocracy, oppression, peremptoriness, severity, unreasonableness. While you may try to scrub the word tyranny as to render it useless simply because some take it out of context and to the extreme, my use was in the sense that checks and balances have a place and are or should be of paramount importance to protect us from tyranny among other things. If you don't like the word, choose any of the above and I'll be find with that too. In the end, we need an engaged and intelligent BOA and president who is less interested in protecting the flank of those in power and more interested in families he serves.

Posted by: The Count | December 8, 2009 2:14 PM

Well, I nailed it. The same New Haven Independent which labelled the Rogers campaign for Congress as "an uphill climb," calls the James-Evans bid "historic." No need to thank me.

Posted by: notimon | December 8, 2009 2:16 PM

Carl Goldfield said and I quote "He mentioned Fair Haven Alderwoman Erin Sturgis-Pascale’s safe streets campaign, and East Rock Alderman Roland Lemar’s environmental work, both of which gained broad support among aldermen.

“That’s the stuff we should be doing more of,” Goldfield said.

So Carl is saying Crime, Taxes, Transparency in the Board of Educations Budget, checks and balances n the Administration are things that should not be done. Many of you commenting are not in the trenches, (slang for Streets) like Jackie James. She on numerous occassions have ventured into other wards to lend a hand of support when youth are shot dead on the streets of new haven, she provide trips for poor inner city kids, she demand no drug dealers will stand on corners in her ward, Now my question to Carl supporters is when was the last time Carl walked Newhallville, Dwight, the Hill, Fair haven areas. What do the side walks look like in these areas during the years Goldfield was President of the board. These are the things Jackie has done and continue to do, many of you will not see these unless you are in the streets where it counts.

Posted by: Insider | December 8, 2009 2:21 PM

Dig Deeper:

Wow!!! You bring up race, and then accuse me of flashing the race card. Pretty arrogant. I guess the next step is to come to my home, plant a flag, and then claim you "discovered" this great place to live, so you have to charge me rent.

Because Jackie says that she wants to be inclusive she is flashing the race card? What is Goldfield's platform?

You guys in power are so afraid of losing that power that you stoop to this level, time and time again.... This attempt to paint Jackie as playing racial politics is nothing new by you guys, but this time we won't let you get away with it. I can't tell my alderman to vote for Jackie, but I'll sure tell all the others.

Posted by: The Returner | December 8, 2009 3:56 PM

...

The city will continue to suffer so long as the Board of Alderman maintain the current status quos. When I served as Chair of the Black and Hispanic Caucus during years 2002-2003, I tried to reveal on an unswerving basis exactly what the DeStefano Administration was doing with regard to the utilization of TAX PAYERS MONEY. Carl Goldfield in my opinion is complicit with almost all of the Administrations public policies. Allow me to be clear, this isn't a personal attack against Carl, it's a political attack against him.
There are a large number of elected officials who care not for plight of their constituents, but care greatly about towing the line of the Mayor and getting reelected. This proclivity of focus, is for the most part, to maintain a level of political narcissism.

Finally, I applaud those who refuse to dance for the puppeteer, but yield to the needs of their constituents instead. You deserve to be reelected-

Posted by: streever | December 8, 2009 4:54 PM

I love the idea of the BOA providing more checks & balances. I don't know if that's something ultimately James-Evan OR Goldfield can bring to the table.

It's a 30 person board so it's power will be weaker than it should. Look at other municipalities which have many less council people per population.

the problem though with reducing it is you reduce the representation that neighborhoods have...

While I'm glad to see Joey operating independently of the city, despite the recent issue, I personally think Carl is the most qualified for the job.

I want Carl to win but am glad to see others challenging & running, and to see individuals assigning their votes where they personally believe they should be.

I think Carl has outlined excellent reasons to support him. His embracing programs like Street Smarts & his focus on policies and initiatives is a big part of having a functional, working BOA. I believe that the BOA can provide significant services to residents, but that it is--unfortunately--not in a good position to provide checks & balances.

While I admire James-Evan's rationale & ideals, I don't believe that if she is elected it will make the BOA into a real checks & balances agency.

Good luck to both candidates.

Posted by: streever | December 8, 2009 6:20 PM

and a comment on the commentary: let's try to keep it somewhat civil towards each other. We can disagree on issues without being mean or framing each other's arguments. I think few of us commenting on here are doing it to "keep or gain power" so the conspiracy theorists are a bit much--rather, if I disagree with you, I may genuinely do so because I believe that I am right. It is no insult to anyone else, but simply a different opinion.

I honestly believe that Goldfield has done a lot to support Alder's projects, ideas, and initiatives, which is largely what I think the President should be doing with 30 aldermen. There is not a real opportunity to drive the conversation there. That's my opinion--you may disagree with it, but please, let's treat each other with respect & acknowledge that we're sharing our ideas because we honestly believe them.

Posted by: Whatever | December 8, 2009 9:44 PM

Streever

Is this a 5th grade classroom setting or is this a public blogg where people can say what ever it is the please and to the degree that the NHI will allow it to post? I mean really save you slaps on the hands for you own children. I would hope we are all adults who have had their own personal experiances that will allow us to say how we think and feel without a symbolic teacher assigning what is proper or not. Keep it to yourself. It is a waste of time I can not speak for any one else I for one have not be insturcted on how to behave or interact with other adults since middle shcool. Your tone was condasending and somewhat authrotrian. This is mearly my opinon, however, I belive that free speech gives me the right to state it.

Posted by: democracy? | December 9, 2009 12:08 AM

It seems to me the key thing here is that the Board is a separate branch of government. It may not have sex appeal, but if no one's reading the contracts carefully and telling the Mayor when he oversteps or gets it wrong, then why bother saying we have democracy in New Haven? For instance, public financing is a great initiative but if no one stands up when the Mayor clearly violates the basic rules, what good is it?

Posted by: streever | December 9, 2009 8:37 AM

Whatever:
Yes, whatever indeed. I simply think a conversation based on ideas is more productive then inane conspiracy theories, personal accusations of anonymous commentators, and insults to other commentators. If your idea has merit, it can stand without alleging that anyone who disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy.

I too, would hope that everyone here is an adult who can communicate in an appropriate manner. You seem hell-bent on disproving that, however.

Posted by: streever | December 9, 2009 9:05 AM

(and I apologize that you are personally offended. It's odd, considering that we don't know each other, I wasn't speaking to you, and I have no idea who you are, but it's odd that you found something personally offensive in that.)

Posted by: working (too hard)mom | December 9, 2009 11:42 AM

I have to say Streever, I too find your constant admonishments to 'behave" quite annoying. This isn't nursery school and there already is a filter in place to remove anything over the line. Stop trying to control the dialogue of other people. I am not personally offended at all by you, just personally annoyed.

Posted by: streever | December 9, 2009 12:58 PM

Working (Too Hard) Mom:

when the discourse is pointless, doesn't reach any city officials, and is full of anonymous attacks on anonymous people (i.e. pointless, you know nothing about an anonymous person so why attack them personally? this makes no sense to me) then it serves no purpose.

Look, if you want to use the NHI as a cry-rag or a venting place, that's fine, you do your thing. I prefer to see productive change come out of my time, and that's why I invest it here, and implore people who ARE "behaving badly" too cease.

Do you really find the paranoid & non-rational comments worthwhile? Do you think they contribute anything to this issue? No? then why defend them & why do what you find annoying in my behavior?

Posted by: Claudia Herrera | December 9, 2009 2:27 PM

“Both Goldfield and James-Evans claim they have 16 supporters lined up, which of course is
mathematically impossible on the 30-member board.”

Having Math problems? This is now; I think in one more week (before holidays) the same math problem will have different results.

Curiosity,
How this will change if Jorge Perez (Ward 5) could enjoy them? Personally I think Jorge Perez can be a better candidate for this position.
“It would be a historic situation,” James-Evans said.”

Respectfully to the alderwoman, James-Evans,
Please fight fare show what you can do to MAKE different in the BOA presidency position as a woman and as a black woman. NOT as “it’s time for change and make history” is about what experience and qualities you have to offer to support the rest of the BOA.

Good luck anyways!

Posted by: Insider | December 9, 2009 2:52 PM

Streever,

What do you consider paranoid? Non-rational?

Posted by: fairhavengal | December 9, 2009 3:35 PM

What does the vote count of the 30 Alders look like now?

Posted by: working (too hard)mom | December 9, 2009 4:47 PM

Streever-Who are you to determine what is paranoid, irrational or even truthful for that matter? We all have minds of our own and can draw our own conclusions. My annoyance with you is how you feel it is your role on this board to judge everyone else's post and deem them acceptable or not. Quite hypocritical for someone who espouses respect and civility for one another. You are no better than anyone else here, even if you think you know the truth better than the rest of us. Start your own boards if you want to be able to limit content and opinions! God Bless America and Free Speech!

Posted by: Boardmatters | December 12, 2009 4:53 PM

Whats has James-Evans done for her own ward? nothing!
What well James Evans do the entire city?
Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!
This should not be about making history and situtations, but about making a Board that works.

Something for nothing leave nothing. You gotta do something if you want to lead.

Posted by: streever | December 13, 2009 10:12 AM

Working (too hard) mom:

I honestly am left to question your objectivity and intellect: I say this not to offend you, but because your opinion is unsupported & so illogical.

Who am I to deem what is illogical?

Illogical is not something I've decided: it's objectively demonstrable. People write the most lurid conspiracy theories in here, things that no one discusses in public or with a stranger. They make little to no sense, and would cost millions of dollars to be true.

For instance, a rumor was that the Mayor pays Justin Elicker's rent and the rent of other supporters on the BOA.

This is patently absurd: it's illogical (Justin has 2 roommates, the mayor would have to pay 30 people's rent, there would be a paper trail, the mayor simply doesn't have that much money) and easily dis-proven.

Who are you to say that's judgemental on my part?

Ultimately you claim I'm a judgemental person, but you're the one making personal judgements: I'm dealing with facts & objective logic.

I sign my name on every post. You can have a conversation with me about my views. I will be--and am--civil with folks.

However, I see no need to be civil to people who make criminal accusations with no evidence whatsoever, and in defiance of objective reality, behind assumed names & identities. As a practice this is coming under judicial fire, and it's only a matter of time before a critical mass of lawsuits reduces the frequency with which people spout libel.

Ultimately, you're on the wrong side of this: the side of people who use their anonymity to attack & defame people with no evidence & no logic. You may be annoyed be me all you like, but I can't tell you how many people in the community have thanked me for standing up for them & standing up for a civil discourse.

you paint me as a censor or a moderator, but the reality is I am simply ASKING you and everyone else to behave yourselves. I am neither attacking nor insulting, but ASKING.

Again, I would welcome a conversation with you outside of this medium. I think it contributes to your judgements & makes it easy for you to come after me, because you are anonymous and unknown. I think if you and I sat down and talked you'd have a hard time being so rude.