New Haven Independent

posted by: intolerable on July 16, 2010  10:08am

Let me get this straight - Hauser, as President and CEO of a business, had her business declare bankruptcy last year to avoid paying her bills.  Then her husband declared bankruptcy to avoid paying their bills, then they stopped paying their mortgage, went into foreclosure proceedings for the past 9 months to avoid paying their bills, all the while Hauser is contributing $25k to her campaign????????

How much higher are our interests rates because of [her] actions????

Deb, this is embarrassing.

posted by: one more thing.... on July 16, 2010  10:11am

This woman is so out of touch with her district that it is a little embarrassing.  But she will clearly win because she is going to vastly outspend Lemar (if she has put in $25k of her own money already, just imagine what she will do in the last few weeks!)

posted by: Have to do it, its too easy - on July 16, 2010  10:17am

The title of this article should be

“No money for mortgage or family credit card bills, but plenty cash for campaign!”

This is exactly who we need in Hartford, right?

posted by: streever on July 16, 2010  10:18am

“She said she came into the race at a disadvantage compared to Lemar, because Lemar “has the Democratic machine behind him.” That means he can draw from networks of volunteers that are unavailable to her, Hauser said.”

Absolutely wrong. I don’t wish to out anyone else as a “non-supporter” of the local machine, but as an outspoken critic of the marriage of the DTC & City Hall I have put a lot of time and effort into Roland’s campaign purely because I believe he will do the best job.

As Gary Holder-Winfield and many other local politicians have proved, having energetic and dedicated volunteers is the best way to win these races, not meaningless DTC endorsements. Does anyone really think that people vote based on DTC endorsement?

Hauser can claim anything she likes, but it doesn’t make it a fact. The people I see volunteering every week have little to no connection to the DTC, and many of them absolutely detest the way that local politics are run in New Haven.

What Hauser is not considering in her portrayal is that if we create a system where candidates pour personal money into campaigns (did you know that her contribution is almost identical to the annual salary for the position?) then we create a system which locks the less privileged out.

I’m glad that Hauser has the resources available for her campaign, but not glad that she’s willing to up the ante for everyone else. If we take State Rep and put it on a pedestal outside of the reach of ordinary citizens, then we are saying we only want the very wealthy to represent us.

Not being from Hauser’s socio-economic class, I do not wish to see State Representative turned into a money race. I see her excessive personal spending as equivalent to an Alderman spending 10k on their campaign.

Do we really want the candidate with the most money to represent us? Is that the way that a very small election should be won?

posted by: JennyM on July 16, 2010  11:10am

Wow. The fact that she almost had her house foreclosed due to the economic downfall shows that she is a struggling citizen just like the rest of us. She has first-hand experience in owning a small business. She can relate to many of us who also own small businesses and how the economy affects us all.  By using her own money and not that of the taxpayers demonstrates her true passion and commitment to the campaign. Instead of using thousands of taxpayers dollars to her campaign our taxpaying money can go to other more important projects such as fixing the roads and getting more police officers to protect and make our community a safer place. Lemar has had an advantage from the beginning can’t we just take a second to stop and look at the real issues at hand and not on how much everyone is spending?

posted by: nik on July 16, 2010  11:15am

i find it funny how people think that money is the ultimate issue at hand. People it’s not the money it’s the issues. She wants to get her point across using her moeny while he wants to get the point across in using our taxpaying money. You need to look at what they stand for.
Sometimes i wonder why I even bother reading all this junk.

posted by: Lemar Volunteer on July 16, 2010  11:19am

“Networks of volunteers?” What networks? I certainly haven’t seen anyone from the DTC or any of the mayor’s people working for Roland. No, the people volunteering know Roland and appreciate the work he has done on the Board. We know that he will be an incredible representative in Hartford. That’s why we volunteer - not because the mayor pays us under the table or whatever.

posted by: robn on July 16, 2010  11:24am

The real question is, why is the Democratic Town Council dissing a sitting alderman who is a good candidate by supporting someone who hasn’t held office? Who is behind this and why? Nothing wrong with people running against Roland but why such an asymmetrical expenditure to defeat him?

posted by: Fed up with New Haven political BS on July 16, 2010  11:32am

1.Debra put 15k into her campaign, not 25.
2.if she had taken CITIZEN’S election program money, it would have been cut so that Lemar would have won easily by getting party money.  Moreover, CEP is an awful program. It uses taxpayer money to fund elections…This must be unconstitutional.  I understand that the money for CEP does not come directly from taxes, but regardless, it is government money. Government money is largely from taxes, therefore it does not matter where this particular bit of money came from, it should be spent on things that taxpayers directly benefit from. Not on politicians’ friends’ campaigns.  Lemar’s characterization of CEP as a “clean elections program” is a boldfaced lie.  He is engaging in public doublethink on a massive scale.
3.People need to stop harping on her financial issues. She started a business, the economy was too weak to support it.  She is not in debt, and she has worked out with the bank how to pay all that she owes.  If her finances are good enough for the bank, they should be good enough for you. She has not demonstrated in any way an inability to handle her own money, only an idealism that manifested itself at an inopportune time.
4.Lemar and Hauser are not in the same boat financially. Lemar has NH Government money, and therefore has no need to spend his own. If Debra did not spend her own money, she would be unable to run a campaign.  She should not need to apologize for running a competitive campaign.
5.Debra will not be eating a 25,000 dollar loss on this campaign. She has begun fundraising more aggressively, and by the end of July, I’ll wager her New Haven and Hamden contributions outweigh the contributions of her Woodbridge friends by a substantial margin.
6.The attack strategies of the Lemar campaign are atrocious.  They are charging her of running a dirty campaign because she has friends that do not live in New Haven, [...]. 
7.It is common knowledge amongst those that are directly involved in New Haven politics that Lemar ... will tell you what you want to hear, but that has no bearing on his actions.  His record speaks for itself.  This is a quote from the New Haven Register:

“The aldermen who voted for a budget that gave the schools a zero percent increase should reconsider their contradictory support for the union. Whose side are they on, the taxpayers’ or the union’s? Ironically, two of them, Roland Lemar and Justin Eliker, introduced a budget amendment that cut $1.5 million from school custodial services.” (http://newhavenregister.com/articles/2010/06/29/opinion/doc4c29d59d14c11752152028.txt)

  Wait…Doesn’t Lemar’s website say that supporting public schools is one of his core platforms? Why on earth would he vote for a zero percent increase in the school’s budgets?  Is he cutting union funding or supporting unions? I don’t disagree that the custodial services need reforming, but come on…don’t we have enough hypocrites in politics? Can’t we have some substantive debates on the issues and politicians’ records?  Consider New Haven’s golden boy’s record and tell me, upon inspection, doesn’t that faux finish begin to tarnish?

One more thing:
Q: “I don’t know how [Hauser] is able to do that,” he said. “I’m still paying off my student loans.”
A: She can do that because she has invested an enormous amount into her own education, as has her husband. Both have impressive educations and career records.  The way that our economy works is that it compensates people based on their skills, and the relative scarcity of those skills.  Debra and her husband are talented practitioners and have earned the funds to pay for this campaign, their home, and even eat the losses from their business, through hard work and dedication.  The only losses they have incurred have resulted from an admirable attitude towards philanthropy.  Serve the polis as best you can, offer them your service in any area that they might use it, and if it costs you personally, well…no good deed goes unpunished.

posted by: Observer on July 16, 2010  11:36am

Jenny, I don’t know what planet you spend most of your time on, but “struggling citizens” don’t have $25,000 to put towards their own campaigns.

Her foreclosure was strategic, and she tied up the bank for almost a year (forcing them to incur costs that they’ll pass along to everyone else) while she was sitting on thousands of dollars just because she didn’t want to pay what she owed. This lady is a piece of work.

posted by: Not struggling on July 16, 2010  11:47am

JennyM

She was never struggling.  She made a strategic decision to withhold mortgage payments in order to settle with the bank.  “intolerable” got it right.  The avoided paying their bills.  They didn’t struggle to pay their bills.  I struggle to pay my bills.  That’s why my house ISN’T in foreclosure.  The chose not to pay their bills, while they spent money on other things like this campaign, in order to gain a strategic position vis a vis the bank and settle their debt for less than they owed.

Sure she ran her own business . . . into the ground.  It’ll be on you when she does it again in Hartford.

posted by: Ward 9er for life on July 16, 2010  12:00pm

Hauser’s situation is no less than ridiculous. I find it incredibly insulting that her camp continues to spin her foreclosure as some sort of experience that connects her to voters. If my house were being foreclosed upon, my first priority would not be running for elected office, but how to keep my family off the streets. If my house were being foreclosed on, I certainly would not have the resources to dump $25,000 into a campaign. The right thing to do would be to put it towards paying my mortgage to keep my family off the streets. What this really shows is the difference between the rich and poor. Hauser does not worry about seeing her family on the streets because her foreclose is just a leveraged deal to decrease her debt, there is no real threat she will lose her home. This is in no way a shared experience with the average citizen who faces this crisis. 

It is interesting to note that Hauser is one of just a handful of Democrats involved in primaries who is not taking advantage of the “Clean” elections program (As it is referred to by many candidates). It is an innovative and cutting edge program that has the chance to reshape Connecticut politics and return power back to the people of our communities. Hauser is shortsighted on this issue as her ego blinds her to enormous benefit of this program to the people she seeks to represents. Lemar has a true vision for Connecticut and I am happy to support him on August 10th.

posted by: sjbj on July 16, 2010  12:05pm

Irresponsible spending IS an issue. These days , it might even be THE issue. So, I’m very concerned about a candidate who spends $ to get herself elected, rather than paying her bills. That’s no way to run your personal finances. And not the type of person I want making decisions about state finances.

posted by: Anonymous on July 16, 2010  12:07pm

I love how all the Lemar volunteers directly attack Debra, yet all of Debra supporters are ignoring it and just saying look at the issues. It makes me wonder.. . .

posted by: JennyM on July 16, 2010  12:38pm

Debra’s house was foreclosed after her business failed.  However, she managed to work out a deal with the bank allowing her to keep her house under circumstances that would have sunk most families.  This indicates, if nothing else, her resilience and her aptitude in navigating financial matters, which is what we need in Hartford. We don’t need someone who is voting on a budget amendment that cuts $1.5 million from school custodial services. We need someone who would somehow make it work and who doesn’t just cut the costs.  And your right she is a piece work.. that we should all learn from including you!

posted by: Observer on July 16, 2010  12:39pm

She did put 25k into her own campaign; she wrote herself a $15,000 check and then spent an additional 10k for which she did not seek to be reimbursed. Check the report before you put out incorrect information.

And if you and Ms. Hauser both have so much hatred for the clean elections program, then say so! But don’t pay lip service to the idea of it, then go out of your way to evade its requirements and avoid every principle for which it stands. THAT’s political double talk.

And you’re right, she wouldn’t have been able to run a campaign had she participated because she would not have been able to raise donations from 150 residents of Hamden and New Haven. Lemar had 190 residents give to his campaign (As of early May), and Ms. Hauser still has only 34.

Maybe she wouldn’t have to spend so much if she wasn’t spending thousands of dollars paying high priced consultants to write her policy positions.

And you’re citing editorials from the New Haven register for your argument against Roland? Really? That has to be the worst editorial page in Connecticut. ... Stop hating on Lemar, man. The Ed stuff has been explained. Move on.

This is about some rich lady from Woodbridge who’s spent this entire campaign speaking out of both sides of her mouth. She calls herself an outsider even though she’s chair of the Mayor’s PAC that’s under investigation, she’s been a bundler for several campaigns, and she used to be a ward co-chair (until she lost that, too). She runs against the “Democratic machine” while she locks up the “Democratic machine” in Hamden, or what’s left it, by playing inside baseball at State Central. She claims to support the CEP, yet pours in 25k of her own money, raises virtually none from the people who she wants to represent, and shifts around her spending to avoid CEP reporting requirements.

This lady represents everything that’s wrong with politics…the last thing that Hartford needs is another double-talking misinformed legislator. She’s a joke.

posted by: This is getting ugly on July 16, 2010  1:24pm

This crap is the reason that I moved out of New Haven. Neighbors pitted against one another…nasty campaigns…a corrupt entrenched city political machine…crappy schools…high taxes…thank God neither of these clowns will be representing my district.

posted by: Anika Singh Lemar on July 16, 2010  1:30pm

@ Anonymous:

My husband has been taking a public stand on issues for years.  He continues to take a public stand on issues now.  To suggest that his campaign isn’t about the issues is nothing short of ridiculous.  He doesn’t have the luxury of paying someone to write his policy pieces (they’re written “in-house,” so to speak, by Roland himself, typically at our dining room table) so you can rest assured that his website and campaign literature reflect what he actually thinks, rather than what paid operatives tell him to think.

Visit http://www.rolandlemar.com and click on “News” and “Issues” or just call our house or his cell phone and ask what he thinks about the issues you care about, something many of his constituents in the 9th Ward (and often times other wards) have been doing for the last four years: (203) 903-5003

posted by: FlexYrHead on July 16, 2010  2:01pm

Lemar must be pretty worried about his position in the race and the efficiency of his “volunteers” if he needs to conduct a smear campaign. His actions seems to say so.
It reeks of the old school corrupt Ct politics when character assassination has priority over the issues themselves.

posted by: streever on July 16, 2010  2:08pm

Interesting spin when people say that Lemar is ripping people off by participating in the citizen’s election program.

Hauser strongly supports the program and according to her would have used it but was worried that it wouldn’t be available.

If your candidate firmly endorses the program, how can you criticize Lemar for using it? He simply had more faith that it would not be ended before the election. Hauser by her own admission supports it and would have used it if not for the current challenge to it in the courts.

posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS on July 16, 2010  2:23pm

Roland and Deb,

Would you care to describe your position on a “Money-Follows-the-Child” bill for education funding? 

As background, Connecticut spends $200 million a year paying local school districts for students who have long ago left their tradtional school for a charter school or a magnet school.  I’m not kidding.  The state pays the charter schools for the students that they serve and it pays the magnet schools for students that they serve but we also pay the districts $200 million a year in aggregate for these same students who left the district!

Please state your position on whether you would continue this fiscal policy or whether you would back a bill aimed at stopping this waste.

Money-Follows-the-Child would require that when a student transfers from one school to another that the funding goes with them.  The funding would be based on the needs of the child.  For instance, a student designated with special ed. needs would receive more state funding than a student without special needs.  The money would follow the student and we would not engage in double-funding. 

Both of you place education near the top of the priority list.  Here is a real specific topic that could be a differentiator for voters.

posted by: robn on July 16, 2010  4:56pm

FTS,

You should rename the “Money-Follows-the-Child” proposal as the “Abandon the Disadvantaged Children” proposal, because thats exactly what it does.

posted by: Doyens on July 16, 2010  7:08pm

This is an interesting side story, self funding your campaign or taking it from struggling taxpayers. There is absolutely no evidence one vs. the other will result in better politics or better representation.

I am concerned about the real issues confronting Connecticut and quite frankly, there has been far too little honest conversation about them. I heard talk of promising bond funds for a waterfront when bond funds are drying up and the state’s credit rating is on life support. I heard talk of an earned income tax credit for people who pay no income taxes but not a word on how to pay for it. The biggest crisis facing the state is its finances with a $3.4 billion deficit next year. And the answer is???? More PILOT dollars - really? From where? What about the money following the child? Right now, the state is paying the New Haven BOE for phantom students and paying the charter schools for the real work.

Taking a stand on “issues for years” doesn’t mean anything. It’s what a candidate has actually done that matters and voters should look closely at that, particularly when it comes to matters of tax policy. Kind of snarky attack by the way - Lemar working away at the dining room table writing position papers vs. “paying somebody else to write…” Does it matter and how do we know any of that’s true?

posted by: Please Explain on July 17, 2010  8:07am

robn,

I’ve never heard of “Money-Follows-the-Child” until FTS posed the question.  It sounds like an interesting idea that would make individual schools and the school system, as a whole, more accountable.

Why does it “Abandon the Disadvantaged Children”?

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on July 17, 2010  2:49pm

Wait, what?  She spent $25,000 of her own money while trying to stave of a foreclosure proceeding, in which she has paid nothing for more than a year?

A foreclosure is a legal proceeding, and by claiming that she cannot pay for her house, but then paying this ridiculously large sum for herself, she is committing fraud.

You cannot claim poverty, not pay your mortgage, and then find $25,000 in personal finances, without consequences.

I hope the bank and lawyers who are working to foreclose against her get ahold of this information.  It’s people who cheat the system like this that raise the bank interest points and house property taxes for the rest of us.

If she cannot do the right thing for its own sake, she should do it do lessen the embarrassment she has brought to her family, friends, and neighbors.

posted by: robn on July 18, 2010  2:22pm

PLEASE EXPLAIN,

The whole point of public school system is so that every child gets a chance at a good education. Taking money out of the public school system for charter schools is the epitome of white flight and self-motivated privatization. I’m not saying that the New Haven Public School System is performing as well as it should, but abandoning it, is not “FIXing” it.

posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS on July 19, 2010  9:53am

ROBN,

How you equate improving educational outcomes with abandoning disadvantaged children stretches logic to the breaking point.

What has been going on for 40 years, ROBN?  When and where has the system improved the lot of ANY groups of disadvantaged children?  What exactly are you trying to preserve?  3 out of 4 disadvantaged children graduate from school without learning how to read and write at a minimal level!  Seriously, what in the world are you talking about?

We have tried to “fix” the current education model for DECADES!  How long are you prepared to keep patching this sinking ship?  Do you know that if your child has a crappy teacher for two or three consecutive years - GAME OVER?  There are schools that have less than 10% of students at goal in any academic starnd.  Is that where you would want to send your child? 

And still you want to keep investing our collective energy and dollars into a system built around the needs of adults that has failed to produce success in your whole lifetime?

Up until last year there have been no improvements in outcomes in New Haven in DECADES.  And even now after the reform hoopla, the pace of change will be too slow. In those 30 years, at least 3 or 4 generations have been sentenced to lives of poverty because they were never taught how to read or write - all in the name of “PUBLIC education”. 

But since the rise of public charter schools, the fact that educating all children is possible has slowly begun to seep into the public conciousness.  Now you see efforts like New Haven’s reform initiative that never would have occurred until charter schools proved what was possible.

This is the power of competition.  Competition is good and necessary in any high quality systemic endeavor.

Also why do you say “abandon”?  Are not charter school students public school students? Do they pay tuition? No. Do they have to pass a test to be admitted? No.  They are the same children who attend any other public school.  The difference is that they are now receiving the opportunity to make something of themselves.

The current monopoly on k-12 education has been THE most destructive force for our long term economic and social health in the U.S. over the years.  Thank goodness the wall is finally beginning to crack.  But we have a very long way to go.

Money-Follows-the-Child (MFTC) will accelerate the pace of positive change because it will allow parents and guardians the opportunity to vote with their feet and it will provide more quality choices.  Great schools like Gina Well’s or Ilene Tracy’s schools will be able to expand their successful programs as parents will demand that their children have access to these schools - and will bring their funding with them.  The expansion of good schools will be financed through the closure of perennial drop-out factories and under-performing schools because no one will want to go there and they will receive funding and be forced to close their doors.

ESL and Special Ed. students will be assigned a higher level of money because it does require more time and effort to educate them.  The premium funding for special needs populations will encourage schools to seek out the hardest-to-educate and the disadvantaged. It will encourage the BEST teachers to take on the toughest assignments.

I don’t understand your logic whatsoever - but I do grant you, ROBN, that the law could be called something like “De-Fund the Harmful School” law.

posted by: streever on July 19, 2010  11:31am

I think charter schools are great, but realistically, what’s the number one difference between public school and charter attendance in NH? That’s right… self-selection.

Of course Charters perform better. They are inhabited by young people who want to do better.

Simply taking money from public schools & pouring them into charters is not going to improve overall performance in any meaningful way.

Funny, Fix, most people I know involved in Charter Schools don’t pretend that they have some monopoly on proper teaching methods. Everything I know about charters comes directly from administrators, teachers, and employees of the charters, who all have pointed out to me that when you have the best & brightest LEAVING public for Charters, Charters will APPEAR to be vastly improving while Publics will APPEAR to be getting worse.

It’s a shell game.

With that said, there are many charter schools which do have better policies and practices and teachers, and New Haven’s charter schools are exceptional.

posted by: robn on July 19, 2010  1:27pm

STREEVER,

Well said.

FIX,

Ditto on the shell game….you’re selling a mirage.

I don’t currently have a lot of faith in the NHPS administration but the thought of privatizing education frightens me more than trying to fix the public school system. The biggest corporations in the world (Exxon, BP) have shown themselves to be destructively profitable and I expect no less of private education providers if they industrialize education.

Public schools in America shrank illiteracy from 20% in 1870 to 3% in 1940 and thats a long history of validation no matter how much you claim stagnation since then (conveniently leaving out a whole bunch of social factors).

Fact is, FIX, you don’t want to fix the schools. You just want a relief valve so that motivated parents can get their motivated kids into a school with motivated kids of other motivated parents….and theres nothing wrong with that unless one considers it a drain on the remaining public system.

Thus the abandonment.

posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS on July 19, 2010  9:06pm

Streever - I am honestly not following you. 

But I did understand you to say “at the expense” of public schools.  Streever, we spend $200 million dollars paying district schools for children who are no longer enrolled there.  Why would anyone support that?

posted by: streever on July 20, 2010  9:53am

You aren’t following me because the NHI removed most of my comment.

I told you that I wasn’t going to have the discussion if you were going to take my points, change them, and re-write them inaccurately.

In response the NHI removed everything of substance & basically posted a comment that doesn’t reflect my points or what I think. Please delete the previous comment.

As I’ve asked before, if you are going to let someone else basically re-write my point of view incorrectly & put words in my mouth, either put my reply in full or simply delete it.

Do not put up a butchered, fragmented, nonsensical reply or I simply won’t comment here.