Thursday, March 12, 2009

City facing challenges - The New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com)


City facing challenges - The New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com)
Posted by Frank Smith at 12.3.09

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Senate Ethics Bill 339 launched by State Senator. Edward Meyer, (D), 12th District, would require 169 municipalities like New Britain to adopt codes of Ethics that are consistent with a number of state-mandated (?) provisions.

On 1/22/2009 the Meyer's State Ethics Senate Bill 339 was Referred to Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections.

And - Some time around November 2009 after the November elections the final draft of Ethics Bill No. 339 that affects 169 towns and cities will surface for a final vote with required number (?) of state-mandated provisions... and then the defendants - the town clerk, registrars of voters, selectmen and councilmen and the secretary of the state of CT will voice their concerns...Why?

...because in year 2010 the U.S. census surfaces and then the Connecticut Constitution (Article 3, 6) requires that the districts of the General Assembly be reapportioned decennial (Occurring every ten years)stemming from the actions of the 2010 census and federal constitutional principle of "one -man, one vote."

And the CT Constitution (Article 3, 5 ) requires that the establishment of voting districts meet federal constitutional standards in achieving reapportionment of the General Assembly with a minimum of population deviation (Case Law-164 Conn 8 dated October 17, 1972 CT Supreme Court).

March 12, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...

The fact that the city is in such sound financial condition while most other cities in Connecticut are fighting bankruptcy is a tribute to the sound management practices of Mayor Timothy Stewart.

To all those disciplles of Little Mac that are spreading their nonsense predicting that some yoyo like Catanzaro will actually defeat Mayor Stewart in the next election: When is the last time one of you Democrats received a standing ovation for anything?

Catanzaro has his own problems considering he publicly committed a violation for which the city charter mandates his removal from office.

March 12, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...

Alderman Catanzaro voting record at the regular NB Common Council public meetings and his sub-committees statements depicts his oral comments as being an anti- business New Britain alderman.

March 12, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...

Tax and spend Democrats are all anti-business. Their take from the rich give to the poor philosphy (socialism) has never worked anywhere in the world. To quote from Margaret Thatcher, "Sociaism never works because sooner or later the socialists run out of other people's money to spend."

March 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Anonymous said...

Senate Ethics Bill 339 launched by CT state Senator Edward Meyer (D) Representing Branford, Durham, Guilford, Killingworth, Madison & North Branford -12th District.

Senator Meyer's was elected to his second term as a Connecticut State Senator. After receiving both his Bachelor’s degree and a law degree from Yale University, in 1964 Senator Meyer was appointed by then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to a post as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Meyer stayed with the Justice Department until 1968, contributing to the department’s efforts by investigating and prosecuting organized crime.

His legal career well under way, in 1970 Senator Meyer was elected to the New York State Assembly, where he served for four years as the representative for his Westchester County district. While in the NY state legislature, Senator Meyer authored 48 bills that later became law.

Senator Meyer also served on the New York State Board of Regents for 23 years, where he was a strong proponent of higher education standards from the public education system at a time when crusading for such reforms was not a common position to hold.

Since moving to Guilford,CT Senator Meyer has served on the town’s Economic Development Commission. Senator Meyer was born in New York City and raised on Long Island. In addition to his studies at Yale, he also spent a year on scholarship at Cambridge University.

March 13, 2009 at 3:23 AM
Anonymous said...

June 12, 2008 Senator Meyer's Lauds Passage of Comprehensive Ethics Bill...but On 1/22/2009 the NEW Meyer's State Ethics Senate Bill 339 was again Referred to Meyer's Joint Committee on Government Administration and Elections.

But - After years of promise, debate and delay, state Senator Ed Meyer (D-Guilford), the vice-chairman of the General Assembly's Government Administration and Elections Committee, celebrated the passage of his comprehensive ethics bill on June 12, 2008 that he says will reinvigorate public trust in their elected officials and will hold government officials to higher ethical standards.

This is a good compromise, Senator Meyer said of the bill which passed the Senate around 1 a.m. today June 12, 2008. It gets to the integrity issue that has been dogging the State of Connecticut for years. It will go a long way toward restoring public faith in their government.

House Bill 6502, An Act Concerning Comprehensive Ethics Reforms, passed the House 124-13 before passing the Senate unanimously 33-0. The bill now heads to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has promised to sign it...but vetoing it.

This is why Mayor Stewart should veto the Phil Sherwood Ethics Bill.

March 13, 2009 at 3:55 AM
Anonymous said...

Mayor Stewart should veto the new and improved ethics amendments. Why did the democrats not require elected officials to state where they live? Somebody really live in a pool house in Kensington? hummmmmmm

March 13, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...

Phil sherwack ran senator meyers campaign in 2004. Anyone see a conflict here?

March 13, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Mayor Stewart should veto the new and improved ethics amendments. Why did the democrats not require elected officials to state where they live? Somebody really live in a pool house in Kensington? hummmmmmm

SOUNDS LIKE MORE UNTHETHICAL BEHAVIOR THAT THE ETHICS CZAR--PHONY PHIL MIGHT BE IGNORING FOR HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS.

March 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Anonymous said...

The New Britain Herald- Opinion:
Ethics code a must but 14 pages is a burden.

New Britain Alderman Phil Sherwood has proposed strengthening the city’s ethics code by adding to the ordinance on disclosure of financial interests, thereby providing information that would point to any potential conflict of interest.

The proposed amendment to Section 2-543 of the city code would require the mayor, common council members, department heads and certain other city officials to file statements of disclosure within 90 days of the ordinance’s taking effect, or within 30 days of taking office.

The statement, which Sherwood anticipates would be, at most, two pages, would require the disclosure of all property owned within the city, excluding a primary residence; the name of any employer from which the official, employee or spouse earns more than $10,000; the name of any business that had a contract with the city in the preceding calendar year for goods or services exceeding $5,000; and a certification that all required persons have read and understand the city’s code of ethics.

The amendment also would allow a fine of $10 for each day of violation, up to $5,000. Sherwood had two aims: First, he said, the amendment would allow the public access to what they need to know about their leaders.

Second, by making the ethics code stronger, the city might escape having a more onerous code foisted upon it by the state.

Currently under consideration, Senate Bill 339, proposed by state Sen. Edward Meyer, D, 12th District, would require municipalities to adopt codes of ethics that are consistent with a number of state-mandated provisions, although those have not yet been DELINEATED?

Sherwood anticipates that such a document could run to 14 pages.
A strong code of ethics is a must for any governing body. That said, it is increasingly hard to get good people to participate in public service for many reasons, including the high cost of running for office, the vicious partisanship in many legislative bodies and onerous disclosure laws. If Sherwood’s initiative can effectively protect the city’s need for disclosure and, at the same time, lighten the burden for public servants, then we support the idea.

March 13, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...

Today was day 53 of the new presidency. On day 53 of George W. Bush's presidency, he had a higher approval rating than Barrack Obama does today!

Maybe if Barrack Obama works hard at it, he can get his public approval rating to be as high as George W. Bush's?

March 14, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Anonymous said...

FORMER UNION OFFICIAL OPPOSES CARD CHECK!

The City Wire of Fort Smith, Arkansas, published a piece giving a former union leader space to announce that he opposes the elimination of the secret ballot that is the card check feature of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

His reasoning is spot on with why card check is a bad idea that will materially hurt American workers.

And then there is Neal Catlett, a former president of the union representing workers at Whirlpool’s Fort Smith plant who has more than 20 years of leadership experience in the local union.

Catlett, now retired from Whirlpool, opposes card check. He told The City Wire that he has seen plenty of “nonsense” among Whirlpool leaders and union leaders to know that anything other than a secret ballot will lead to intimidation, coercion and corruption on all sides.

“I strongly support secret ballots. Period. It doesn’t matter at what level, whether it is voting for a union or the president or your congressman,” Catlett said. “Your ideas should be personal as to if you want a union or don’t want a union.”

Catlett doesn’t argue with union leaders who say the current labor rules make it too tough and are tilted in the favor of business. But he says card check is the wrong way to create a more level playing field. And he also says unions use the same coercion and intimidation used by business owners.

“Doing away with the secret ballot is not good for the unions. It’s not good for any business. … Open voting creates an atmosphere of intimidation. It creates an atmosphere where people will use your opinion against you. I’ve seen the threats and I’ve actually seen the physical conflict, if you know what I mean, come from the business side and from the union side,” Catlett said. “I just don’t see how any process that is not private will protect the worker.”

Right from the mouth of a former union boss and right on. Union thugs will be unleashed by this bill. It needs to be torpedoed.

There’s still much work ahead to defeat this un-American and anti-democratic law.

March 14, 2009 at 12:50 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Web Tracking
Online Florist