Dems Double Down On 4‑Year Terms

Literally the most UNdemocratic thing you could do. These officials have no shame. 4 year terms would increase special elections and make it harder to get rid of bad alders. Vote NO on the ballot question.

20% of alders don't even show up, reported by the New Haven Independent on April 10. Do these alder deserve more than double the pay and a four year term? Vote NO on charter changes!

More than double the pay and four year terms, and let's present Hartford and Waterbury,as examples to emulate? Hahahahhahahahahha VOTE NO!

How surprising that the Democrat establishment is in favor of the Charter change.
Let's see what the people think of this strategy of combining changes for both Mayor and Alders in one up or down vote. This PR event indicates that the vote is in trouble.
Vote NO!

The lead photo from Tom Breen says it all. Looney with his head down. One Alder scratching his chin and Elicker looking dazed and confused with his hands up.

This is WRONG WRONG WRONG for New Haven.... Rather--- I'd like to see term limits in all offices.
VOTE NO ON CHARTER REVISION

Vote NO on charter reform. The New Haven Democratic party thinks you are so stupid that you wouldn't notice they lumped numerous proposed changes into one massive yes/no charter reform question.
The majority of alders are awful as far a representing their New Haven constituents. Do not give them more time to ignore you in favor of the Yale Union that controls them.

Elicker also lambasted Belowsky and petitioning Ward 25 alder challenger Dennis Serfilippi.

Instead of worrying about Serfilippi, Elicker should be spending his time looking for that $6 million he wired to the wrong people and searching for a Controller who lives in New Haven.

Get to work Justin!!!

Democrats run everything into the ground. It would be nice if we had a legitimate Republican to vote for.

I would support 4 year terms for Mayor and Town Clerk, but am against it for the Alders. Many are rarely opposed and do no campaigning anyway. They are not held accountable for absentism and often form alliance blocks with eachother that diminish independent thinking even if they disagree with each other on particular issue. I do also believe that all City elected officials and appointees should and must live in the City of New Haven and thereby have "skin in the game". There are many qualfied people who do live here. So I will be voting No on the charter changes. I think it is a cheap, undemocratic trick to bundle the whole thing together and more evidence of rigging the system, back room deals,and denying the average citizen the right to choose.

Spending less money on elections and getting less campaigning at my door? Sounds fine to me. Looking forward to what can be done in the city when our officials are not in a constant state of chasing votes.

Any major dude will tell you that four year terms are a royal scam.

How is this controversial?? Seems like a package of common-sense reforms aimed at modernizing our system. I’d much rather see the people we elect putting their efforts toward governing rather than wasting so much time and energy having to campaign every other year.

It is laughable that the opposition is positioning this as some kind of non-transparent (it went through a LONG public process and all the documents are fully public) power-grab when the 4 year terms don’t even go into effect until 2028, when many of the current electeds will be long gone! Let’s be honest, the GOP agenda has nothing to offer our city (nor anyone in this country outside of the CEOs of Amazon and Tesla), so they have to focus on spreading lies, hate, fear and disinformation in order to dissuade urban communities from voting Democrat. The personal attacks and cesspool of negativity by self-professed “leaders” who do zero work to actually govern or improve the city has gotten tiresome. No wonder so many voters are opting out!! It’s just a shame because low turnout impedes our city from getting all the funding and support it needs to operate effectively, which hurts us all. But the MAGA-dominated GOP puppets don’t care. They just want an excuse to turn around and blame government for everything under the sun, when THEY are the ones who worked to undermine and underfund it in the first place.

Fast forward a few years if this charter revision is approved:
Imagine an Alder who is thought to have perhaps abused their position and did not report a traffic incident as required. Currently there is a method called an election to approve or disapprove of the supposed conduct of that Alder. In the future that option would only occur every four years rather than the current two.

The U. S. House of Representatives is subject to election every two years in part to approve or disapprove of the actions of the current President. The way the proposed charter revision is set up the elections of the Mayor and Alders are concurrent meaning that there will be no election whatsoever in certain odd numbered years, except for a member of the Board of Education in one-half of the City.

This proposed charter revision might have worthwhile components but it is structured so that it is an all-or-nothing vote. Vote NO on the proposed revision.

I'm not going to lie. i get tired of it every 2 years. But it does keep them on their toes a little. unfortunately in New Haven we vote the same way. We just love the crime and the high taxes. Every alder is a democrat. People just see that D and just votes for it. How bad can it get if you vote for a republican. I know many people can't stand Trump but gas was low which causes everything else to be lower. Why not give a republican a try here. Maybe a republican mayor can let our police actually police. Maybe we can get control of our kids. We got nobody to blame but ourselves. Until we can get some people who actually care about our city in office than only 2 years.

Rosa you should be on a term limit with the rest of congress and the Senate. We are now going backwards locally.

Absolutely not. No! No! No! No! I am strongly voting in opposition to this proposal. This current administration and BOA hasn't done one thing to earn my trust... Let the working class have their money back. Stop taxing us and giving it all to yourselves. Stop giving our tax dollar to out-of-town mega-landlords. Put the money into our parks. Raise the sunken boat. Vote NO! Power to the people...

This particular Puppet Show is starting to look pretty threadbare!

The Republican Party is ​“not interested in governing in Washington, and is not particularly interested in an efficient government in New Haven,” Elicker charged. ​“We need to get the word out and educate voters about what is on the ballot.”

Modern Politics Strategy :
Plan A= Let the voters review the proposal/ candidate on their merit
If they dont bite,
Plan B= Convince the voters the 'other' party is against/for them

I am so disappointed to see Liam Brennan advocating for this after trying to paint himself as a candidate for change in the election.

I hope people will do their research before voting. 4 year mayoral terms would be fine, but 4 year alder terms are a no go for me and many others I know. Definitely voting no.

Why does the Failed Suburban Unite Here Machine want you to Vote Yes on the Charter Question?

The short answer is because it's a power grab. At least 57 people ran for local office this election cycle - the most in more than a decade. The current political machine wants to suppress the competition because its becoming increasingly clear what TWELVE YEARS of Unite Here control has given us:

Failed School System - Only 13% of students reading at grade level
Skeleton Police Force - 100 Officers Short
High Taxes - 30% Increase in 2 Years
Lower Quality of Life - Dirty Parks, Dirt Bikes, Noise Complaints

Vote NO on Charter Reform!!!

VOTE NO. If our leaders were interested in the voice of the people and transparency they wouldn't have bundled all of these changes together. They are relying on voter ignorance to get this past. Do we even have the full/final language of the Charter changes yet??

All of this distress about not letting a once in a decade opportunity pass by--that is not on voters but on the Alders who voted for bundling instead of transparency and choice. They knew some of these items were unpopular so they bound them all together. VOTE NO. Keep your voice.

No offense to those who serve on our local boards and commissions, but if there’s someone who actually wants to be on the parks commission for the rest of their life, shouldn’t we just let them?

They all look like fools, trying to tell people this is a good idea. All the changes bundled in a pretty little package to misinform the public about its contents. It's a NO vote across the board, it's not a Republican thing, it is an everybody thing. I have both Republicans and Democrats telling me VOTE NO! It is terrible that Justin did a huge campaign on voting yes. If he did his job, he wouldn't have to spend a year and a ton of money campaigning. He could campaign on his excellent record and the good things he has done for New Haven. Oops, he didn't do great things for our beautiful city, his record stinks. I don't understand why he is so into the Charter Revisions when he NEVER follows the rules of the charter. Interesting........... I would almost consider a yes to a 4-year-term for the mayor, but definitely NOT for the Board of Alders. So, in the end, it's a huge VOTE NO!!!!!

Vote No

ABSOLUTELY VOTE NO ON THE CHARTER QUESTION! WE DO NOT NEED LONGER TERMS! WE NEED TERM LIMITS-LOCAL AND NATIONAL!

I agree on some of the charter revisions , however I must vote No ! The revisions should be voted using individual line items votes . Pork barrel policies never give the total power to the voters . We are sick of the all or nothing mentality. I don’t believe that I am asking too much from our local politicians when I ask for a line item vote for each individual change in the charter.

Respectfully: Steven Ortiz

This charade of dem politicals is really lame. First of all, most of them have no idea of all the changes or why they're being promoted. But the most isidious part of this is the rampant dishonesty. This is not about four year terms for alders and Elicker. That's part of it but there are far more changes envisioned. It is laughable that this will make this city run better. What would make this city and state run better is a wholesale change in the cast of characters showing leg at this staged event. And the punch line is all the cities that have four year terms for mayor, not necessarily alders - are the worst run cities in Connecticut. They all have runaway property taxes, high crime and massive debt among many other issues including rampant corruption in some cases. We want to emulate Bridgeport? Waterbury? Hartford - which almost filed for bankruptcy until Malloy saddled every taxpayer in the state with Hartford's debt. Vote hell no.

Mayor Elicker's critique of my opposition to the charter was that "the Republicans are against it because they don't like governance."

Nevermind that my opposition is based on solid logic:

• 2-year Aldermanic terms improve accountability and competition when a significant number of Alders are sporadically present and we've had 4 special elections in the last year (most of which are uncontested and decided by a select few)
  
• Lumping the term length extensions for Alder and Mayor without giving the voters a chance to vote on either separately, with the stated reason of "making it easier for voters," and without ANY explanation on the actual ballot (it just says Yes or No) is not taking voters seriously and is mixing a bad (Aldermanic term length extensions) with a good (Mayoral term length extensions)
  
  Never mind that I have sound logic as to why I believe voters should vote NO on the charter revision. Mayor Elicker's only response is "Tom, you took the R, and Republicans are against the charter revision."
  
  Yes, I took the R. And yes, I took the I. And yes, I am a registered Democrat and have been so all my life. We need unifiers - not dividers. And certainly not leaders that insult the intelligence of the voters. Vote NO.

We gave the opposition an opportunity to talk to people and say ​‘no’ on the charter question,” Walker-Myers said. ​“Now what we’re going to do is we’re going to get out there and tell everybody to vote Row A, and we’re going to challenge people on their ​‘no’ on the charter question.”Furlow said that four-year terms and the other charter revision proposals will ​“cause our government to flow better” and will bring the city’s constitution ​“into the 21st century.”

Negro and Latino politicians are nothing more than butlers and maids for white control democratic party here in Connecticut.

There are Negro politicians who would like to use their Negro people for selfish greed and will throw them behind any crook with money. Negro politicians of this type have sold their Negro brothers to suffering and shame for self elevation with the crook.
Elijah Muhammad

These Negroes do not want liberation.They're trying to crawl back on the plantation.
Malcolm X
Just look at who are in the pictures.The Dinosaur Career politicians who have built powerful political machines able to overpower most opposition. After all, blocks of votes are regularly purchased for the price of political favors,And when it comes to the Negro votes All you have to do is Pacify them with hot dogs and hamburgers and let them do the Wobble and teach the mayor like Roland Martin show Hillary Clinton and you got there vote.

Hillary Clinton and Roland Martin doing The Wobble

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eifbPhPw__w

How come they did not put in the charter Election Recall and Term Limits?

Regrettably, I too need to vote no on the charter revision. I’m a reliable democrat voter supporting Mayor Elicker and my alder. I even support most of the proposed charter changes - except for four year terms for alders. New Haven would do well to mirror our federal election structure: four year executive terms (President/mayor) and two year legislative terms (House/alders).

The only way to vote no on one change to the charter is to vote no on every proposed change. If the charter revision fails to pass and takes another 20 years to revisit as our leaders state, it will be because they chose to bundle all charter changes together rather than give voters the opportunity to express our views on each proposal.

The words we all fear, "we're from the government and we're here to help you"?

This is a shameful, transparent power grab. Vote NO!

They want longer terms because they know their days are numbered after the fiasco we see in DC! VOTE NO ON THE BALLOT QUESTION! They expect you to vote on something that you don’t even know what you’re voting for unless you do your own research because they’re not going to tell you! The only reason it’s coming out now is because of all the commotion caused by this ridiculous question! We don’t need people appointed to heads of departments for a lifetime. This isn’t the supreme court! Even there, there should be term limits and not be like Diane Feinstein and die in your seat. That was a very sad situation and her family should be ashamed of themselves for letting her linger like that for so long instead of making her retire. I bet they’re all fighting over millions! Maybe that was their objective in the first place! Sad.

I am with you, Beaver Hills. Liam, I was your #1 fan...No more disappointments, please. Anyone have any more VOTE NO signs??

Vote "NO" please. there is so much here that you can not see just a vague glimpse and that is always a big down hill slippery slope. This is a con game by the pols for sure and guess what you're the victim as we all will be.
Vote "NO" please even if you vote for nothing else on the ballot its that important!

It is very disappointing to see Mayor Elicker, whom I have supported enthusiastically in the past, make specious arguments that:

a) Opposition to the pending ballot question is a Republican bad-government effort, when in fact I, and people I know who oppose the question, are life-long Democrats, and will remain so;

b) Other governments use a model of having all four-year terms for mayors, while he in fact omits saying that the norm for legislators, at local, state, and federal levels, are for two-year terms, not four;

and c) that this is a once-in-a-(20-year)-generation chance to pass the parts of the ballot proposal that are desirable, when in fact the city is required to form a charter revision commission at least every ten years -- and, as commenter robn has pointed out in these columns, the language of the charter allows the city to form a charter revision commission any time it wants to -- it does not have to wait even ten years.

I realize that when politicians sign up to be politicians, part of the job requirement is to support the party line regardless -- but the sight and spectacle of all those Dems (Liam Brennan is also particularly disappointing) lined up to spout support for a ballot proposal that is deliberately opaque in its language, and that requires an all-or-nothing decision from voters rather than allowing them to decide on ideas individually, is, to this life-long Dem, a huge embarrassment.

Lumping all the issues under one ballot question is unacceptable and insulting to the voters.
If the proposals had all been listed separately, then some of them would have passed.
But as it is all lumped together, nobody can in good conscience can vote yes on this ballot question.
The mayor and the alders should put forth these proposals separately and let the voters decide on each individual issues merits.
As others have noted in comments on the changes to the charter, you don’t have to wait to do this.

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE CHARTER REVISION REFERENDUM:

POL 101 - How is the Charter Revision a Power Grab?

It's a power grab because the Charter Revision would extend Alder terms from 2 to 4 years, but already many Alders don't complete the 2 year term, let alone 4 years. That's significant because when an Alder decides to call it quits mid-term, they don't FIRST notify their constituents. Instead they reach out to their powerful (and anonymous) Ward Committee. The Ward Committee then finds someone friendly to the cause who wants to take over the Alder Seat, and the Ward Committee sets the groundwork to anoint the "New" Alder. The Ward Committee makes phone calls and provides support to the "New" Alder. Only AFTER the "New" Alder has been anointed by the Ward Committee and has prepared for a campaign, does the existing Alder make a public announcement which then triggers a special election within 45 DAYS. By this time the "New" Alder has already gathered support from the Ward Committee, prepared literature, and has been quietly campaigning; in other words the "New" Alder already has a very large head start. Meanwhile, anyone else who wants to run, but is NOT connected to the Ward Committee (i.e. the machine), will need to move very quickly. They'll have only 45 days to decide to run, get on the ballot, prepare literature, and of course START campaigning. In essence, it's not much of an "election" at all.

And it gets worse - the above is the process IF an Alder quits in the first 18 months of a term. If the Alder quits with less than 6 months left in a term, then the Mayor, not the voters, chooses the next Alder.

Continued...
Those national leaders in 1791 entrusted the state leaders and the people they represented to be smart enough, sophisticated enough to vote on 12 separate changes to the National Charter, rather than vote on one omnibus bill which incorporated ALL 12 PROPOSED CHARTER Father's! THEY thought it wise and democratic to let the people make choices from a varied list of proposed changes.
Democracy prevailed. The majority voted for 10 of the 12 amendments.
Learn the lessons of history, and follow the wise precedents of our Founding Fathers!
Our leaders would be smart to emulate people like Georger Washington, James Madison, ALEXANDER (not Wendy) Hamilton, and the man who became New Haven's 1st mayor who was one of the framers of the Constitution, Roger Sherman!
The voice of We, the People, should always be heard in any Democracy.
That is our legacy. It should never be forfeited!

I will never vote "Yes" for something I agree with if it means also voting "Yes" for something with which I do not.

I was a member of the Charter Review Committee 20 years ago. I was against Four-year terms for Alders then; I am against it now.

I am also ashamed of a government that attempts to force my vote and disrespects my intelligence. The Charter revision suggests several (if not many) changes. The fact that we don't get to vote separately on each suggestion is the least democratic thing this so-called push for a better democracy can do.

The Rev. Samuel T. Ross-Lee

I'll vote "No" because "HELL NO" won't be on the ballot!

The revisions should be voted using individual line items votes, instead, the Yale unions-led Board of Alders who also control Elicker insisted differently. Now, he’s stuck with on the wrong side of the ballot, hence the last ditch PR stunt.

The 2013 Charter Revision Committee had 15 members, 3 alders & 12 resident 'others'. When the revisions went to then BOA (not yet Unite Here majority) for approval, they voted NOT to advance the 4yr term proposal for Alders because 'longer terms are less democratic & reduce voter driven accountability'. In the 2013 election, the 2 charter revision proposals were listed separately on the ballot. Alders were 'trying to avoid what happened 10 years ago' when all proposed charter questions were folded into one ballot question & a couple of controversial proposals scuttled the whole thing.

Fast forward to 2023. Appointment of the Charter Revision Committee was given tot he Board of Alders - NOW mostly UNITE HERE members. This committee has only 8 members, including City Clerk, 2 Alders and former city dept head ... so half were somewhat connected to the city! Alders gave them a list of 10 considerations whey they reviewed & sent back to Alders who voted to fold them into ONE QUESTION on the November ballot: "Shall Charter changes ... be approved and adopted?" with no mention of the changes, but happens to include extending Alder terms from 2 to 4 years. The BOA decided NOT to list the 10 proposed resolutions individually on the ballot. Their reason for listing only the one: 'to simplify it for the voters'! In 2022 NH Independent did a poll: 'Should NH elected officials serve 4 years instead of 2?' The 38.54% majority voted "NO". Where are the people who are supposed to be going to the community to provide residents info on the Charter revision items? The election is in 5 days. Are Alders who are running unopposed knocking on doors!!!

Vote NO on the Charter Revision. And per the Charter, we DON'T have to wait another 10 years to make changes. The City is required to REVIEW the Charter 'at least every 10 years' (Art. 14, Sec 1 of the Charter), so the BOA can appoint a Charter Revision Committee sooner than 2033 if either it or the people deemed it necessary.

Best reasons to vote no.

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/charter_oped_2

What happened to the Justin Elicker who ran as independent in 2019 against the Democratic machine on a principled platform promoting integrity and transparency in city government, who promised to represent all the residents of New Haven, and whom I voted for twice? Does it not seem like now he "is" the machine, who after disappointing failures to implement several of his progressive policies, is pandering to entrenched alder leadership and campaigned in the primary using the same language former Mayor Tony Harp had used that he so effectively campaigned against, "...only an experienced individual can lead this city," when he, himself was elected as a novice... simply because it appears now all he cares about is getting re-elected? Further, what's with the all his recently hateful rhetoric and divisiveness? Did he forget his promise to represent "all residents of New Haven?" Why does he have to criticize and/or castigate anyone who disagrees with him, much less questions him? What happened to his civility? Does his recent looseness with the truth, diversion away from transparency, defensiveness and hateful rhetoric remind you of someone else in modern politics? Think looks the color of a favorite Halloween item. It's sad, so very sad and it appears the words of Lord Acton apply here, "All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."