Charter Revision Derailed

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

by Melissa Bailey | Apr 20, 2010 10:13 am

(17) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: City Hall

“I ask you to kill this item tonight,” said Darnell Goldson.

After 90 minutes of passionate debate and a procedural sneak attack, he prevailed: Aldermen agreed to block mayoral-selected nominees from setting to work on revamping the city charter.

The fiery discussion took place at the full Board of Aldermen meeting Monday in City Hall, where aldermen considered the makeup and agenda of the Charter Revision Commission. The commission is set up every 10 years to review and suggest changes to the city’s governing document.

As aldermen move to assemble the commission, Goldson, West Rock alderman, and others objected that the process has been too much steered toward Mayor John DeStefano’s agenda without a chance for people with independent views to take part.

The mayor suggested two topics for consideration: shrinking the Board of Aldermen and expanding term limits from two to four years for the mayor, city clerk and aldermen. He put forward a list of 15 people to sit on the commission.

The Aldermanic Affairs Committee considered those recommendations in a contentious, three-hour meeting on March 16. A total of 39 people applied to sit on the commission. After much debate, the list of members emerged from committee largely unchanged, with 13 of 15 mayoral nominees intact. (See the list at the bottom of this story.) The mayor’s two topics for consideration were adopted; no others were added.

Melissa Bailey Photo Goldson (pictured) objected that the resulting deck was stacked in the mayor’s favor, to the exclusion of independent voices and agendas. The recommendations passed in a divided 4-2 committee vote, and passed to the full board for consideration at Monday’s meeting.

On Monday disagreements lingered. Majority Leader Alderwoman Katrina Jones of Newhallville sought to delay the vote for another two weeks until aldermen could come to agreement. During the meeting, she quietly passed over the agenda item, skipping on to other issues, such as the fate of federal block grant money.

At 8:30 p.m., most people thought the meeting was over—until Goldson pulled out the procedural sneak attack. He knew the bill needed to clear a high bar—20 out of 30 votes. At the end of the meeting, betting that the mayor’s administration did not have the votes lined up in its favor, he called the bill to a vote.

The rare move sent a puzzled look over aldermanic President Carl Goldfield’s face. Jones asked for a five-minute recess to regroup.

When the meeting resumed, Jones moved to delay the vote by officially tabling it. The effort failed by a slim margin: 14 no, 13 yes.

Goldson pushed forward. He asked colleagues to “kill” the bill by voting it down. He said aldermen failed to give other nominees a chance to be considered for the commission, and rushed through the mayor’s slate and agenda instead. A range of other issues—including whether the city should move to an elected Board of Education—were unfairly excluded from debate, he said.

He suggested the board return after budget season to revisit the issue.

Melissa Bailey Photo His proposal drew an impassioned response from downtown Alderwoman Bitsie Clark (pictured).

“I happen to feel extremely strongly about the numbers of people on the board, and about the numbers of years,” Clark said.

She said in past years, the board has failed to tackle those issues because a myriad of other issues crowded the charter review process. This year, she was encouraged by a new plan: to seat a commission this year that would look at only those two issues; then perhaps convene another commission next year to look at further issues.

“I thought, great, we can really spend time talking about this,” Clark said. “I’m disappointed that we’re not going to do that.”

West River Alderman Yusuf Shah took offense at Goldson’s remarks.

“To say that somehow, somebody stacked the deck, or somebody is giving us stuff to just push through, is inappropriate, and I think it undermines our character as aldermen,” Shah said. He earned a rebuke from Goldfield for making personal comments about Goldson, and for loudly interrupting the board president when he was trying to calm things down.

Much of the debate focused on process. Did nominees get a fair shake? Did aldermen break the rules by approving a list of nominees without requiring them to appear in person at the meeting? Did the bill go before the right committee?

Melissa Bailey Photo Goldfield (pictured) got down from his presidential platform and walked to his Ward 29 chair to make a comment: He said there was “nothing illegal” about the way the nomination process was handled. The recommended commission members were not official mayoral nominees, so the process is different from that of other boards and commissions, he said.

Other debate focused on timing. Changes to the city charter must be approved by referendum at the ballot. Yale Alderman Mike Jones noted that the governor’s and U.S. Senate races this fall should bring high numbers to the polls in November, making it a good time for a referendum question. By stalling the process, aldermen would likely forsake the chance to get a question onto the ballot.

Jones joined a minority who sought to send the bill back to committee for further review instead of outright killing it. That effort failed by a 11 to 14 vote.

Around 9:45 p.m., aldermen finally got to vote on the substance of the bill. Should they establish a committee of those 15 people to tackle charter reform? With 14 clear dissenters, there was no way the bill could garner the 20 votes it needed. That freed aldermen to safely vote against the mayor’s agenda.

By the time the final vote came, a couple aldermen had left for the night. The mayor’s slate was officially killed by a vote of 20 to 5. (Voting yes: Alds. O’Sullivan-Best, K. Jones, Shah, Lehtonen, Goldfield. Not voting: Paca. Absent: Rhodeen, Bauer, Edwards, Morehead.)

Mayoral Chief of Staff Sean Matteson was asked if the city intends to make a second attempt to launch charter revision. He said he’d talk it over with aldermen.

“I think it deserves discussion,” he said.

Below are the 15 members of the slate which was being considered Monday night.

Porsche Collins
Sandra Trevino
Victor Fasano
Allan Brison
James Rawlings
Cherise Dykes
Jorge Perez
Arline DePino
William Ginsberg
James Segaloff
Larcina Carrington-Wynn
John Cirello
Victor Bolden
Willie Joe Moore
William Celentano

Comments

posted by: anon on April 20, 2010 10:50am

just for the record, the fact that the alternative solution to this option was to hold 2 charter commissions, one of the two issues and another later in the year/next year on more issues, still holds true. this can be restarted by aldermen at any time i believe.

posted by: Steve on April 20, 2010 10:58am

I like the fire that Alderman Goldson brings to the table every night!

We need Charter Reform and won’t get it by having the Mayor’s posse set it in place. Let’s see some “New Blood” at the table!

Bye Bye Johnnie- now on to the budget hearing, can’t wait!

Hooray Darnell!

posted by: streever on April 20, 2010 10:58am

Nice work Goldfield! The charter revision committee was choosen without even consulting the members of the public who had submitted their names without some close affiliation to City Hall.

I do think we need charter revision—and soon—but the top-down approach the mayor’s office has taken is the wrong one. The process of applying has to be open & transparent, and individuals who apply have to at least be CONSIDERED, not just ignored because the BoA has a list from DeStefano.

posted by: Bruce on April 20, 2010 11:12am

Nice work! While these ideas are important for the revision commission to consider, I find it incredible that the mayor’s office so openly attempts to force the hand of the board of aldermen. Let the legislative branch do the legislative work and the executive branch can then execute. Separation of powers is a critical component of checks and balances.

posted by: cedarhillresident on April 20, 2010 11:48am

Fantastic work!!!!!!! I am with Steve next….budget! It is nice to see THE PEOPLE finally being represented!!!!! By some!!!! Thank you to ALL the Alderman that did what was right!

dictatorship
a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

posted by: Jay on April 20, 2010 12:01pm

It seems like the board of alderman is falling into the same trap as congress- doing nothing because a vocal minority opposes whatever the administration suggests.
We should have four year terms and fewer alderman. Now nothing will happen .
Did Jorge Perez actually vote against his own appointment to the commission?

posted by: cedarhillresident on April 20, 2010 12:45pm

Jay
Not sure if you read the whole story? Did you read that almost everyone on the committee where picked by the mayor and that no other applicants where even considered??? The issue is transparency and accountability. and in order to have that you need independent people! Yes it has to wait. The point is, the control over all the different parts of our city government, HOW CAN YOU BE ACCOUNTABLE with people you gave the job to? This is a big step for New Haven. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME. The community representative REPRESENTED there community’s! THAT IS A BIG DEAL! They where using all the charter loop holes to push all of this through….saying this is legel..and it is…but is it moral!?

posted by: Anon on April 20, 2010 1:31pm

perez voted against himself on the commission? why was he even on there to begin with then?

who the heck is this goldson guy anyway? he gets elected then gets a trespassing summons, intros legislation that aims to cost millions of dollars in new taxes for just a few jobs above minimum wage, and now he votes down charter reform.

charter reform people! you know like we could have gotten a referendum on the city budget! thanks for nothing.

posted by: streever on April 20, 2010 1:33pm

Oops: While I like Goldfield, I meant, “nice work goldson”! Ahhh. Typos.

posted by: Cap on April 20, 2010 3:03pm

This sounds like a positive development aimed at giving any charter review commission more breath, views and balance to it so it is not just a puppet commission.

posted by: Threefifths on April 20, 2010 4:04pm

See this is the problem with the two party system. Look at how Goldson has to fight his own party.Again Goldson and other politicians under a system of proportional representation would have more power.

posted by: Facchec on April 20, 2010 4:58pm

Downtown Alderwoman Bitsie Clark said:

“I happen to feel extremely strongly about the numbers of people on the board, and about the numbers of years,”
She said “in past years, the board has failed to tackle those issues because a myriad of other issues crowded the charter review process”.

Wake up Clark and smell the stink.

The last time the Charter was considered was 2002, and then there were only eight issues being consider.. Six of them from the Mayor and two from aldermen. Both the Mayor and the aldermen were asking for four year terms. Needless to say the referendum was defeated.

The commission was then, as it is proposed now, skewed.

Again,the charter does not provide for the Mayor to make nominations to the commission, the charter gives that responsibility solely to the BOA.

Both Clark and Goldfield again reveal their true puppet nature.

The questions proposed this year ask:

Shrinking the Board of Aldermen and expanding term limits from two to four years for the mayor, city clerk and aldermen.

First, the charter has 128 section,the Mayor, Clark and goldfield feel that only two of those sections deserve consideration for change!

Of those two, extending the Mayor’s and aldermen terms undermines the intent of the charter itself.. Since its incorporation the city has had two year terms, what is the qualifier for a change causation now?

In as much as shirking the size of the BOA.. that is a worthy but untimely idea.. the commission should wait until 2011 when Census population numbers are known, and when federal, state and local districts are under redistricting..should such an attempt be even considered.

It could well be that redistricting will eliminate some alder- manic ward boundaries, as was the case in 2000, only to be gerrymandered by the same BOA to give each ward 4,000 residents and keep the 30 wards.

To do so in 2010… not-with-standing the state elections as Alderman Jones provides.. would be very intense, since new boundaries would have to be drawn and voted upon without a real population base to redistrict from.

Bad idea for these two questions alone… worst idea to change the charter now with these two questions involved.

Good move Goldson, glad to see the BOA stand up for once and show some aggies…!

posted by: Bill Saunders on April 20, 2010 5:28pm

Chalk up a big win to the Counterforce!!

Everyone should be doing their homework and speaking out using all-available processes/procedure available.

posted by: Charlie O'Keefe on April 20, 2010 8:38pm

Congratulations President Goldfield in allowing democracy to rule here in New Haven for a few short seconds. What I want to know will it now be possible to look at having an elected Board of Education. I don’t know if this is a good or a bad thing. The options must be investigated. Under DeStefano the city has spent billions and billions on new school buildings. Our kids continue to fail year after year. We continue to pay more and more taxes for nothing. Citizen oversight and responsibility can’t be any worse than the last 20 years.

posted by: NewHavenerToo on April 20, 2010 8:39pm

While Goldson just gets under my skin ,most of the time, I HAVE to give him kudos for standing up for what’s right.

DeStefano has been mayor for FAR TOO LONG. I think that not only just the term stay at 2 years but that mayors should not be able to stay in office for more than 2 terms. Otherwise, what’s been going on for ages will continue. The mayor gets comfortable in his chair, and places all his pets in whatever position he wants.

I wish the citizens of this city would just wake up and REALLY ask what’s going on?????

posted by: Doyens on April 21, 2010 7:29am

This mayor’s stacked charter “reform” effort was rightfully tanked. While I support Bitsie Clark’s desire for a needed and belated discussion of fewer alders, this limited, self-serving agenda and pre-loaded membership is a bad idea. Additionally, there are other portions of the charter that need to be probed. The BOA use of its power to reign in and rebuke the mayor doesn’t happen often, but it sure is refreshing when it does, especially when it benefits the public.

I hope they use the same sense of right and wrong on the current mayor’s current budget proposal that seeks to raise our property taxes by 11 to 24%, fully loaded. It’s as misguided as his charter plan.

posted by: beefair on April 23, 2010 11:25am

Kudos to Mr Goldson!! He’s doing what Gary Winfield is doing in Hartford, waking up career legislators reminding them that they are there to represent the people who put them in office even if means working on issues unpopular with the status quo. A bogus arrest was suppose to be a distraction. You know you’re doing a good job when you upset the status quo. Keep up the good work and maybe more of the alders will grow a spine and work to benefit All of New Haven.

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form