PZC wants right to fine

There was a Letter to the Editor in Sunday’s Record Journal - Fines by PAUL A. ORLANDO JR., WALLINGFORD and I have it posted on my blog at http://bit.ly/41z0eX and it was a follow up from the PZC wants right to fine story from Tuesday which I posted at http://bit.ly/4CQg6W

In the letter the writer brings up a few good points.

I cannot comment on the point of view that “Linda Bush may be the type of person that goes after people” but I know all too well that unless you enforce an ordinance to all violators and there is a way to verify that, there will always be some level of inequity.

How do you know that violator “A” who had received a $100.00 fine paid it? Maybe it was dismissed or some other resolution was had.

How do you know if violator “B” was ever charged? Their sign may have been out for days after everyone else brought theirs in.

How do we know that someone doesn’t have it in for violator “C” and is effectively harassing them with the enforcement of the ordinance. I realize you can say in this situation that the violator should be adhering to the ordinance but there are many other violators that would be given a break.

In consideration of the above too – look at all the people who never clear their snow covered walks the regulated width if at all in the winter; are we going to go gang busters on them? Probably not which just brings me back to “How do we know that someone does or doesn’t have it in” for a specific person.

I’m all for the rules and regulations as long as they are enforced in all cases, by the rules and without exception, and in a consistent fashion.

If they cannot be enforced then take them off the books.

We don’t need to knock people over the head with them either. Give them a fair shake to respond and then if they are going to consistently violate the ordinance, fine them to the letter of the ordinance.

Perhaps what is needed is a regulated and documented system:

• First episode - written warning, documented, copy of the ordinance violation given to violator
• Second episode - final warning, documented, copy of the ordinance violation given to violator
• Third and additional episodes – fines as outlined by the ordinance.
• After any of the above occurrences – if the violator does not have additional infractions for a 12 month period from the first infraction then the slate is wiped clean

If they get two warnings plus the actual copy of the ordinance they are violating this removes all “ignorance of the law” scenarios

If they get an opportunity to “stay clean” for a rolling 12 month period and have their slate cleared no one can claim they are not being given the opportunity to have an unintentional mistake of violating the issue in the future.

The other part of Mr. Orlando’s letter is important as well – can anyone call in to report a violation?

I think this is important – if not then it’s too easy to get around the ordinance.

If I can snap a picture and turn it in they should investigate it.

If I call and say “someone should come out here and see this” then another phone call gets made. “Johnny – someone called in about your sign. We’re going to have to send someone by – take in it, they won’t be by until after lunch.”

It happens – even in Wallingford.

 

So bloggers – what are your thoughts?

Should this issue be scuttled as there are bigger fish to fry?

Should the ordinance be passed with the fine structure? If so, who should be enforcing it? Should people be able to call the office and report violators or would that just escalate neighbor on neighbor issues?

Technorati Tags: PZC,Planning and Zoning Commission,fines,ordinance

Moving http://www.sullivanoneonone.blogspot.com/ forward into 2010

Hi All,

I’ve had a couple discussions with John on moving Sullivan One On One forward.

As councilor elect he discussed having me continue the effort on the blog going forward as his time would be consumed with his full time job, his family, and being a councilor for Wallingford and it would not leave him the time he needed to dedicate himself back to doing the blog or the weekly wrap-up show in the manner in which he’d like to.

So with all that said we discussed a few things about how to continue into the holiday season and what to do at the start of 2010.

So bloggers – what are your thoughts?

What would you like to see done here with your blog?

What new ideas, focus, format, or direction should be considered for 2010?

I’m looking for suggestions – let me know what you think.

For Wallingford Dems it was the morning after

So I just cross posted the For Wallingford Dems it was the morning after article that ran in the Record Journal.

I’d like to hear the bloggers thoughts on what went wrong for the Democrats and where.

I personally always think there is much to come out and vote for, whether or not there is a Mayoral candidate or a referendum question or charter revision to consider.

Despite the way I think, many people stayed home.

So what are your thoughts on what went wrong and what are your suggestions to the party.

What do you think were the strengths of the Republicans – what things did you see them as having done “right”

del.icio.us Tags: Democrat,election,Voter,Wallingford

Welcome back Anonymous

Anonymous comments are turned back on for those that wish to contribute their comments again.

2009 Election Results - WALLINGFORD

As supplied by the Record Journal

Winners are in BOLD

Mayor

Dickinson (R) 6366

Town Council

Farrell (R) 5640

Parisi (R) 5139

Fishbein (R) 4798

Rascati (R) 4685

Testa (D) 4684

LeTourneau (R) 4669

Sullivan (D) 4541

Cervoni (R) 4269

Economopoulos (D) 4024

Laffin (R) 3992

DiNatale (D) 3991

Zandri (D) 3982

Harwood (D) 3690

Gross (D) 3559

Reynolds (D) 3244

Board of Education

McKay (R) 4995

Hennessey (R) 4981

Cei (D) 4572

Miller (R) 4378

Castelli (D) 4357

Votto (D) 4343

Marrone (R) 4183

Brooder (R) 4178

Ford (D) 4111

Pannone (D) 3973

Reynolds (D) 3943

Varney (R) 3753

Cornwall (R) 3737

Robinson (D) 3182

Wallingford Charter Revision

QUESTION 1

Veto Override YES 2581

Veto Override NO 5786

QUESTION 2

Town Clerk YES 2854

Town Clerk NO 5359

QUESTION 3

Bd. Ethics YES 3227

Bd. Ethics NO 4819

QUESTION 4

Bd. Educ. YES 2472

Bd. Educ. NO 5778

QUESTION 5

Council/PUC YES 2521

Council/PUC NO 5617

QUESTION 6

Ref. 15% YES 2120

Ref. 15% NO 5970

QUESTION 7

Misc. Admin YES 2751

Misc. Admin NO 5294

del.icio.us Tags: Election,Results,WALLINGFORD,council,Board of Education

It’s Election Day – VOTE 6AM to 8PM – here are your Wallingford polling places

Democracy at its best— all you need to do is show up.

District 1: Pond Hill School, 297 Pond Hill Road
District 2: Stevens School, 18 Kondracki Lane
District 3: Moses Y. Beach School, 340 N. Main St.
District 4: Dag Hammarskjold Middle School, 106 Pond Hill Road
District 5: Cook Hill School, 57 Hall Road
District 6: Parker Farms School, 30 Parker Farms Road
District 7: Yalesville School, 415 Church St. (Route 68)
District 8: Wallingford Senior Center, 38 Washington St.
District 9: Rock Hill School, 911 Durham Road

del.icio.us Tags: election,vote,council,BOE,Board of Education,charter

Wallingford Charter Revision – Get the facts and VOTE

Local elections impact you more than any other election you could participate in. All the voters are from Wallingford, there is no other election that you could have a greater impact on by just voting.

In a Presidential election you are cast­ing your important vote among millions of others; in Wallingford it is one vote of about 12,000 or so because of the total number of all registered voters this is about the total number that show up.

Your locally elected officials directly af­fect everything from what you are charged in taxes by way of the budget and what allocations get handed off to support the schools that your children are attend­ing and so on. They provide the platform and funding for or removing it from all the local services you may use.

There are many changes offered to the voters in the 2009 election from the in­cumbents that are running for office again to all the newcomers throwing their hats into the ring.

There are changes being proposed to the Town Charter. This document dic­tates the guidelines of how elected offi­cials are to discharge their duties in serv­ice to you and the town and it is the first time any changes are being offered in 18 years.

You as a voter directly get your say as you get the opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” to each of the proposed changes.

Democracy at its best— all you need to do is show up.

Technorati Tags: Charter,Council,election,revision,vote,Wallingford

VIDEO - Talking Charter with Mike Brodinsky

PART ONE

http://blip.tv/file/2790551/

PART TWO

http://blip.tv/file/2790848

Technorati Tags: WALLINGFORD,Charter

Wallingford Candidates Forum 2009 Election videos are now online

For all of those folks that could not attend the forums in person at the Wallingford Town Hall and do not have cable TV or perhaps have U-Verse or one of the satellite providers (all of which currently do not carry Government Access Television known on Comcast as Channel 20) I have gotten a hold of the Wallingford Candidates Forum 2009 Election videos and posted them on my blog.

This is a direct link to my Wallingford Candidates Forum 2009 Election – Board of Education post.

This is a direct link to my Wallingford Candidates Forum 2009 Election – Town Council post.

This is a direct link to my Wallingford Candidates Forum 2009 Election – Mayor post.

As I am fond of saying, get informed and get involved.

VOTE NOVEMBER 3RD

del.icio.us Tags: Wallingford,Town Council,Board of Education,election

VIDEO - Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable

There is now a video available for viewing online - Wallingford Connecticut Charter Revision Roundtable

Mike Brodinsky moderates a discussion of the seven charter revision questions on the November 3 ballot.

Charter revision Chairman Jeffrey Knickerbocker is joined by commission members Vincent Cervoni and Debbie Gross

Technorati Tags: charter,Wallingford,revision,rountable,discussion

Wallingford super freezes non-emergency school spending

The Record Journal reported on Friday that the Wallingford Superintendent of Schools, Salvatore Menzo, imposed a district-wide freeze on non-emergency spending.

In years past non-emergency spending freezes had been implemented under similar economic conditions but this was one month earlier into the season than when former School Superintendent Dale Wilson imposed a freeze last November.

The action last year helped increase the district's surplus account by the end of the 2008-09 school year and it is assumed that the action taken this year will do the same.

This action allows for more scrutiny with respect to new incoming purchase orders or spending requests for supplies from each of the schools Superintendent of Schools Salvatore Menzo was quoted as saying. He further indicated that textbooks and other "essential" instructional materials will not be affected.

The paper also reported that at this time last year, the contingency fund had a balance of $545,000. This year, it is $363,000. By the end of the last school year, the account had grown to $1.6 million, of which $1.4 million was used in this year's budget after a $2.6 million reduction by the town.


So what do you think of this practice bloggers?

On the one hand I suppose it is nice that they can hedge next year’s needs with this year’s surpluses but doesn’t that mean that they budgeted too much for this year?

Look at last year the account had grown to $1.6 million, of which $1.4 million was used in this year's budget – doesn’t that also mean that last year they asked for $1.6 million too much?

All of the other departments are not allowed to roll surpluses over; if there are monies left they are returned to the town.

On the other hand it might be a moot point – if the schools didn’t have the $1.6 million left over they would have asked for $1.6 million more from the get go this year.

What are your thoughts? Is really that important that the school system play ball by the same rules as all of the other town departments or does it all just come out equal in the end?


Let us know what you think.

del.icio.us Tags: budget,taxes,school,surplus

FROM WALLINGFORD - 'Save our Charter' from whom?

Published online at MyRecordJournal.com


'Save our Charter' from whom?


Read it through and let’s discuss your thoughts on the subject.

del.icio.us Tags: Wallingford,voter,charter,PAC,Town Council

Union files complaint against Wallingford

There’s an article by Dave Moran online at MyRecordJournal.com that I am hoping will be updated tomorrow either online or in the paper (or both) titled Union files complaint against Wallingford which basically adds on to our prior discussion on the blog at Council rejects BOE-approved pacts with custodial and cafeteria workers

Many of the comments there were along the lines of “The Town Council, was it correct in rejecting the proposed contracts with two small unions” and “Should the Town fathers approve pay increases for fear of the cost of compulsory arbitration? NO” as well as “Saying no and going to arbitration has to be attempted.”

Well folks – seems like the “be careful what you wish for” saying applies here as some of you have gotten your wish.

According to the article “The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has filed a Municipal Prohibited Practice complaint with the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations alleging that the town of Wallingford committed unfair labor practices when it voted down a labor contract involving school custodial workers represented by the union.”

Union Spokesman Larry Dorman was quoted as having said “We're alleging that they essentially violated the laws governing municipal rejections by overturning a ratified and agreed upon contract.”

So it seems as if we’re going to court.

I hope it doesn’t cost us more than the paltry raising they were asking for in the first place.

Quote from the Record Journal off of the original discussion: “This is a self-sustaining program,” School Superintendant Salva­tore Menzo said. “We are able to accommo­date these increases to these very hardworking people based on the fact that these in­creases do not affect our budget.”

So I still maintain my original comments – here we had a scenario where the raises were going to be offset (at least on paper as part of this proposal) if the town would accommodate the the three-year contracts which in­cluded wage increases of 1 per­cent the first year and 1.95 per­cent each successive year for 37 custodial workers and 51 cafeteria workers in the two unions.

1 percent of a $15.00 an hour salary is a change of 15 cents an hour. You multiply that across 40 hours that is $6.00 extra per week.

Take $6.00 extra per week and multiply it over 52 weeks (and I suspect that most of these workers do not work and do not get paid over the summer off, but regardless, assuming that they do) you have a grand total of $312.00 extra per year per person.

Multiply that by 88 workers and the total expense is $27,456.

Even if this is not a self-sustaining program and the in­creases actually did affect the budget this is the total amount we’re talking about here.

I am certain the time and money spent in court is going to cost us more and if we’re ruled against we’re going to be paying this raise out to these people anyway.


So what are your thoughts bloggers?


Are your thoughts still as they were before and damn it at all costs – we must fight this regardless?

That seemed to be the temperature in the room at the time…

Create your Google ID and let us know what you think.

del.icio.us Tags: Wallingford,wage,union,Town Council,salary,complaint,Labor Relations

Creating your Google ID so you can participate on the blog through election day

Here are the instructions for creating a Google ID:

Follow this link to the “Create an Account” page.

Fill in the required information for Google account which will include your current email address (which you’ll need to use to sign in with).

From there enter a password you can remember and then re-enter it to make sure you have it correctly.

You can choose other optional settings (which are enabled by default – they are not required and you can clear the check boxes if you want).

These include:

• Stay signed in
• Enable Web History.
• Set Google as my default homepage.

Below that is the word verification section that you must input in the box manually.

You can review the terms of service and that’s really the last step – from there you hit the “I accept. Create my account” button." 

Blogging moderation is now enabled through Election Day

With the number of blogging posts going up and the passionate contributions coming in I’ve decided to enable moderation as John did last year ahead of the election.

What this means is that you will either need a Google ID or an Open ID to post comments.

Anonymous posting will return after the election season is over.

del.icio.us Tags: Wallingford,Town Council,election

Wallingford Charter - PAC for the “Save Our Charter” is formed

So as its own blog post that came out of the comments in the suggestion topic, it would seem there is an active political action committee (PAC) that’s been formed to save the Wallingford Charter.

My own confusion is “save it from whom?” From the hands of the unscrupulous voters?

A group of residents - Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike went out to collect signatures from Democrats, Republicans and Independents in an effort to get a charter revision commission formed.

This was successful.

The commission did take input from the residents that went to the public hearings – they acted on a couple of these items and then acted on a couple of their own.

These have all been brought forth for the voters consideration for the upcoming election.

There have been some comments that charter revision was a Democrat versus Republican thing – it is not. I don’t care who you talk to that says otherwise; that is all spin.

There are Democrats I know that will not be voting for any of the proposed changes.

I myself will not be voting in favor of two of the proposed changes – based on my own knowledge of the facts on the items and where I have decided that the way it is already suits the town better than the proposed changes.

There are a couple of Republicans I’ve spoken with that are voting for some of the proposed changes (but I am sure that they’d be tight lipped to admit it openly).

Back to the PAC – I don’t know what their charge or agenda is short of trying to get everyone to “just vote no” and I assume this may be from at least a few of the same people that wanted everyone to just “don’t vote” on the Wooding Caplan referendum.

Myself personally – I hope to educate as many people on the facts as I possibly can. I am hoping to keep my editorial comments and opinions separate but in the meantime I want the voters to get the facts and make up their own minds.


But what do you think bloggers?

Should some of the group of petition circulators form a PAC of their own with the charge of getting out the “yes” vote?

Is this needed? Can’t people in this day and age get informed of the facts and make a conscience choice in the way that they feel without having someone ram their slant down their throats?

Tell us what you think – we want to know!

del.icio.us Tags: Wallingford,Charter,Voter,Election,PAC

Upcoming Topics for the blog

I'm going to try to set some time over the weekend to put up a new post for discussion.

What would you like to see?

We can rehash the Choate proposal with a short update.

We could bring up charter revision and each of the main questions on the ballot.

We could discuss the upcoming election - what we're all seeing from the candidates (or maybe not seeing) in the form of their campaigning and their ideas. (Keeping it on topic and non-personal of course).

Let me know what you'd like to discuss and I'll put it up on the board so we can keep the discussions centered on topic. (I don't mind the discussion drift - I just would like to keep the discussions in order).

I welcome your thoughts.

Fiscally Wallingford’s prepared for a rainy day; are we too prepared?

As printed in the Sunday Record Journal on September 20, 2009, Wallingford had al­most $20.4 million in its fund balance at the end of the 2008-09 fiscal year. $11.8 million of it was in undes­ignated, unappropriated funds sitting in the bank for a rainy day. That total does not include a $7.2 million payment the town received earlier this year from the Connecticut Resources Re­covery Authority.

Wallingford has a Aa1 bond rating which is partly due to this healthy reserve of funds.

I have always felt that it was a great benefit that the administration has considered to continue this practice of having a healthy balance because the rating translates to a lower interest rate when­ever the town sells bonds to fi­nance costly capital projects.

Lower interest rates means less dollars going out when repaying those bonds and that translates into lower taxes charged to the taxpayers because the interest burden is lower.

All this being said I have wondered if enough is enough already.

What I mean is, what is the cash threshold that is required to keep this Aa1 bond rating? Could is be a mix of cash and the value of our town owned assets? I would think so but I am not 100% sure. My net worth is my liquid cash and the equity on my home and any other property. For the meantime let’s stick with cash in the conversation since it is easier.

Let’s assume 15 million is the cash amount we would need to maintain the Aa1 bond rating; Wallingford could then keep an amount 20% higher than that or 18 million so that there is cushion and then leverage the rest as part of the budget or for an upcoming capital project.

My point here is that unless there is a reason to continually raise up this fund balance year over year then we are effectively over taxing our residents and businesses.

You pay taxes for a fiscal year with the intent to consume those funds running the town. When additional funds are left over and not refunded you have been over taxed.

If you pay into this rainy day fund and it is never leveraged while you live in the town (because you move, or pass away, etc) then you are paying taxes without seeing any benefit.

Again, I think it makes sense to maintain the Aa1 bond rating, I think the Mayor and the Administration has been smart to keep up this practice.

What I am disappointed in is the lack of direction and structure on this. If we could grow the fund balance to 100 million dollars would we do it? I wouldn’t think that much of a balance is in the best interest of the tax payers as I do believe that it does translate into perpetual overtaxing being able to grown it continuously through tax collection.

As I mentioned, I would like to see us identify what our plan is around this. If that is to keep the balance above a certain number then let’s do that but put a ceiling on it. If it needs to be adjusted upward to compensate for inflation then let’s outline that.

I just want to know that if I decide to move to Florida someday that I don’t feel like I have a ton of money sitting in the coffers in Wallingford not being used.

I would feel better knowing that the plan was to keep the fund above X but under Y and reconsidered each year to adjust upward for inflation or based on need to keep our Aa1 bond rating.


What are your thoughts bloggers?

Should we just budget, tax and the return excess funds to the taxpayers in the form of a rebate check or an offset for the following year?

Should we take whatever is not leveraged year over year and put it in the fund regardless and let it grow uncontrolled?

Let us know what you think.

Technorati Tags: Budget,Surplus,Wallingford,taxes

Council rejects BOE-approved pacts with custodial and cafeteria workers

On Tuesday night your town council, at Mayor Dickin­son’s urging, voted down a pair of labor contracts already ap­proved by the Board of Educa­tion.

The three-year contracts in­cluded wage increases of 1 per­cent the first year and 1.95 per­cent each successive year.

There are 37 custodial workers and 51 cafeteria workers in the two unions.

The mayor mentioned other open negotiations with the town’s fire and public service workers unions and the fact that the town did not fund any wage in­creases in its 2009-10 fiscal year budget.

He did not mention any of the increases already given out to some employees of Town Hall already that are not members of any of the unions.

Don Roe received a small increase to his salary as one example if I have my facts straight. It was $1,000.00 if I remember correctly and I believe that his annual salary is in the 80K range. If I have all my numbers straight in my head that puts the raise in at about 1.2% based on an annual salary of 84K.

I am using Mr. Roe as an example and I am not grinding an axe here folks – I am just making a point. There are a few other examples available this one was first to mind.

If we had the ability to give out a token raise here then we have already opened ourselves up to risk when negotiating with the unions.

In my opinion that makes the Mayor’s argument empty.

The Record Journal reported that “the mayor cited still-open negotiations with the town’s fire and public service workers unions and the fact that the town did not fund any wage in­creases in its 2009-10 fiscal year budget.”

The mayor was quoted as saying - “I would urge you to reject these contracts because not only does it affect costs of edu­cation this year, next year, each following year, but it will also affect how the community can deal with arbitration in each following unit,”

The town has already handed out a few raises – I believe this already puts us behind the 8-ball when dealing with the unions.

School Superintendant Salva­tore Menzo told the council that the custodial workers con­tract as presented would result in a net savings for the town. The union agreed to changes in health benefits and the sys­tem’s cafeteria program is self­ funded and the slight increases in wages would not affect the system’s overall budget.

Quote from the Record Journal - “This is a self-sustaining program,” Menzo said Tues­day. “We are able to accommo­date these increases to these very hardworking people based on the fact that these in­creases do not affect our budget.”

No thanks said five of our nine councilors – even if it is a net savings to the town we can give out more in salary.

So I don’t understand how giving out more in salary to people that could use it in the form of small raises is going to negatively impact the town when the net result from other cuts combined with the salary increases is a total net savings.

In my mind’s eye you accept these and set THAT as the precedent.

“You want to give your rank and file 1% raises and a little more year over year? Find other cuts it total that result in a net reduction and we’ll consider it”

Blindly saying no just because there are wage increases without looking at the big picture, I believe, is foolish.

Cost reductions and cost elimination can carry forward compounded savings in the same way that salary raises can carry a forward compounded cost.

We should be looking at the details - if it is a net cost savings and sustainable into the future why not go with it?


But that is just this blogger’s opinion.


What are your thoughts bloggers?

Do you think we should just be rejecting all and any budgets and contract proposals that are brought forward with raises for workers based solely on the criteria of “there’s raises in there – shut it down”

Should we be taking a look at the details and perhaps accepting those that offer a net savings to the town?

Do you think that the administrative decisions already made to give out a few token raises have already set a precedent that is going to be used against us in future negotiations with the unions?

Do you think the added cost of going to arbitration is a good gamble? It could cost the town $30,000 to $40,000 in ad­ditional fees and we might be forced to give the raises out anyway.

We might not have to – we might win but is it worth the risk?

Is it better to give the raises, get the mentioned net savings for the town, and save the additional arbitration fees?


What do you think?

Let us know!

del.icio.us Tags: custodial,cafeteria,union,workers,raise,council

Agenda for the Town Council Meeting is posted and the possible closing of a portion of Old Durham Road is up for discussion again

So I have posted the agenda for the upcoming Town Council Meeting planned for Tuesday September 8th and all of the items that are planned to be discussed are outlined.

For me the biggest item of the night is going to be ITEM 11:

ITEM 11 - Discussion and Possible Action on whether to accept or reject a proposal by H.V. Kohler, Jr., on behalf of Choate Rosemary Hall, dated July 10, 2009 concerning closing a portion of Old Durham Road – Chairman Mike Brodinsky

The Chairman had indicated in past meetings that the council would revisit the request; I am not sure if any of the particulars have changed (e.g. Choate coming back with a modified offer, etc.) but I am sure it’ll be thoroughly discussed.

We’ve had some discussion in prior posts on this but let’s see if the sentiment has changed at all now that some more of the facts and details have been presented here, in the press, and in the editorial pages of the Record Journal:

Should Wallingford accept the last offer and close the road? Unless it has changed, since the original offer from July 10, in exchange for closing the street, the school offered either to pay its appraised value, $260,000, or deed its boathouse property, off of Washington Street, to the town.

I’ve heard “both” being discussed as in “the town should ask for both” but I do not believe “both” have been offered together.

Is “both” enough? Does it even make sense to ask for the boathouse? What would we do with it? The property adjoins the Senior Center true but are we planning to expand it? I certainly do not see a need or a use for that property, something else the town would need to up keep but won’t spend the money to do so… but perhaps there is some use I am overlooking.

Maybe we should be asking for a little more money and forgoing the boathouse? Again, I don’t see much need for the boathouse but we should could use the cash; seems like we needed to effectively steal money from the linear trail funding or we couldn’t fix the Reskin Drive bridge at less than 200K (but don’t let that fool you – there was +300K lying around to buy up land for open space on Dibble Edge Road).

Does the road even need to be closed at all?

It is clear there are a lot of questions. What I feel is not clear are many of the details with why the road needs to be closed at all and just what state the 128 acres east of East Main Street will be. It’s been outlined that they would be permanently dedicated as open space under a legal covenant and the land could not be developed, except for environmental center-related activities. The remaining acreage would also remain undeveloped, though it would not be legally deemed open space.

To me that is a grey area that I’d like some more light on so I know if its black or white.

But bloggers – what are your thoughts on the different points of the issue?

Let us know!

del.icio.us Tags: Wallingford,Choate,Old Durham Road,Town Council

And we’re off to the local election races

Make no mistake about it – Labor Day has come and gone and the local election season is officially kicked off.

The blog has been light on the postings and I own the blame on that. Over the past three weeks I had a backlog of work that all suddenly needed to be completed for the end of August. Couple that with personal efforts in helping my Uncle, Jim Zandri, with the 13th Annual MDA Labor Day Telethon PARTY FOR A CURE at the Stillwood Inn this past Sunday and my Son Alex being born on Friday the 4th and you can see how I was understandably absent from the blogs.

Luckily my last post generated some conversation with the site’s bloggers and it was sustained for about 10 days.

Going forward from here I’ll be scheduling time each Monday specifically for a new post and hopefully one additional one during each week as something newsworthy presents itself for discussion.

We’ll rehash some older items as they come back up for votes / decisions / discussions at Town Council meetings and we’ll be looking for your input too.

del.icio.us Tags: Wallingford,election,council

Election time is around the corner – what topics are on your minds?

With September just 11 days away and with the start of the month bringing the unofficial kick off to the local campaigns in Wallingford I wanted to drop a new entry into the blog here to outline some of the topics that I thought would be and / or should be top of mind of both the candidates and voters.

So the short list that I have includes:

• Choate / Environmental Center / Old Durham Road


• Taxes / Mill Rate / Revaluation


• Zoning – Mountain Brook


• Zoning – Downtown Zone


• Charter Revision


• Illegal Temporary Signs (more of a P&Z thing)


• Downtown Parking


• Police Station


• Wooding Caplan


• Town use of technology

What else bloggers? What are the things on your minds and what else do you feel that the candidates and voters should be thinking of as they head into full swing of the election season and eventually into the voting booth?

MERIDEN - City Council videos now online

So after a long fight over the last couple of years to get the Wallingford website more up to date and to have quick and easy access to some public documents, public meeting agendas and up to date meeting schedules and other information, the end result was an updated site that I was satisfied with that offered a good first step forward in an effort to get us started into the 21st century.

For those of you that do not know all of the back history here are some of the articles from the Record Journal which I posted to my blog and some additional blog postings:

Zandri takes e-matters into his own hands

And the feedback is in - Zandri takes e-matters into his own hands

Town sees dueling web sites - As originally published on the Record Journal website Friday January 2, 2009

Winners and Losers - We liked this week

Irritating mayor

I had spoken for at least two years on how I thought we should be doing this as a town. In an effort to be as transparent as possible and to offer the tax payers all the information that was available by walking into town hall and asking for it, the website update was something we should have been doing long before we actually got around to doing it.

I have often said, when considering non-technical businesses (and municipalities fall into that bracket), there is little advantage to be on the cutting edge of technology. There is a good amount of total cost of ownership savings to be gained by allowing the technology to mature and then leveraging it a year or two into its lifespan. This allows it to prove itself while still allowing the consumer of the technology to get up to eight years or so lifecycle out of leveraging it at that point (if they want to stretch it right to the end of it’s usefulness and support).

I have also said there is nothing to be gained and much to lose by waiting to be the last to implement it and that is what we always seem to do here in Wallingford.

Eventually though and a short time after I got my own site online the town’s site was up:

It looks like the Wallingford website has been updated

Meetings, Agendas, Minutes updated at http://www.wallingford.us.com/

I have always thought it made a lot of sense to work smart and not any harder than is needed. Since the site went online and was offering up the things that I was as well I saw no point in duplicating the effort (that would be a place where I actually agree with the Mayor).

My town “mirrored” website is still online but I have updated it little since then.

A couple of months later in May I noticed that the Government Access TV website that posted the Town Council meetings, Planning and Zoning, ZBA and so forth hadn’t been updated for about three weeks (mid April).

A little investigation uncovered the details. So here is the original story on this from 2008:

Town’s Government Access Television channel testing streaming video of meetings

After that kicked off, the meetings were updated regularly for a total of 110 entries in 2008 and 59 more through mid April 2009 when it was all put to a stop by the mayor:

Wallingford Government Television - no longer updating their site with streaming / on demand media?

A couple of weeks later the newspapers picked up on it as we got our answered right at Town Hall in the Town Council Meeting:

Mayor halts online coverage of the televised Town Council and other meetings

MY TAKE - Mayor halts online coverage of the televised Town Council and other meetings

Wallingford discontinues videos of town meetings

So we go from being way behind the curve with a very limited website to finally stepping up a bit with the updates on the Town Website. When you consider this additional effort of having Government Access TV putting the meetings online ahead of that, it really looked like we might be turning a corner of sorts but it was short lived as the Mayor put a stop to those efforts.

It is because of all of this that I will be taking on this effort myself and getting the Town Council meeting DVDs and getting them uploaded for anyone that wants or needs access to them. I have the first set now and I am hoping to get this completed over the weekend so that the July 14th meetings are online.

Not everyone has cable TV. Some have digital receivers to catch the signal out of the air. Some folks don’t even have that. Some like myself have DISH or DirectTV so we do not have Channel 20 to catch the meetings.

Our only options are to try to get caught up in the paper with what is going on, to fight over the one copy of each meeting that I understand is available at the library or to shell out $10.00 per DVD (two or more per meeting, twice a month) so we can own it.

With the technology at our disposal and a track record of not missing a single meeting in over 169 posted I see no reason why this couldn’t continue.

As before – if the town isn’t going to do it I will.

But bloggers – what do you think?

You’ve seen all the details on the subject – in this day and age does it make sense to have the meetings online?

Do you think it’s worth the time spent?

Will is save money in the long run and offer a convenience to citizens that want to stay tuned in?

Tell us your thoughts – we want to know.

.

Town Council Chairman Mike Brodinsky responds to Herbert V. Kohler, Jr.’s letter regarding Closure of Old Durham Road

Mike Brodinsky sent an email to me yesterday and he also made public his letter in response to and in question of the need for closing Old Durham Road.

The letter in it’s entirety can be read off of MyRecordJournal.com’s Local Documents page as it is posted there.

I also have the entire letter posted on my blog http://tinyurl.com/ns49pk

The gist of the letter pertains to the asked for rights to a portion of Old Durham Road and outlines the subject that the Council must decide on - whether to accommodate Choate, and if so, on what terms and conditions.

As the Chairman writes “Must the Town part with the designated portion of Old Durham Road in order for Choate to build its new facilities? It is a matter of common sense that Choate could build a new facility on its property without owning the road. if it wanted to do that, it could find a way.”

The letter goes on to outline that “Choate students should be able to use the campus acreage safely for its stated purpose and, when they must, carefully and safely cross Old Durham Road — just as they cross busier roads all over downtown Wallingford. This can be done without closing the road” and offers some additional suggestions how to make this activity safe for those students and other pedestrians in the area if the road were to remain open.

There are additional details in the letter in total that make it a good read which I would recommend for anyone with a vested interest such as living in the area or for those people that are interested in how the town is working through this request.

It is a very frank, no nonsense, and to the point letter in current response to the activity on the subject of the center, the closing of the road, the positive or negative impact on residents (depending on your perspective).

Additionally, the Town Council Agenda for this upcoming Tuesday has two agenda items on it regarding this – Item 10 Questions to and Answers from Choate Rosemary Hall concerning its plans for an Environmental Study Center – Chairman Mike Brodinsky and Item 11 Discussion and Possible Action regarding the sale of a portion of Old Durham Road to Choate Rosemary Hall - Councilors Robert Parisi, Jerry Farrell, Jr., Rosemary Rascati, and John LeTourneau.

According to the story in the Record Journal titled No vote expected Tuesday on Choate land-swap offer, there will be discussion on the topics but there is not expected to be a vote.

That being said, all it takes is a motion (that passes) to try to make a vote on it.

So bloggers – what are your thoughts on this?

Should the town accept the offer and close the road?

Should they press for a better deal?

Should they work with Choate to get the center open and leave the road open?

Drop us a note – we want to know!

.

Thoughts on Local Election 2009 with additional than minimum candidates running

The 2009 election season is effectively here now that the slates have been announced.

The outcome of the party endorsements can be reviewed in the most recent articles from the Record Journal:

Wallingford Republicans name 7 and 7

Big crowd of Wallingford Dems turns out

In both instances for each of the parties, Democrat and Republican, we’ve had a scenario where more than the “minimum” number of electable candidates have come forward with an interest in running for both Town Council and the Board of Education.

Sec. 9-167a. Minority representation rule in that state statute drives the details around this and I blogged about it in 2007 in a posted titled "Town Council consists of nine members with minority representation guaranteed" - what does that really mean?

The long story short is that there cannot be more than six of any one party elected to the Wallingford Town Council or the Board of Education regardless of number of votes received.

If there were nine people of one party running for one office or the other and any more than six received the highest vote totals, only the first six from the single party would be declared winners and allowed to serve with the next highest from another party gaining the remaining seats.

This would be the case too in any random order of popular vote. So for example, spots 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 could be taken by one party and 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 could be taken by the other but the actual winners of the election would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 (because popular vote recipient #9 was the seventh from one party and cannot take the seat according to the state statute).

So with all of this we have the politically popular thought process, the one that has been in place most years through 2005; “only run the maximum number of candidates for seats you can win” and that has meant no more than six for Council and six for Board of Ed. (Again – that has been mostly the rule with an exception here and there going back 30 years).

2007 was a different year.

That year brought out independents for Council that ran under no party affiliation (I was one of those 4) and one Democrat that petitioned on the party line as a seventh candidate.

For the first time in recent memory there were 17 candidates for Town Council instead of 12; a 12 that for most years was generally made up of nine incumbents.

2009 has come and the parties have both taken the new stance – both have come to endorse all candidates that have requested to run; no votes from the committees of “which six” but rather “acceptance in total” of all.

This has lead to 7 endorsed candidates for the Republicans for Council and Board of Education.

The Democrats are in the same boat with seven by seven. There is an 8th candidate, my father Geno Zandri, that decided to petition on the Democrat ticket and he is in the process of collecting the signatures he needs to run. If successful, the chairman of the Democratic Town Committee Vincent Avallone has indicated that he would be party supported much in the way that Nick Economopou­los was after he successfully petitioned on in 2007.

Please see Wallingford Dems prepare to run with no mayoral hopeful - Geno Zandri attempting to petition on as 8th candidate for Town Council for more details on that.

I understand the logic of only running six as you cannot win more than those seats but I have always felt that the voters should be offered the opportunities to choose from all candidates that were interested in running for a given party (or in general) and not just the six highest vote getters in the committee vote.

It was one of the reasons I decided to run in 2007 off the party line – so that more choice could be offered to the voters. (There were some other reasons too but this was one of the more predominate ones).

I still feel this makes more sense toward the potential opportunity for the voters and for the candidates in that it allows all the voters to choose for themselves who they want in office. If the committees strike down the one or two candidate overflow into positions seven and eight then you’re limiting their choices.

Nick Economopou­los did not win the nomination. Had he not decided to petition on, the voters, who clearly wanted him to serve on their behalf as they elected him the 5th highest out of the 17 running, would not have gotten their chance.

(For those full details you can see the Record Journal story Election 2007 Wallingford online).

That is why I feel it makes sense to allow all that wish to run the opportunity and let the voters decide because there is no way for any committee to have a full pulse on the true wishes and the will of the people even when it is their intent to try as hard and as honestly as possible to have just that.

But what do you think bloggers? Do you agree? Should the numbers be allowed to go to the candidate maximums (9 per slate for Council and BoE) if there are enough people willing to run?

Should the parties limit their candidate slates to just the maximum number of seats that could be won (six) and why do you think that makes the most sense?

We want to know!

Proposed Revised Charter for Nov. 3 Election is now online

Redirect from my blog is http://tinyurl.com/kktp5m

The official Town of Wallingford Website has on their News / Announcements page a link for the proposed charter, including the existing language and proposed changes.

A complete copy of the proposal is available in the Town Clerk's Office and a copy shall be mailed to any person who requests a copy.

The proposed changes will appear on the November 3, 2009 ballot.

I hope that folks will take the opportunity to review the changes proposed for the ballot questions.

I am planning to start a project of sorts between now and Election Day regarding charter revision here in Wallingford.

The plan that I had was to do an overview, a summary of each proposed change, so that each of the major proposed changes were outlined.

After doing that I would like to offer a couple of points of view.

As the author of the planned blog posts I would obviously give my point of view on each of the changes.

I have contacted by email someone in town that I feel would offer and alternate and mostly opposing viewpoint so that there would be a good balance. I am awaiting their response but I am pretty sure that if they have enough free time that they would assist in this. If they cannot due to time constraints or do not have the desire to work on this I do have another couple of folks that I might ask.

The whole reason for doing this is two-fold; I want the people to have two points of view on the subject (other than their own) and I want them to seriously consider their vote on the changes because I personally would like them to make an informed decision on how they want to be governed going forward in their town.

One thing I do believe is that it is going to be an interesting local election season going forward.

.

Choate’s letter to the town of Wallingford

Choate’s letter to the town of Wallingford - http://tinyurl.com/lsylwz

There is also the story in today's paper - Choate offers old boathouse for section of road


What should Wallingford do with Old Durham Road? - WWW.MYRECORDJOURNAL.COM - READER POLL


Keep it as is?

Sell it to Choate for $260,000?

Trade it to Choate for the former boathouse property?

Cast your vote now!

http://www.myrecordjournal.com/ - near the bottom left of the entry page to the site

.

Choate offers money or boathouse for road

So it's hit the Record Journal News @ 2 pages - Choate offers money or boathouse for road

Choate Rosemary Hall has offered the town either $260,000.00 in cash or the gifting of its boathouse property, which the school says has an appraised value of more than $600,000.00, as it is still petitioning for the closure of a portion of Old Durham Road so the school can build an environmental center in the area.

So let's take a look at both of those numbers as the town had the .46 strip of road that Choate seeks closed independently appraised at $260,000.00.

(The posting on the Record Journal site indicates ".46" but the estimated area of the road is said to be 2.4 acres or about 104,544 square feet according to the earlier study at http://tinyurl.com/kpgtsb - I can only think they are talking about "miles" rather than "acres")

The appraised value of Old Durham Road might be $260,000.00 and that might be all you or I or someone else might be willing to pay but for the person right next to the road it might be worth more.

What is a ".46 strip of land" worth to someone that is looking to build a house on it to make a profit?

What is a ".46 strip of land" worth to someone that is looking to build a house on it so they can live it in?

What is a ".46 strip of land" worth to someone that is looking to build a house on it so that a family member can live next door?

I could go on - I think you get my point; what it is appraised at and what its worth are two very different things.


I do not believe the town should take “just” $260,000.00 for closing the road but that is just my thought on it.


The same is true with respect to the boathouse property, which the school says has an appraised value of more than $600,000.00.

Is it worth $600,000.00 to the town?

Is it worth turning away $260,000.00 in cash to close the road and to take that in exchange?

Would someone else pay $600,000.00 and do something with it? If so, perhaps we should let them and then collect the tax revenue on it which we can get if the property moves away from a “for profit” educational institution which does not pay property tax by law.

I do not know of any reasonable use the Town of Wallingford could consider over the next 20 years of that property and if you think its run down now just wait until we get a hold of it (if this were to go through).

The American Legion building and 390 Center Street are perfect examples of our non-existence upkeep and maintenance plan for town properties.

If a resident or a business were to keep their property at these stages of disrepair I am pretty sure they’d get a notice under the town’s own blight ordinances.


The bottom line for me (and my thought on the Boathouse) is “thanks but no thanks – we don’t need another property we cannot take care of.”

All that being said, I still think there is merit in what Choate is looking to do with their plans for the environmental center and I think there are still other negotiations and conversations to be had.


What are your thoughts bloggers?

Should the town take the cash?

Should the town take the boathouse?

Should the town go back to the bargaining table?


What do you think? We want to know!

Tune In To The Final Wrap Up Show Monday thru Friday at 7:00 PM

Tune in to the Final Wrap Up Show with John Sullivan and Ralph Tomaselli Monday thru Friday beginning at 7:00 PM

Click the Radio Icon on the right side of the blog to listen.

Old Durham Road Appraisal and possible discontinuance of use information

The direct link to the memo is http://tinyurl.com/kpgtsb

Here are some of the highlights to the document as outlined (and the way I see them):

• Connecticut General Statutes 13a-49 governs the discontinuance of roads
• The Council, by majority vote (and I read that as little as 5 to 4) may vote to discontinue the public use of all or part of a road.
• Connecticut General Statutes 7-163e(a) indicates that a public hearing must be held first.
• Connecticut General Statutes 8-24 indicates that the matter must be referred to Planning and Zoning for a report
• If the PZC disapproves, a two thirds vote by the Council can be made to overturn that decision (not 7 out of 9, but two thirds - 6 out of 9)
• Any person aggrieved by the decision to discontinue public use of a road has the right to appeal within eight months of the discontinuance
• The estimated area of the road is said to be 2.4 acres or about 104,544 square feet
• As of June 19 2009 the estimated market value of that road has been designated at $260,000.00 (Two Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars)

If we as a Town are to seriously consider discontinuing the public use of the road, I like the idea of getting at least 10 acres of that 262 acre space Choate speaks of specifically set aside for use by the Wallingford Little League since that has been a long and ongoing issue here in town.

Additionally, I don’t know if the ask should only be “the appraised value” of the road in general.

An appraised value of something can be quite relative.

A single plate in an antique set might be worth $100.00 but what is it worth to someone that has the other seven plates and needs only that one to complete the set?

Additionally I would like to see a list of town specific benefits and allowed uses of the Choate facilities that are available to town residents.

I did ask for this once and I did not get a response on this specific item (to be fair - it was one out of three “asks” and I got the other two; it may be an oversight and I’ll need to follow up).

So bloggers – what are your thoughts?

Should the town close the road at all? Why or why not?

Should we decide to go that way, should be ask $260,000.00 or should we ask more?

As a part of this effort or perhaps as an unassociated action – should the Town of Wallingford begin negotiations with Choate about payments to the town in lieu of taxes?

Tell us your opinions, tell us the facts the way you see it – we want to know!

Town seeks to re-argue playscape case

Well, it looks like the decision was made by the town (right before the long holiday weekend – was that intentional?) to re-argue the playscape case.

Here are the highlights (and if you want the details you can review Court rules Mountain Brook condo owners can keep playscapes for the ruling and for the appeal go to Town seeks to re-argue playscape case):

A New Haven Superior Court judge issued a ruling that swing sets, playscapes, sheds and oth­er structures in the backyards of the Mountain Brook condominium de­velopment do not violate any of the town’s zoning regulations, potential­ly ending a contentious legal battle dat­ing from October 2006.

“The court … concludes that the record does not substantiate the (Zon­ing Board of Appeals) vote to uphold the cease and desist order,” Judge William Holden wrote. “Accordingly the plaintiff’s appeal from the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to uphold the decision is sustained.”

The town has decided that because the ruling itself is unclear that they have filed a motion to reargue it. “it is difficult to interpret”, according to Town Attorney Janis Small.

“The motion is to see if we can get some further definition to the decision,” Small said Thursday as reported by Dave Moran in the Record Journal on Friday the 3rd of July. “As it was written, the decision doesn’t put us in a position where we know if the court’s decision was based on just the facts of the case or, more importantly, if the court disagreed with the (Zoning Board of Appeals) interpretation of the regulations. There’s a big difference there.”

For me it’s really not unclear at all.

At the base of the argument – the Mountain Brook complex of 63-units built off North Lane built in 2001 was established BEFORE this set of rules was put into place. These zoning regulations were voted on / enacted in the 2003 / 2004 timeframe.

The part that is maybe a little more arguable is the whole position where the residents there maintain that they should be allowed to do what they want “in their own back­yards,” since they pay taxes on the land. (Each condominium owner pays a percentage of the tax bill as­sessed to the development’s com­mon land.)

I can see where that area is a little on the gray side (but I happen to agree with the residents’ opinions there; the difference is what the legal ruling is on that).

To be fair with Town Attorney Janis Small, she did need to file before the expiration date if she wanted to take any action, including just getting this clarification the way I understand it – I hope that is the genuine reason for it.

I think it makes sense to take this action, to get the clarification so that future decisions by Planning and Zoning and the Zoning Board of Appeals are made more precisely.

If it leads to action on the residents in a formal appeal of the ruling by a higher court I am going to be disappointed.

So bloggers – what do you think?

Is this a smart move for Town Attorney Janis Small to be making?

Should the town simply get a clarification on this or should they go for the appeal?

Tell us what you think – we want to know!

REMINDER - TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT

Quick reminder for everyone that there is a Wallingford Town Council meeting tonight.

The Agenda of Regular Town Council Meeting - June 23, 2009 is provided from the Town of Wallingford website.

The topics that I see of biggest interest include item 6 which is a Public Hearing scheduled for 7PM regarding Public Hearing Neighborhood Assistance Act.

There is also item 10 Presentation of 2010 Revaluation given by the Comptroller/Assessor.

Item 13 is the Presentation by Choate Rosemary Hall of its plans for development and its request to close Old Durham Road as requested by the Mayor.

Item 16 is going to be a Discussion and action regarding recommendation to Connecticut Department of Transportation to identify the North Cherry Street/Parker Street site as a preferred location for commuter rail platform also requested by the Mayor.

The final item on the list is Item 20 Discussion & Possible Action concerning the final draft of the proposed amendments to the Charter of the Town of Wallingford requested by Chairman Mike Brodinsky.

So clearly it is going to be a very full night for the council and the public that might want to attend.

I assume that Choate's request to close Old Durham Road will be one of the more impassioned items discussed.

The Record Journal has reviewed the section of Old Durham Road that Choate wants closed as being poorly maintained, with potholes and uneven pavement and has quoted Town Engineer John Thompson as saying "the road would need a complete reconstruction to be brought up to town standards" with Thompson going on to indicate that he estimated the repair costs at $250,000, with another $6,300 annually for maintenance, repairs and plowing costs.

I have to wonder why we let it get that far out of repair (as with many other things in town) and why we haven't kept the road to standard. To just add that to the argument of why we should sell it doesn't make sense to me.

Cheshire-based Milone & MacBroom was hired to study traffic patterns on the road. I am going to ask (if it is not specified) who hired them; if it was Choate you'd naturally expect that the result of the study would be geared and presented in such a manner to favor the body that is paying the bills. The study also indicated "the closing of Old Durham Road could result in an improvement to public safety."

I don't know what that means. I suppose the closing of Old Durham Road could result in an improvement to public safety if you're talking about the fact that there would never be an accident on the road ever again because it is closed; then I guess I understand the statement but I don't see how that is relevant. That's like saying my grandmother's automotive accident rate has been zero for the past 20 years which is an improvement to public safety. It is a truth. The left out fact is that she hasn't driven a car in 20 years either so it's not at all that her driving has improved but rather the fact that she doesn't drive anymore. So for that comment from Milone & MacBroom I'll need some additional clarification.

Choate Headmaster Edward Shanahan was quoted in the article to say that the closure of the road would amount to a slight inconvenience to many in the area and he admitted to making use of the road as a shortcut himself. He also said the advantages of the environmental center and pledge of 250-plus acres of open space, in perpetuity, far outweigh any potential disadvantages.

"I suspect what the town might be wondering is what are the benefits" to closing that road, Shanahan said. "And I suspect there are many of them."

I am wondering what the benefits would be and if there are "many" I hope they are presented tonight for consideration.

Should the town close Old Durham Road?

If that is the decision, should it be sold to Choate?

Should we instead make the argument that we need to be getting some PILOT (Payment In Lieu Of Tax) consideration from Choate going into the future?

Should we sell them the road and ask for PILOT anyway considering the state of the economy?

Should the Council make this decision or should it go straight to the public in a referendum at election time?

What are your thoughts bloggers? We want to know.

A reminder of the “rules of the road” here on the blog

Hi Folks,

I wanted to take a few minutes to remind everyone of the tone that we’d like and need to keep on the blog.

We all realize that we are passionate about what we believe in, otherwise we wouldn’t take the time to express our thoughts here, on other blogs, in the letters to the editor, and elsewhere.

Having said that and knowing that sometimes emotions run high and the fact that postings here are still allowed to be anonymous (which allows for a certain amount of additional courageousness in some) I would like to take the opportunity to remind folks of a few common courtesies and requirements on the blog.

The blog is more or less self policing. If there is something incorrectly posted usually someone more informed or with additional details will come by to post a correction or update with more accurate details. We actually count on all of you to do this. If you know there is a factual error and you don’t want to do this yourself please feel free to email me at Jason@Zandri.net and give me the details and I’ll do it for you.

The blog is a place for opinions. As an example, if you think a certain ordinance was passed that was intended to do one thing but could be leveraged for something else too (good or bad) then you’re free to post your thoughts and point of view. As much as possible, stick to the facts and then understand that someone else is probably not going to share your view and may say so. Feel free to respond but keep it on topic and do not make it personal.

The posts are anonymous. There was a small period of time that John had to stop that practice because of personal attacks on public figures and if I remember correctly it was around the time of the last local election. The reason I mention this is that “tis the season” and in the last few posts some of the commentary input has gone off topic and turned to personal attacks. I’d like to take the time to address it now with a reminder before any other actions have to be taken. If these issues continue we may need to force people to register and sign in before they post in the interest of being able to assign who wrote which comment (and that action is a lot easier for me to do than try to back trace IP addresses through the internet to the originating machines that made the posts).

The bottom line with going off topic – don’t make an anonymous comment of someone else that you wouldn’t sign your name to or say to their face. Yes you have the luxury of making anonymous posts here and that was to encourage people to express themselves without fear of real or assumed repercussions. It was never the intent to allow anonymous posts to let people hide in the obscurity of the internet and randomly make personal attacks. Having said that – the bottom line is it will not be tolerated.

I wanted to offer these reminders to everyone in the interest of fairness and in the hopes of keeping everything civil, above board and on topic as we approach the upcoming local election season.

There is so much to be gained for all in the sharing of information and the fair expression of personal opinion. Let’s try to get the maximum amount of mileage out of that while being as neighborly about it as we can.

Vin Avallone Discusses Mike Brodinsky's Departure Every Weeknight at 7:00 PM

John Sullivan and Ralph Tomaselli interviewed Vin Avallone Sunday Night on the Weekly Wrap Up Show. Discussion included Mike Brodinsky's departure from the ticket, and the advantages and disadvantages of running six candidates. We also discussed Choate Headmaster Ed Shanahan's request that the town close Old Durham Road. Tune in every weeknight at 7:00 PM to the Weekly Wrap Up Show.

Tune in by Clicking on the Radio Icon located on the right side of the blog.

SullivanOneOnOne.com is The Political Pulse of Wallingford.