General Questions reguarding the Town, its operation can go here.
-
Recent Comments
Anne Stapleton on General Town Questions John Fahan on General Town Questions John Fahan on General Town Questions jezebel282 on General Town Questions jezebel282 on General Town Questions
101 responses so far ↓
jfahan // August 21, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I hope all enjoy this site. We will get back to you with your questions as soon as we
can.
Thank you again for visiting.
John Fahan
Kate // September 6, 2007 at 4:38 pm
How do you feel about Charter Revision and why? Exactly what revisions, if any, do you feel should be made?
George Mulligan // September 6, 2007 at 5:24 pm
On a Charter Revision, related to Town Attorney:
Do you believe the Town Attorney should act as the personal attorney for:
1. The Mayor (see Alberto Gonzales or John Mitchell)
2. The Town Council
3. The Democratic Party / Town Committee / State Committee
Should the Town Attorney be elected?
Who oversees the Billing of the Town Attorney?
Is it appropriate for the Town Attorney’s firm to represent BOTH
Bridgeport and Stratford?
> What is the annual billing since 1996 on the Airport?
Is it appropriate for the Town Attorney’s firm to represent BOTH
?
Stratford Town & Board of Education?
> I have all but 1 1099 since 1996 from the Town. They Lost 1?
> I have printouts since 1996, from the BOE.
>>>They are NOT CREDIBLE.
>>>Sources indicate they are about 50 % of actuals.
>>>Since the BOE never printed ACTUAL Budgets, until I learned of it at
the Library Research and bought it to Town attention at Stratford HS Budget
Hearing and then to Ben’s attention, to whom you addressed it at the first
EVER BUDGET WORKSHOP (Attaboy Gavin), HOW CAN ACTUAL PAYMENTS
be TRACED and VERIFIED as ACTUAL & REAL or PHANTOM EXPENSES?
Gavin, what is your BEST SOLUTION for a TOWN ATTORNEY whose
TRUE OBLIGATION is to the CONSTITUTION and TAXPAYERS?
George Mulligan // September 6, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Mr. Fahan,
I participate on a blog, which both you and Gavin have posted.
The Blog master accused you of using multiple names on the
Blog? True or False?
You were accused of bringing the news about Brook Miron into
the political arena? True of False?
Mr. Fahan, honest mistakes in judgement can be made, and if
you were the person in question, I suspect if you admited that
it was you and apologized to Brook and the Bloggers, it would
be the RESPECTABLE thing to do?
Certain people won’t like you. But they only do what they are
told to do, and are not RESPECTED.
Gavin Forrester // September 7, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Kate:
I have spoken to many people in my district and throughout Town over the past month and as a result I proposed a resolution to create a charter revision commission which would consist of 9 people (3 registered Republicans / 3 registered Democrats/ and 3 Unaffiliated voters) to look at all issues within the Charter including budget referendum/ residency requirements/ run-off elections, electing the Town Clerk and any changes the commisison would feel appropriate. I am open to any proposals that the commission should make but I want to let them do their work without any interference so I will keep a hands off approach to their deliberations.
Gavin
Gavin Forrester // September 7, 2007 at 7:49 pm
George:
Electing a Town Attorney would not solve the problem because they would have campaign committee’s and seek campaign contributions which would result in the potential for favoritism the same as we have now. Even independant legal council appointed by the justice department to investigate the legislative branch of government seem to have bias so I don’t think that there is any way to insure complete independance.
Gavin
George Mulligan // September 8, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Gavin,
You are correct, in that an election would probably not change much.
However, if the Town Attorney WAS elected by the PEOPLE and NOT
appointed by a Mayor or Town Council, then theoretically, it becomes
more clear, to the BAR ASSOCIATION ETHICS, that client of a Town
Attorney is the PEOPLE, not a person or group.
Nifong was running for political office.
According to reports, he was worried about his PENSION, and needed
to be re-elected.
My opinion: The Bush – Gonzales case is EXACTLY analogous to the
way Burturla told me in 1999, how he viewed his position > “I work for
the Town Council.”
I believe he has stated, “The Mayor appointed me. I work for the Mayor!”
Gavin, haven’t you heard the same thing?
Gavin, isn’t it interesting that:
1) Burturla started getting Town Revenue in Late 1996.
2) The Pension Bond was worked on and passed 1997 – 1998.
3) The Pension calculations were negotiated in 1998, I believe?
Am I correct?
4) Team Stratford was awarded AVCO, while Feehan and Schirillo
were on the Town Council, Dick Miron was Democratic Town Chair,
and Dick Burturla was Assistant Town Attirney, ready to move in
for Gilardi, when Debbie Rose made her moves in mid 1998 & in
Dec 1998?
5) Ray Voccola had a nephew & son on Stratford Police.
6) Most of Stratford upper police worked with Joe Burturla.
Just my opinion, but looking at timing, motives & personnel:
There are political deals.
There are conspiracy and fraud.
Sometimes……………….
jfahan // September 9, 2007 at 8:58 am
Hi George. All kinds of things are said about many people but what can you do right?
JFK said ” a clear conscience is our only sure reward”.
Take Care, Be Good.
JF
jezebel282 // September 10, 2007 at 9:26 am
Mr. Forrester,
Considering that you will be voting on recommendations made by a charter commission if re-elected, I do not believe a “hands-off” approach is appropriate. Obviously, if you have proposed a resolution to repair this charter, you have identified certain causes for concern.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ”
That being said, what serious and long term problems do you see with the current charter?
Gavin Forrester // September 10, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I have proposed a Charter Revision Commission because government should be “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. A number of constituents approached me with a wide variety of topics that they would like to see addressed which I included in my resolution. I do believe that we could make the charter more clear with regards to how the veto process and override works, especially addressing the annual budget, and the Council should have more authority over items such as how expenditures are authorized and projects are approved. I was disappointed in the amount of funds that were expended under the guise of economic development to redesign our town logo, the LOCIP funds used for some Town Hall Projects, and the list of streets that are set aside to be paved without any input from the Town Council. That having been said I still think that with cooperation between the Council and Administration that these issues could be overcome and I do not feel that the Charter has serious and fatal flaws but I am more than willing to have a Commission formed to discuss any suggestions that might be out there to make it a better document.
jezebel282 // September 10, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Mr. Forrester,
Thank you for the response. You have, I believe, correctly identified some issues. There are others such as an independent Town Attorney’s Office and removal of employee’s “at will” status that need to be addressed as well.
In addition you are correct in that the amount of cooperation between the Council and this Administration has been at best minimal.
The taxpayer’s end up being the victims of this relationship that is clearly one sided.
Cyclops // September 10, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Very nice website.
jezebel282 // September 12, 2007 at 11:50 am
Mr. Forrester,
Can you provide the results of the vote on your resolution? Can you provide information on the results of the Haddad background check?
Gavin Forrester // September 13, 2007 at 6:56 am
The result was reported in todays Ct Post article but to confirm what happened the Charter resolution was ruled out of order by the Council Chairman because the Council had previously voted down a Charter revision proposal 10 months earlier. The Town Attorney stated that, even althought the wording and scope of the resolution was different than the one presented by the Council Chairman, according to the rules of order once an issue has been voted on it can’t be voted on again unless there is a vote to waive the Council rules of order which required 8 votes. Councilman Stavola did not arrive at the meeting until after 11 PM due to a work obligation and Councilman Camillo left the meeting to attend to a family situation at 10 PM so there were only 8 members in total there to vote. My motion to waive the rules was defeated 6-2 with Councilman O’Neal and Councilman Barker voting against the proposal. I will try once again in October, hopefully Councilman Stavola and Camillo will both be there, and maybe we will have the 8 votes necessary to move this forward.
Because the Haddad report was discussed in executive session I am obligated to abide by the rules and can not reveal anything that was discussed, If I violated those rules I could be subject to civil legal action against me so I have to decline to comment.
jezebel282 // September 13, 2007 at 8:46 am
Mr. Forrester,
Thank you for the detailed report and your continued support of Charter Revision.
I understand your inability to comment on a report issued in executive session. However, are there any actions you plan to take as a result of this report? Will it remain a mystery forever? Mr. Haddad is in charge of administering a $167 million budget as well as personnel decisions. I believe the citizens have a right to some knowledge of this man’s background.
Obviously, there was some question to lead the Council to spend tax money to find answers. Or maybe I should ask it this way: Would you let Haddad spend the evening with your teenage daughter?
Kevin Giasullo // September 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Jezebel,
I have to caution you on only the last sentence in your post. Simply, we are approaching a point in which this topic/forum was not intended. If Gavin were to comment “Yes or No” to your question, he would be revealing information that may or may not have been was discussed in executive session.
I am not going to moderate your last sentence because I respect everyone’s right to freedom of speech, however please understand that this is one question that will not be answered.
I appreciate your participation into this forum as your questions have all been fair and respectable. I do hope up until this point, this forum has a resource to have your questions answered to satisfaction and I encourage your continued participation.
Thank You
jezebel282 // September 13, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Kevin,
It was a little (very little) attempt at humor. The question remains however that this is not a purely confidential matter. The Council allocated tax dollars to conduct an investigation. We should at least be inform as to whether or not this person (second in command) has received the endorsement of this Council. Since Mr. Forrester appears to be the only Councilman brave enough to respond to questions, the question is asked.
Will the Council or the mayor issue a statement regarding the investigation?
Kevin Giasullo // September 13, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Jezebel,
As the webmaster for the site, I want to assure we keep the content here clean and respectable and keep the lines of communication between the public and Councilman Forrester open, which is why this forum was created.
I am thinking that if Mr. Haddad or his family came across this publicly accessible site they would not have found that question funny. With that mindset taken into account it was meant as simply a friendly caution to all for the future; what is expected on this forum and why I addressed it.
Thanks for your understanding, and thank you for your continued participation.
Gavin Forrester // September 13, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Jez – your point is well taken in so much as taxpayer dollars was spent there should be some way for the citizens to get some feedback on the subject. That having been said there are the employer/employee privacy laws and the Council rules of order that prevent me from saying anything regarding the discussions in executive session. No action was taken by the Town Council on the issue once the executive session was completed. Let me say this about Mr. Haddad, from my dealings with him, I do not get the impression that he is a sexual predator in anyway and that he is stalking women in the employ of the Town of Stratford. I have more confidence in his ability to handle the budget than I would others as every time I had a question on an item in the proposal his answer was professional and I was able to verify his response. He was very helpful to me in getting some long standing issues addressed at Longbrook Park so I really have nothing negative to say about his job performance. I don’t know him outside of his professional capacity so I can’t shed any insight as to his personality when “off duty” so to speak. In closing I am just as frustrated as you are by not being able to discuss the report as it cuts both ways, because of privacy laws the public does not know if what was written in the newspaper was true, but taxpayer dollars were spent on this investigation and the public can’t be informed as to the results unless Mr. Haddad chooses to comment on the subject. I have asked the Mayor’s office to tell me how much was spent on the investigation so at least I will be able to report that since it is taxpayer monies that were used.
Gavin Forrester
George Mulligan // September 22, 2007 at 8:43 pm
George:
Moderated due to overly excessive length some was deleted by the anti-spam bot due to random capitalizations. and using >>>> to break up paragraphs. Your questions #3,5 were moderated and the rest that were kept were because they were the most concise and to the point, please feel free to ask the questions that were removed that were not kept in the future in a more concise manner. …Please make effort to make overall blogs MUCH SHORTER. Our goal is to make this an easy to view website for the rest of the public without having to scroll through a 95 Line Post. Thanks -Kevin G
Gavin,
QUESTIONS.
1) How many usits are approved for Harbor side / Dock area?
2) If there will be 630 Condo units of 5 stories on 30 acres on Lordship
Boulevard, is the Adminitration’s and Democrats plan to have 1,485
Condo units of 5 stories on 75 Acres of AVCO?
5) Is the 65 day window ending Nov 22 for the Zoning decision, conveniently
timed for the coming Nov 2 election and Nov 16 Army Auction?
A) Is it planned for partisan and financial self interests, eliminating Stratford’s
ability to regenerate Economic Engines of Job Creations and Business Taxes,
with the real intent, to feather nests and perpetuate power of keeping people
dependant of staying in poverty, in order to get housing?
6) Gavin will you debate me?
Will you debate Mr. Devan?
Will you agree to 3 debates in OCT?
As the best know and incumbent, you have NO INCENTIVE to debate.
As the person you portray yourself to be and whom I praised as having
good interests of the Town, I believe you agree that between the three
of us, we can open POSITIVE DEBATE to benefit the people over the
partisan interests.
If we debate, Gavin, I will be attacking the spoils system, of a Faganomic
Corrupticut, more than I would be debating you. However, as you know,
you are Vulnerable on the Pension Issue as well as others, even while you
have done good to great things in Town and for the Town.
Gavin, I think you will step up.
If you do, I could win, because people are ticked about taxes.
If you step up, I could “very possibly” support you or your candidate for Mayor.
George Mulligan // September 23, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Gavin,
This was question 4, which Kevin excluded.
I can’t see where they are neither concise, nor to the point, which is about a series of potential conflicts of interest by the Democratic Party’s Town Attorney.
It is a single point, with 7 specific examples.
4) Is it appropriate/ethical/legal for the Town Attorney and / or his FIRM to:
A) Represent the Town vs. Board of Ed & Board of Ed vs. the Town?
B) Represent Stratford vs. Bridgeport (Airport) & Bridgeport vs. Stratford?
C) Represent Stratford vs. Milford (I -95 exit 33) & …..?
D) Represent Major clients in Town vs. Zoning and Planning
E) Represent the Town and Unions and Pension Computation/Deposit and Pension Administrator vs. Tax Payers
F) Represent the Mayor vs., Town Council, with NO ONE advising the T. C.?
G) Represent the Mayor & Mr. Haddad against the people?
George Mulligan // September 23, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Below is a reposting of question 3, which goes to the Heart of the public interest integrity of this Wedsite.
I agree we need Low Income Housing. i disagree that we should give up mixed use retail / commercial /
light industrial, for Residential, with or without including
Low income housing.
The ONLY alteration to the below is taking out (>)
3) Stratford has insufficient ratio of Low Income Housing.
A) What is the Ratio?
B) How many Units are needed to comply with CT. LAW or desires?
C) How does Stratford compare to Fairfield, Westport, Weston, Easton, Trumbull, Ridgefield, New Canaan? Where to find that information?
D) Will there be set asides for low income housing:
1. At each site?
2. At one of the sites, to make up for the PRESENT ratio imbalance
AND the PENDING imbalance, exasperated by adding 2,075 Condos,
plus however many at Harbor side?
E) Milt McDonald, Mr. Cox, and others pointed out that other Condos were also set up as 1 or 2 Bedrooms, with a DEN, and were supposed to house MINIMAL SCHOOL CHILDREN. Those DENS turned into BEDROOMS and many School children are bussed from them.
1 – What will the potential effect of over 2,000 condos be on:
1 – a – The School system
1 – b – The Tax burden related to more students at
$ 10 k + per
1 – c – The Septic system, presently maxed
1 – d – The Traffic
1 – e – The Districts and Voting
1 – f – The Business & Economic Development, related to Job creation.
1 – g – The Town Attorney Budget and revenue for Attorneys for closings.
Kevin Giasullo // September 23, 2007 at 8:54 pm
George
Your posts have been identified by the wordpress.com anti-spam bot as potential spam which is why they are being held pending Administrator approval. I am approving them as fast as I login and check throughout the day. The posts that were not duplicated are posted above for you in their entirety. Thank you for keeping them shorter.
Gavin Forrester // September 23, 2007 at 9:03 pm
George let me address the following:
QUESTIONS.
1) How many usits are approved for Harbor side / Dock area?
a) I believe that it’s 44 but I am checking with the Zoning office and will get back to you by next week on the exact amount.
2) If there will be 630 Condo units of 5 stories on 30 acres on Lordship
Boulevard, is the Adminitration’s and Democrats plan to have 1,485
Condo units of 5 stories on 75 Acres of AVCO?
a) I am not aware of any “democrats” plan and have not been asked to suport either the 630 Condo Units or 1,485 units on the Avco Property. In fact I don’t support such a large project as the 630 on Lordship Blvd and would much rather see a smaller scale corporate office campus. The SAEP property would require extensive and expensive clean up to be suitable for residential usage and I support a mixed commercial/retail usage with a very minor residential component if any at all.
5) Is the 65 day window ending Nov 22 for the Zoning decision, conveniently
timed for the coming Nov 2 election and Nov 16 Army Auction?
a) Which 65 day window are you refering to – the Lordship Blvd property? George you might be under the impression that I am included in discussions held by other democrats but I am not. There has not been a caucus of the council democrats in at least 3 1/2 months and I am never consulted with regards to any land usage plans if there are any. You might call me the black sheep of the party because I tend to vote my consense rather than along any party line.
A) Is it planned for partisan and financial self interests, eliminating Stratford’s
ability to regenerate Economic Engines of Job Creations and Business Taxes,
with the real intent, to feather nests and perpetuate power of keeping people
dependant of staying in poverty, in order to get housing?
a) Again George I am aware of no plan to do any of the above and would not support one if it was out there.
6) Gavin will you debate me?
Will you debate Mr. Devan?
Will you agree to 3 debates in OCT?
a) George I am not opposed to debates but I will tell you that I will not cancel any of my council obligations to sub-committees or meetings. I was elected to represent the people of the district and will not let the election stand in the way of me forfilling that obligation. In addition do you have someone in mind to moderate the debates and what format the debate would take? If you give me some details and possible dates of course I would consider it, 3 debates in 4 weeks might be a bit much for a council seat, I think there were only 3 debates or forums for the Mayorial election and that was townwide.
If we debate, Gavin, I will be attacking the spoils system, of a Faganomic
Corrupticut, more than I would be debating you.
a) That’s fine and understood.
However, as you know,
you are Vulnerable on the Pension Issue as well as others, even while you
have done good to great things in Town and for the Town.
a) I have no problem debating my record on the Republican controlled Pension Board and think that the change in investment composition will have a positive impact in future years.
Gavin Forrester // September 23, 2007 at 9:11 pm
George I don’t think that Kevin is editing any comments or questions I think it is the wordpress program but I will verify that with him.
4) Is it appropriate/ethical/legal for the Town Attorney and / or his FIRM to:
A) Represent the Town vs. Board of Ed & Board of Ed vs. the Town?
Response – No I think there should be 2 seperate firms but I don’t currently have a vote on the issue as the BOE selects their attorney and the mayor the Town Attorney based upon the charter.
B) Represent Stratford vs. Bridgeport (Airport) & Bridgeport vs. Stratford?
Response – Clearly they can’t represent both parties.
C) Represent Stratford vs. Milford (I -95 exit 33) & …..?
Response – unless there is a conflict of interest BMD can represent Stratford on this issue.
D) Represent Major clients in Town vs. Zoning and Planning
Response – No I don’t this that BMD is actively engaged in representing anyone vs P & Z.
E) Represent the Town and Unions and Pension Computation/Deposit and Pension Administrator vs. Tax Payers
Response – If your suggestion that BMD is working against the taxpayers I think you are mistaken. Pension Contracts are determined via collective barganing and ratification and not by BMD. In most instances they are determined by arbitration.
F) Represent the Mayor vs., Town Council, with NO ONE advising the T. C.?
Response – I do think that the TC should have their own representation because there will be times that the two are in conflict. Something along the lines of when congress has a special council appointed to a subcommittee that inquires with the administrative branch on certain dealing.
G) Represent the Mayor & Mr. Haddad against the people?
Response – again George the Town attorney’s office should never work against the people under any circumstances.
Gavin Forrester // September 23, 2007 at 9:16 pm
George:
These are land usage issues taht the council has no vote over but I will do my best to answer these questions.
3) Stratford has insufficient ratio of Low Income Housing.
A) What is the Ratio? – When I was on the zoning board the ratio was about 8% and we need 10% to comply.
B) How many Units are needed to comply with CT. LAW or desires? – It was in excess of 150 4 years ago but I am not sure presently.
C) How does Stratford compare to Fairfield, Westport, Weston, Easton, Trumbull, Ridgefield, New Canaan? Where to find that information? – Gary Lorentson can provide you that information on this subject and those listed about. His email address is GLorentsen@townofstratford.com
D) Will there be set asides for low income housing:
1. At each site?
2. At one of the sites, to make up for the PRESENT ratio imbalance
AND the PENDING imbalance, exasperated by adding 2,075 Condos,
plus however many at Harbor side? – Again I do not know the specifics of these land usage decisions.
E) Milt McDonald, Mr. Cox, and others pointed out that other Condos were also set up as 1 or 2 Bedrooms, with a DEN, and were supposed to house MINIMAL SCHOOL CHILDREN. Those DENS turned into BEDROOMS and many School children are bussed from them.
1 – What will the potential effect of over 2,000 condos be on:
1 – a – The School system
1 – b – The Tax burden related to more students at
$ 10 k + per
1 – c – The Septic system, presently maxed
1 – d – The Traffic
1 – e – The Districts and Voting
1 – f – The Business & Economic Development, related to Job creation.
1 – g – The Town Attorney Budget and revenue for Attorneys for closings.
All of those issues are to be taken into consideration by the elected Zoning Commissioners. As a reminder there are 4 seats this year on the Nov. ballot so it’s important that people ask these questions of all of the candidates.
John Fahan // September 26, 2007 at 8:13 pm
George it was nice finally meeting you the other evening.
I am currently reading a dated but quite relevant book on American Political Parties. Now I am a die hard Democrat but I must say that independents or unaffilited voters are the true heirs to the Revolution. Jeffersonians and Jacksonians or Democrats are a close second. Federalists which became National Republicans, who became Whigs, then Republicans come in a distant third. LOL.
What I mean is this: The author Wilfred Binkley says the founding fathers believed coalitions of majorities would be temporarily formed and would be dissolved as soon as their business was consummated. They would be temporary parties if you will… They believed permanent majorities could only be obtained only on a moderate policy since any attempt at a radical one would prove disintegrating in its effect on the combination. They feared a single radical group seizing reins on the republic. Now I do not think Dems and R’s are radical but my point is this belief in no political parties is set down as an essential American tradition which George Washington certainly belived in. Washington feared factions right? Parties are factions. They are not in the Constitution but an creation born out of the agrarian and money interests of the day.
Well George just like George Washington you are a ture heir to the American Revolution. I am still voting for Gavin. Jeffersonians did carry the torch for egalitarianism and Federalists, well Federalists wanted to imitate the British Crown.
Kate // September 26, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Gavin,
Will you agree to debate the republican Charles Devan and (the blog hog) George Mulligan?
What are your feelings about your fellow Town Councilmen, and the reported punch and the gun, as reported by the other blogs and as the talk of the town? Don’t you have a duty to look into that?
What about KKP and the possible contract extension?
And what about your failed charter revision proposal?
John Fahan // September 26, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Hi Kate. I am about to get some sleep and I would be happy to give my point of view on Charter revision tomorrow. I know Gavin and George have agreed on a debate but the time and place to be determined. I am not certain on what Devan wants to do at this stage.
Anyway I’ll let Gavin speak for himself of course.
Gavin Forrester // September 27, 2007 at 9:55 am
I told George that I would honor his request to debate but as of right now we don’t have any format, location, date or moderator set up. I also said I would not cancel any of my council obligations because I was elected to show up at these meetings unlike some other councilmen that have work obligations.
I have read and heard the same stories but did not hear of any gun being involved. I do not have an obligation to investigate the matter because if anything did occur it’s the police department’s job to investigate any criminal action based upon a complaint and if it was a civil disturbance between two people it’s not my job as a councilman to investigate that. We have an Ethic’s commission established as well so if there was an ethical violation it could be brought there.
I have heard that both Keith Mahler and Carl Koerner have called the Mayor’s office and have yet to hear back. As of right now the contract is terminated but KKP is still the preferred developer because that was never rescinded.
It will take 8 votes to get the Charter Revision proposal brought back up and lately we’re lucky if 8 of the 10 councilmen show up let alone vote for it. As of right now I know that O’Neal, Barker and Camillo are not in favor so I will try and bring it back up at the next meeting but it will probably fail again.
John Fahan // September 27, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Here is my 2 cents on Charter Revision. It is regrettable it has not moved forward but I have some thoughts on what should and should not be included.
First off I am against residency requirements for department heads and others. You cannot always acquire the best talent or fit for a position so why put ourselves in that situation? Also, I am against a run-off election for mayor. Run-offs are geared more toward the Europeans and our American System is Winner Take All which I believe in. I am against the election of the Town Attorney because of conflicts of interest which most likely would arise. I would, however ,entertain the idea of electing the Town Clerk.
I am not for budget referendums. We can see how surrounding communities have been aversely affected by six or seven go arounds before a budget is passed. I would guess Stratford would break a record and have 10 votes or more before a budget is passed and we would have to borrow to keep the government running. We need to be able to trust our elected officials to do the right thing when it comes to the budget.
I am against Town Council members being allowed to sit
on any Charter Revision Commission. It is simply a conflict
of interest. Ideally it should be politically unconnected yet savvy common sense individuals serving.
I think it would be good to think about having a Board of Finance but I am not sure that would be right for Stratford.
I do not think the Town Council should have its own attorney. I think the Town Council should have its own attorney only in extraordinary circumstances. I do believe the Town Attorney
should have a straight salary and not bill by the hour. That would save much $$$$ I am willing to bet. Sorry Mr. Buturla.
The question of who is next in line to the mayor should absolutely be explored.
My experience with charter revision comes from my term on the Stamford Board of Representatives. Some years ago we had a charter revision and I interviewed candidates to be selected. It is crucial that candidates be asked not only their views but if they would be the ones to put initiate such views beyond the charge of the Town Council if fortunate enough to serve.
The above views are mine alone and not necessarily those of Gavin Forrester. Despite what I think I know Stratford is anxious to have an opportunity to determine its own destiny and I hope that day comes soon.
John Fahan.
John Fahan
Kate // September 27, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Mr. Fahan, I agree with you on many, if not all, of your points. Why don’t you (and your pearly whites, to borrow from the Playwright’s blog) think about running for office yourself, suppose against Rep. Harkins (and his not so pearly whites).
John Fahan // September 28, 2007 at 5:33 am
I am actually in Terry Backer’s District. This Harkins thing I always found amusing among other things. And no, I am not running against Debicella. I had considered a run just a few months ago but I have other items on my plate right now and I would not have the time.
Thanks.
George Mulligan // September 29, 2007 at 9:25 am
Gavin, Mr. Fahan, & Kate.
I posted specific positions and questions.
Gavin & Mr. Fahan answered. Thank you.
I suspect more supporters than detractors,
will come to this site. Then can decide for
themselves on positions.
I would not expect Gavin to break any
commitments, and his points about the
debate(s) are legitimate.
Time flies. I just spoke to Gavin this week.
I spoke to Marcia Stewart about expanding
the Oct 5 debate. She legitimately pointed
out that the FIRST DISTRICT LORDSHIP
people vote for people in Zoning / Planning
which include votes from 1st & 2nd Districts.
(Ergo, it is logical to include the 2nd District
Councilman and invisible opponent).
I was stunned there is no organized Debate
for 3rd District by League of Women Voters,
or the Churches, or the political parties.
Hence, I have to scramble to fact find, create
sponsorship/site/interest.
And I can only raise $ 1,000 (Won’t accept $$)
and spend $ 1,000. (signs can be $ 300 – $500)
I own a laser jet printer.
Gavin already has staff in place. I have not actively
sought Staff or support, so as not to ENDANGER
anyone from Reprisals of the Political inJustice
System, (no reflection on Gavin)
I may follow up on these and other questions in
the future. For now, the answers, unchallenged,
are enough, and a semblence of Debate.
As long as I am unedited.
I have posted Blog questions / comments about Gavin’s move to reconsider Harborside, prior to
=
viewing this website. It is a nice Website!
teasing!
Kate had her questions and comments.
I am not sure it is appropriate for me to answer
her on Gavin’s site and have no other way to
contact her, except the Political Theater.
John Fahan // September 30, 2007 at 12:13 pm
George, no more of this Mr. stuff. You can call me John. I am nobody important, just a working man.
George Mulligan // October 12, 2007 at 1:18 am
Oct 12, 2007 Gavin’s Web – Town Issue comment
1) Some of the issues touched and questions asked in
the 3rd District Section or remediation section, while
unanswered there are at least partially answered in this Blog. This Blog has had useful exchanges.
2) I made a typo in my presentation to the Star.
The 32.9 % is an error.
It was supposed to be 22% of the Town side Budget goes to cover Pension related costs.
How do I figure that? Rounded approximately:
A) Total Budget $ 171 m
B) Education side $ 87 m
C) Town side $ 84 m
D) Total for Pension Cost $ 18.7
Divide 18.7 by 84 = 22 %
3) Where do I get $ 18.7 m. See Budget pages
B-6 and B-8, Add the lines
01201-6902 Pension Bond Principal Payment
01201-6921 Pension Bond Interest Payment
01251-6063 Pension Deposit
4) I stated that about $ 144 per thousand of each home
or business or property owner’s taxes goes to cover Pension Related costs (see above)
A) According to Mr. Norko, 1 Mil = $ 4.3 m
B) The number from above for 2007 Pension related
cost are $ 18.7+ m
C) Divide 18.7 by 4.3 = 4.35 Mils, rounded
D) The Mil Rate is 30.12
E) Divide 4.35 by 30.12 = $ 144 per Thousand
This is a good faith offering, in appreciation for a one
to one to one debate of just the 3rd District Council
Candidates.
If this is not moderated, I will notify Chuck & Paul on
where to find this.
If it is moderated, I will have copied this, attached to
MS WORD and e-mail to Gavin, Paul, & Chuck.
I have ideas for solutions where everyone loses a little, but can have major gains in other ways, while
having a solvent plan, with very good payments.
It involves good faith negotiations and agreements.
I believe my plan is one which the rank and file would be proud (although reluctant) to embrace.
George
George Mulligan // October 12, 2007 at 2:02 am
Oct 12, 2007 Gavin’s website comment section # 2.
4 separate issuess and questions:
————————————————————————–
1) When someone is pensioned as Disabled, does that pension become Tax Free?
A) Gavin with you background in economics and Law,
if the IRS or CT. REV looks at 70 % Disabled Fire
Fighters, “could” that cause problems for people on the
Pension Board? Even in dissent?
(say: Thank you George)
————————————————————————
2) I spoke to Attorney Anthony Avalone at the Sept 18
Zoning Hearing. I asked for his card. I noted his card
had the e-mail address of Berchem, Moses.
A. The obvious conclusion was he was a member of
the same law firm as Burturla.
B. Hence my earlier question.
However, Esquire A. Avalone is NOT a membr of the
Berchem firm, he mearly rents space. I am aware this
is not uncommon. i asked him and found out about that when he was at the Town Council Meeting and he
later left with the people who made the presentation to
the Town Council about upgrading the Terminal.
A. Esquire A Avalone was upset that I would question
his integrity, that i would insinuate that he was of the
same Law firm as the Town Attorney.
B. Yet, what was I to think? What is the appearance?
C. Even though he just rents space, doesn’t the Bar
Association have rules about appearances?
>> Berchem’s Address?
>> Berchem’s e-mail address?
>> Represented a top 10 Tax Payer, PERFECTLY?
>>>> Another Lawyer, with him on Sept 18 STATED
that HE (the other LAWYER is with Berchem?
>> Was present on both Sept 18 and Oct 9, with an
apparently unrelated company and issue at the Air
Port on Oct 9, vs. a 630 Condo Zoning Issue Sept 18?
>> Waited in the Hallway as Q & A, by the Press and
LEFT with the AIRPORT PEOPLE?
>> On Sept 18, I raised the question about AVCO also
being a candidate for Residential and the verbal reply
of Esq. Avalone was that he thought whoever won the
Nov 16 Army Auction would want Residential use to be
an option?
>>>> The CT. POST reported a 65 day window from the
Sept 18 zoning hearing, making it Nov 22 or after or BEFORE the NOV 16 ARMY AVCO AUCTION and/or
BEFORE or AFTER the NOV 6 ELECTION?
>>>> The Stratford Star reported Mayor Miron wanted to
“consider” a need to GROW the number of residents?
>>>> This was directly related to 630 Condos, but was
silent on the 800 pound Gorilla > 1500 AVCO Condos?
–
I have previously stated that everything in Stratford has
been intentionally delayed until the 2007 – 2009 period
where ‘controlled” people are elected.
Does the above give a concurring appearance?
————————————————————————-
3) I have raised the issue, if person or persons “could” try to influence the COLOR of the LAW and SELECTIVE
INVESTIGATION, using things like COMPUTATIONS of PENSIONS and / or TYPES of PENSIONS.
> Such tactics might be construed as or proved to be
BRIBERY or under the R. I. C. O. Statutes?
This is desirable to no one.
If there was total Transparency, then much of these
could be avoided.
=========================================
40 Lastly Gavin, you are the CFO of an INSURANCE Company.
Since Berchem Moses has 19 INSURANCE clients, and 11 THIRD PARTY INSURANCE clients, and has many subcontracting Attorneys, with “appearance” of independence,
Does your INSURANCE COMPANY now or has it ever
done BUSINESS with BERCHEM, MOSES, DEVLIN?
Again, appearances.
You can say Thank you George for allowing you to be
able to show complete independence.
Thank you,
George Mulligan
Gavin Forrester // October 13, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Question – 1
1) When someone is pensioned as Disabled, does that pension become Tax Free? -
I checked with a couple of my colleagues and in most cases municipal disability pensions ARE taxable.
A) Gavin with you background in economics and Law,
if the IRS or CT. REV looks at 70 % Disabled Fire
Fighters, “could” that cause problems for people on the
Pension Board? Even in dissent?
No there is no problem for the Pension Board so long as they follow the language of the Pension Contract/Agreement and that has been followed during the 4 years I have been on the Board.
Gavin Forrester // October 13, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Question – 2
Does the above give a concurring appearance?
I’m not sure exactly what the question is but I’m sure if a conflict becomes apparent the Zoning Commisison will take the appropriate action
Gavin Forrester // October 13, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Questions # 3 is actually a statement and I am all for transparancy in government.
Gavin Forrester // October 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Question # 4.
40 Lastly Gavin, you are the CFO of an INSURANCE Company.
Since Berchem Moses has 19 INSURANCE clients, and 11 THIRD PARTY INSURANCE clients, and has many subcontracting Attorneys, with “appearance” of independence,
Does your INSURANCE COMPANY now or has it ever
done BUSINESS with BERCHEM, MOSES, DEVLIN?
Again, appearances.
You can say Thank you George for allowing you to be
able to show complete independence.
Thank you George. My Employer is actually an Insurance Wholesale Broker, which means that we don’t deal directly with the client or general public but rather the independent insurance agent that does not have a standard market with which to place a particular risk. We hold contracts with companies such as Lloyd’s of London and 85% or more of our business is generated from the lower Fairfield County and New York State Markets. I honestly have no way of knowing if my company deals with any of BMD’s clients as we do not have any direct contact with the client themselves but rather their independent insurance agent, but to my knowledge I am not aware of any of our clients having any affiliation with BMD. Gremesco Corp also does not write personal lines insurance/ Home or Automobile/ Life or Health Insurance so I am 99.9% sure we do not have any contact with any individual clients of BMD either. In the 4 years I have been employed with Gremesco we have never been asked to, nor submitted solicitation, to quote insurance for the Town of Stratford just in case that was your next question.
George Mulligan // October 15, 2007 at 2:01 am
Gavin,
Thank you for your responses.
So far, there has been NO INDICATION of FRAUD in the formation of PENSION COMPUTATIONS.
However, a short time after I publicly raised the issue,
there was something in the newspaper about the Town Attorney advising the ETHICS COMMISSION that
according to State Law, former EMPLOYEES and SUB
CONTRACTORS could NOT be INVESTIGATED by the
ETHICS COMMISSION.
This makes SENSE.
A) The ETHICS COMMISSION should INVESTIGATE
people who are ACTIVE in GOVERNMENT SERVICE
whether Elected, Employed, or Appointed, since it can
have active effect in changing a current situation.
Conversely a past/former employee could have an effect on a present situation.
B) A subcontractor is NO Employed by the Town or
directly appointed by the TOWN.
Co-incidently:
A) The PENSION COMPUTATIONS involved former
employees, many who built up PENSIONS, far in
excess of most comparable Towns / Cities, like in
FAIRFIELD.
B) The PENSION COMPUTATIONS were NEGOTIATED
by a SUBCONTRACTOR.
Who appointed them?
Who was Town Attorney at the Time and/or involved in
hiring people for Negotiations.
FYI:
Because EXISTING PENSIONS are an ONGOING
Obligation, the STATUTE of LIMITATIONS to 1998
would NOT apply, in my belief.
Any CONTRACT, TRIAL, ARBITRATION or LEGAL AGREEMENT constructed in FRAUD or CONSPIRACY
is VOIDABLE and subject to LEGAL CRIMINALS and
/or CIVIL PROSECUTIONS, including REPAYMENT
and PENALTIES.
The R.I.C.O. (Racketering, Influence, Corruption, and
Organization) ACT, was ruled against the Los Angelos
Police Department a couple of years ago. There are
precidents of application of the R.I.C.O. ACT against
various Businesses and Government Agencies.
However since Judges, Prosecutors, and Judges are
politically appointed, especially in CORRUPT-icut, it
would be against the INTEREST of BIG DEMOCRATIC
and BIG REPUBLICAN PARTIES, to have these used
to clean up POLITICAL INFLUENCE in a SYSTEMIC
MESS in what I describe as a COCAINE REPUBLIC
with SPOILS SYSTEM, with an accent on OILS which
OIL / GAS stabilized the former U.S.S.R. (example) and
mathematically will prove to be the single GREATEST TRANSFER of WEALTH in HISTORY.
Suggested reading:
1) The Rockefeller Syndrome (How small blocks of
3 to 5 % of Stocks by controlled Foundations, Banks,
Investment Houses, other Stocks, & Investors can be
51 % of voting INTEREST. prior to OIL prices up from
$ 10.98 a Barrel in Dec 1998 to $ 83 a Barrel now.
Prior highest oil prices were 1981, of $ 38 a Barrel,
until Paul Volker crashed hoArding, by High Interest Rates, making INVENTORY too expensive to HOLD.)
2) The Power Broker, by Joe Lieberman about John
Moran Bailey
3) The Robber Barons (Rockefellers controlled 100%
of USA Domestic Refineries by 1880 – 127 years ago.)
Gavin,
I believe certain people in both Parties have hurt our
Town, for their own INTEREST.
I do NOT believe you to be one of them.
I believe in a DEBATE, questions can be raised both
in the PUBLIC INTEREST and in YOUR INTEREST,
while at the same time, it “could” taint you politically.
I believe you would welcome this Opportunity.
MEET the CANDIDATES:
OSNA has taken Oct 29.
League of Women Voters has Oct 30.
Firemen have Oct 24. I wasn’t invited to my knowledge, yet now that I know about it, I will seek attendance.
You previously indicated AVAILABILITY Oct 25 as one
of the DEBATE POSSIBILITIES.
I have spoken to Chuck Devan and Paul Joy, after the
OSNA Picnic about the Date. If it becomes real, I think
Chuck can become available.
Or Chuck might make himself available, whether or not
you can be available. I can’t speak for him.
I believe you and some others in both political Parties
are for GOOD GOVERNMENT.
I believe there are others in both political Parties who look at the Stratford BUDGET and ASSETS as an ATM.
George Mulligan // October 15, 2007 at 2:10 am
Gavin,
Sunday @ 3:00 am, I put out 30 signs on each side of
the Rail Road Tracks. By 7:00 pm 12 signs were gone.
I strongly suspect at least 1/2 may be by people who
own a house near the Planting Strip where ALL of the
CANDIDATES place their signs.
There is a Gentlemen’s Agreement about NON INTERFERRANCE, with each others signs.
There were at least 4 signs taken next to yours.
There were at least 4 signs taken from Town parks,
or traffic islands.
I have noticed Chuck Devan has lost several more
signs than you have lost.
I do NOT blame you for acts of others, nor do i envision
you touching property of others.
I do know James and Dick Miron have significant influence on the actions of Democrats and Town
Workers. As a Town Councilor and Democrat, I know
you have contact with each / both.
I am giving the Parties until Thursday Oct 18 to return my signs, or I will raise Embarassing ISSUES to the
PRESS and PUBLIC.
SUN TSU: “He who protects EVERYTHING, protects
NOTHING.”
jezebel282 // October 16, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Not to distract you two for too long, but Mr. Forrester can you explain why certain districts are not getting the services they are entitled to? Specifically any district with a Republican Councilman?
Kevin Giasullo // October 16, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Jez,
I’ll bring your question to Gavin’s Attention. in the meantime can you be more specific about what services?
jezebel282 // October 17, 2007 at 9:52 am
Thank you, Kevin.
1. Lack of Maintenance at Roosevelt Forest (Republican District)
2. Lack of Maintenance at Short Beach (Republican District)
3. Extemely long leads times for repairs at public schools (even fire supression sprinklers) in Republican Districts.
4. Closing Boothe Park (Republican District).
Enough? (You’d think “Offering more from Forest to Shore” would mean both ends too.)
Kevin Giasullo // October 17, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Jez,
I myself live right by the forest and would like to see more maintenance at Roosevelt Forest. Question passed on, stay peeled for an answer.
-Kevin
Gavin Forrester // October 17, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Jez what what I understand is that Boothe Park is not closed and I spoke to Councilman Camillo Monday evening and he said it is still open. Who told you it was closed, is there a sign posted somewhere?
I have enought to deal with trying to get Parks to maintain Longbrook Park and if you read the minutes to the meeting I posted from the Longbrook Park Commission you will see that all of the membership is frusterated that simple maintenance issues are not addressed. Longbrook is in the 3rd so it’s not just Republican districts that are complaining. Drive over to Hyde Park and Clover field and Birdseye field and I am sure you will hear complaints from the 2-4 & 5 as well.
When you say a long lead time to repair school sprinklers our Public Works Department would sub-contract for that work and I attended a General Building Needs Meeting Monday and have not seen any action items regarding this. If there was such delays I would imagine that the Councilmen in those districts would be asking questions to the Mayor at the Council meetings and they are not. Which schools are effected and I will look into it.
Stagehand Point for Forrester « Stratford Political Theater // October 17, 2007 at 3:28 pm
[...] Point for Forrester 17Oct07 I dislike Mayor Miron as much as the next person, but Gavin Forrester has an excellent point “defending” the mayor against Jezebel’s claim that the [...]
Jezebel282 // October 17, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Thank you, Mr. Forrester.
If I provide a map showing the “bad” districts would that be enough? Will you confront Miron about that? And what’s more, will your district appear on the next map?
Jezebel282 // October 17, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Oh…when Boothe Park closes, remember, you heard it on this website first.
John Fahan // October 17, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Jezebel for the record I back Gavin up on his comments regarding Longbrook Park. I did not realize how much work
would be involved with an appointed position. I will give Moe
a chance though to demonstrate his skills as he just came on board.
John Fahan // October 17, 2007 at 8:05 pm
By the way George I give the Federalists credit for continuing to trade with the British after the war. One has to remember there
was not an income tax so we had to get income somewhere as the new nation had to have income and Britain was our largest trading partner at that time. So yes we taxed imports. The Federalist Party or organization if you will only lasted 12-15 years because they outlived their usefullness. The Jeffersonian
Democratic- Republicans were the first true American Political Party.
Anyway that’s all
Gavin Forrester // October 17, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Jez send me the map in question and any pictures that you might have. I have enought on my plate trying to address the issues in my district and run a re-election campaign to my seat but if I can help another councilman it would be my pleasure.
jezebel282 // October 18, 2007 at 10:02 am
John/Gavin,
Thank you both. I do realise how much work is involved with what you do on a volunteer basis. I find it incredible that you do it at all.
John Fahan // October 18, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Thanks Jez. Gavin does a whole lot and I really do not know where he finds the time. I was warned before I moved to here that Stratford politics is not for the faint of heart. I was warned, they warned me.
There are so many concerned citizens in town that if all that
built up energy can be applied in a positive way this town has
huge potential. I am convinced better days are ahead of us and I hope to give more of my time in the future to that end. I talk to many people in town and I have never seen such a yearning for
a better future.
jezebel282 // October 19, 2007 at 9:40 am
John,
I know, I hear it every day.
By the way, we’ll be out in front of Cloughs Hardware in Paradise Green tomorrow collecting more signatures for the Charter petition. Just in case you or Gavin would like to sign it. Maybe Kevin too.
John Fahan // October 19, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I’ll sign it Jez. There is a new book out about the Constitution. The title escapes me but basically it is about how the Constitution is really a product of the people. It would resemble something very different if certain states did not demand a Bill of Rights and what not. It would have only been a Constitution for the Federalists and the elite money interests if the people had not taken a stand. God must have loved the middle class and the farmers because he made so many of us past and present.
Anyway I will sign it. My views on what should be and not be in it have not changed.
Gavin Forrester // October 20, 2007 at 8:30 am
Jez I signed Pat Naylor’s petition a few weeks back at the Perry House Fundraiser.
John Fahan // October 20, 2007 at 9:28 am
BloodyMary we have a strong mayoral form of government now so I would not want to see the Mayor be a voting member on the BOE or appoint members to planning and zoning. Perhaps make the mayor a non-voting member of BOE like they do in Stamford. Also, we have over 50,000 residents so I would not cut the number of Councilmen. We just need to elect the right people, that is the problem. A Board of Finance may be good because it would be like an
“upper house” so to speak. Usually how that would work is the Board of Finance would vote on an item first them pass is down to the Town Council. The Board of Finance does not necessarily have to vote first but that is the way many communities would have it set up. Anyway ,the assumption is with a Board of Finance you would get candidates with some sort of business or financial background to bring some expertise to the table.
As I said before we really should look at:
1. Board of Finance (maybe)
2. Election of Town Clerk
3. Who is next in line to be Mayor
4. Salaried Position for Town Attorney f to save $$
5. No, No run off elections. Winner take all is the American Way.
6. Also, no Town Council Members on Charter Revision.
7. Candidates interviewed have to be asked if they would initiate changes or sit back and see if others will initiate them once discussions proceed. You want to know how passionately they feel about certain issues before appointed.
John Fahan // October 20, 2007 at 10:47 am
I was just at Clough’s to sign the petition.
John Fahan // October 20, 2007 at 10:51 am
Also, say NO to Budget Referendums! See what Oxford and other communities went through? Not good.
jezebel282 // October 22, 2007 at 11:18 am
Thank you guys.
Hopefully we can make it very easy for this council to appoint a Charter Revision Commission.
jezebel282 // October 23, 2007 at 8:17 am
Kevin,
It went so well, we’ll be setiing up outside of Clough’s this weekend too. Clough’s is now my only hardware store.
Oh…we will be out on Halloween (gotta walk with the kids anyway) with our petitions.
John Fahan // October 23, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I see Dan Malloy has a website DanMalloy.com. I believe it was launched Tuesday. He was the best candidate for Gov. and I am glad Stratford got something right at the convention by giving him a majority of its delegates. I swear ,I did no arm twisting. Well , maybe a little.
jezebel282 // October 25, 2007 at 11:47 am
Mr. Forrester,
Do you intend to permit the leader of your party to continue the witch hunt against Pat Naylor? Will you speak out on this issue?
How much was spent on Blum Shapiro? What were the audit periods? Did Miron allow Blum Shapiro access to his staff and expenditures?
Gavin Forrester // October 25, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I’m just finding out about this now so I don’t have a lot of information on the cost of Blum Shapiro or what the Mayor is questioning regarding Pat Naylor but I will put in a call and see what I can learn.
jezebel282 // October 25, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Mr. Forrester,
Thank you.
Oh and according to Miron’s Newsletter, every Town employee that handles money will be automatically auditted when they leave the Town. I assume this goes for Mark Haddad too?
John Fahan // October 25, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I see Monroe is keeping budget referendums. I hope it works out for them. I am not a big fan of these referendums as you all know.
John Fahan // October 26, 2007 at 5:37 am
Ahh another petition drive now in Monroe. Looks like some feisty folks down there want to press ahead and get rid of budget referendums according to the post:
The budget is now initiated by the first selectman and given final approval by voters in a machine-vote referendum. Under the proposed change defeated Wednesday, the first selectman would send his budget, after adjusting spending requests from town departments, to the Board of Finance. After the finance board acts on the budget proposal, the plan goes to the Town Council, which would adjust it and send it back to the first selectman, who could veto it. The council would have authority to override the veto with a more than two-thirds vote. If the budget is not vetoed or the council does not override it, the budget would be set at the amount approved by the finance board.
Now that sounds how it ought to work to me.
John Fahan // October 31, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I was at the debate last night and Gavin did a great job!
It was enjoying to watch. George you appeared to be for
all the specific things that I am against with Charter Revision.
All the dynamics at play at these forums are so exciting!
I am too into this stuff I must admit.
jezebel282 // November 1, 2007 at 8:08 am
Mr. Fahan?Mr. Forrester,
Any word yet on whether Mr. Forrester supports the mayor in his accusations against Pat Naylor or whether another audit will be done next week when Mark Haddad leaves office?
John Fahan // November 1, 2007 at 10:44 am
Jez, I would ask Gavin that. I am privy on many subjects but not these.
Call me John not this Mr. stuff.
jezebel282 // November 1, 2007 at 3:13 pm
John,
How does one ask Gavin, if not here?
John Fahan // November 1, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Jez I will alert him. He usually reads this on a regular basis
but I will contact him.
george mulligan // November 5, 2007 at 7:26 am
John, Kevin, & Gavin:
We have obvious political differences.
I prefer the people control the government and the
Taxations, not the parties.
You believe the parties are representative government
doing the will of the people. I do NOT.
I had put out 55 signs.
Now MORE than 1/2 are Missing.
Chuck Devan lost many signs in the PAST.
I know of only 1 lost sign of Gavin’s.
I am 100 % sure Gavin is not personally involved.
Please contact members of your party and ask them
to place the sign back where they were TODAY,
before the ELECTION. No questions asked,
Despite temptations, I repect other peoples propoerty.
The 3 tapes I have of the CHANNEL 79 BROADCAST
on THURSDAY 8:00 pm Nov 1 of the TUESDAY 7:00
pm DEBATE at ST. Joseph’s Church, all had the
REBUTTALS and a FEW POSITIONS of the Charter
Revision Commission position MISSING.
I know DAVE MOONEY TAPED the Debate.
Has the full DEBATE been aired subsequent to the
Thursday (publicized) airing?
Will the full DEBATE be aired AFTER the ELECTION?
Is this the type of OPEN, GOOD GOVERNMENT that
I read and hear about?
Is this the way people teach thier children to emulatte?
Is all fair in Love, War, and Politics?
I guess if the Government is your meal ticket and the
only way to subsidize your company and your friends,
I guess I could understand a need to
Cheat,
Lie,
Steal,
Murder?
John Fahan // November 5, 2007 at 12:49 pm
George I am a working man and if anything it has
cost me money to volunteer my time with politics but
do not get me wrong I am not complaining.
Meal Ticket? Doubtful Sir.
Gavin Forrester // November 5, 2007 at 3:30 pm
George I have been informed that the State Department of Transportation has gone thru Stratford and removed several signs that were on the State right of ways. I myself have lost 38 of 100 signs including those on private property. Unfortunately it’s something that happens every election year. I obviously don’t condone anyone taking signs but if they are on public right of ways then the State has the right to remove them.
Kevin Giasullo // November 5, 2007 at 3:45 pm
George,
I am an independantly registered voter in Stratford. I live in district 8 not even in district 3 . I work 2 part times jobs in addition to volunteering for Stratford EMS along with Gavin. Also I am attending college full time.
I signed on for the job as administrator/webmaster of this site because I believe that Gavin represents his constituents well and believe he puts the needs of his people first. For instance he would not commit to a district 3 debate before all of his obligations to his district and as a councilman were done first.
While other councilman have missed meetings regularly for family and life obligations i can do nothing but praise Gavin for his excellent attendance representing his district since he was elected. He is someone who is always there.
Gavin may not have the luxory of devoting 100% of his time and effort being a Councilman. Im sure though if he could he would. He is both a husband and father and works a job full time from 9-5 but somehow finds the time to volunteer as a councilman and as an EMT for the town.
As far as your campaign signs go, I can assure you no one from his campaign had anything to do with it.
I do know however Gavins signs have been disappearing by the half dozens or so over the past 3-4 weeks. We have painstakingly made an effort to replace the signs after confirming with the owners that they were not taken down by them. After all where the signs go and stay is at the will of the owner of the property.
Government is by far my meal ticket George. You are right about one thing though, we do have differing political views, and thats perfectly fine, I personally believe part of good goverment is differing political views and using those differing views to come to a common ground and hopefully that the common ground betters the people.
Respectfully,
-Kevin
jezebel282 // November 5, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Gavin/George,
You think maybe Jim Miron made a quick call to the DOT? It’s not like they have Sign Sheriffs, you know.
And Gavin, I would still like to know your position on the “audit” and Miron’s accusations against Pat Naylor and former Town Managers.
jezebel282 // November 19, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Mr. Forrester,
Is it true that the Council approved funding to hire Mark Haddad as a consultant to write the Bond package? What are we paying him? And why?
Gavin Forrester // November 20, 2007 at 11:01 pm
No that is not correct – no vote was conducted by the Town Council to expend any funds for Mr. Haddad to do anything further involving the Town of Stratford.
I have not been informed that he is involved in any way with the bonding package.
Gavin
jezebel282 // November 23, 2007 at 7:35 am
Mr. Forrester,
I suggest you check with the Council leadership. Mr. Haddad has not only been retained to work on the bonding package but the 2008 budget as well.
This is very disturbing……please let me know. I would not like to see Mr, Haddad retained in return for new fire equipment.
Gavin Forrester // November 26, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Jez it’s not a matter of checking with Council Leadership but rather the Mayor actually communicating with the Council out of respect to the membership to let us know that Mr. Haddad has been retained. Based upon the Charter in it’s present state the Mayor has total authority over hiring so this is not a Council issue until the annual review of the fiscal audit which will determine if the Mayor overspent the budget.
Jezebel282 // November 27, 2007 at 7:16 am
Mr. Forrester,
I find your answers to be somewhat….wrong. A consultant hired to write a bonding package. Isn’t the assumption of debt a council matter?
We can also see how much “respect” the mayor has for the council with this decision.
According to the mayor: ““In addition, should any employee who handles money or grant funding be transferred or leave Town employment, an immediate audit will be executed.”
Has the audit of Haddad been completed?
jezebel282 // January 5, 2008 at 8:07 am
Mr. Forrester,
Notwithstanding Buturla’s “opinion” of the validity of the petition, it is imperative that this time the Charter Revisions should be untainted by the usual Stratford politics. If I might, I would like to take the liberty of proposing a few names for consideration to be placed on the committee:
Pat Sperling, Karen Rodia, Debbie Gilbert-Taylor, Gary Boyhan, John Florek, Jennifer Hilgen.
Kevin Giasullo // January 9, 2008 at 5:09 am
Jez,
Happy New Year to you;
Gavin is on vacation with his family until the 12th..i’ll pass this along to him for you when he gets back.
-Kevin
John Fahan // January 24, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I must say, Go Giants!
jezebel282 // February 12, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Gavin?
John Fahan on the Charter Revision Commission?
Tsk, tsk…bad move Gavin…that one’s gonna hurt you and leave a mark.
Gavin Forrester // February 12, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Jezebel you are entitled to your opinion and I don’t sit back and calculate what vote will make me look good or not. The commission has not even met yet and you predetermined because of John Fahan that nothing good can come of it. Ever talk to the man, of course not, why you would bother to do that. As far as the Stratford Political Theater blog I loose tremendous respect for any forum that condones someone suggesting that I would fit into NAZI Germany. I have posted under my name and not hid behind cloaks and I take my share of criticism, both fair and unfair in my estimation, but there is no satisfying some people unless I do everything that they ask and rubber stamp their position. Why anyone would want to volunteer to run for public office in Stratford is beyond me. Thank God for term limits as it prevents me from even considering running for re-election.
Let me guess – for the CRC you wanted – and they are all excellent candidates as I feel many are that were appointed last evening:
Sperling – Blumstein – Rodia – Mulligan – and any other vocal detractor of the current form of government or the Mayor, and unless that was accomplished the CRC is a sham.
jezebel282 // February 13, 2008 at 8:51 am
Mr. Forrester,
It is unfair of you to categorize the Stratford Political Theater blog by singling out George Mulligan. That would be like me calling it unfair because Mironistas call me names there. (Actually, I sorta like that)
Our disappointment stems from the selection of politically connected applicants. The entire petition drive was non-partisan. The council (including yourself) reverted back to the same old politics as usual. There are two campaign managers, a former town attorney, a former councilman and a failed candidate for council on the CRC now.
Sperling and Blumstein would have been excellent choices. One is a Republican and one is a Democrat. neither sought to change the mayoral form of government. Neither sought any advantage for either party.
I do not doubt for a moment your dedication to this town. And I respect you for crossing the “line” and voting against your party when necessary.
It is when the same old Stratford bloodsport of political Gang Wars clouds your judgment that I become disillusioned with your decisions.
I would not take the time to post here if I did not respect your opinion and honor your commitment to public service.
Gavin Forrester // February 13, 2008 at 10:14 am
Let’s do this – email me and anyone elses suggestions on the revision and I will do my best to make sure they get a full hearing on the issues. I don’t agree with everyone that was appointed to the commission but there is a political reality that a long drawn out floor fight would damage the process and give those who are opposed to Charter Revision more opportunities to drive wedges in the process. I wish you would give John a chance to prove he is no political hack, he has some ideas that I think you would like.
jezebel282 // February 13, 2008 at 11:20 am
Mr. Forrester,
It’s fairly simply.
1. An Independent Town Attorney’s office within Stratford Government. A budget provided by the Council. The attorney to be nominated by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council.
2. The ability of the Council/Town Attorney to subpeona documents and records. Enforcing budget items and requiring a majority vote to approve budget transfers after public hearings.
3. Removal of the phrase “At will”. Requiring employees to be dismissed for cause. Creation of an Employee sub-committee that can hear and remedy employee and public complaints such as no-show jobs, intimidation and elimination of positions for “budgetary” reasons.
4. Appointment of the presiding officer of the Council in case of Mayoral absence.
Essentially, blocking the abuses as demonstrated by Miron.
jezebel282 // February 13, 2008 at 11:26 am
Mr. Forrester,
John Fahan has his chance. He has been appointed. I do not know Mr. Fahan. My objection, as I have said, was to make Charter Revision about the voters & taxpayers, not about the politicians. Mr. Fahan is obviously a politician. If he were not, he would make a lousy campaign manager, wouldn’t he?
However, I will take your word for it until proven otherwise.
jezebel282 // March 18, 2008 at 6:46 am
Fahan said, “Line of succession is the most important aspect [of the charter] we are addressing.”
Really? Important to whom?
Not $1.25 Million for a Town Attorney? Not “At will” employment? Not budget oversight? Not grant development? Not budget transfers? Not no show jobs?
gforrester // April 1, 2008 at 9:05 pm
The budget for the Town Attorney also includes liability settlements and court costs. The actual amount budgeted for compensation is $450,000 which is $150 per hour for 3,000 hours. We have spent in excess of $500,000 over 4 years in fees on the Avalon case alone (Kevin Kelly’s firm handles that one). I would put a cap on the line item at $250,000 but the Mayor can over spend the line because the Town can’t be not represented in court. If I was the Mayor I would not hire anyone that has been a Stratford Town Attorney and bid the service out to the lowest bidder.
jezebel282 // April 9, 2008 at 11:58 am
And how much has been transferred to the Town Attorney over the budgeted amount in fiscal 2007?
It would seem that an in-house Town Attorney would have to be accountable for his budget…
jezebel282 // April 9, 2008 at 11:59 am
And how much has been transferred to the Town Attorney over the budgeted amount in fiscal 2007?
It would seem that an in-house Town Attorney would have to be accountable for his budget…
John Fahan // April 4, 2009 at 10:25 am
The most recent dispute between Stratford and Bridgeport over the Airport makes it all the more important for Stratford to seriously consider eventually purchasing the Airport in order to determine its own destiny going forward. Short of that I agree then there should be a Regional Airport Authority of key representatives of the Airport and each community to adjudicate such disputes.
John Fahan // June 21, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Someone recently asked me what changes to the new Charter I am most proud of. There are many but here are just a few:
I initiated a discussion for the Town Council to approve all Mayoral nominations to boards and commissions. Well I got part of what I was looking for. In any event it is important to note that because of this change Mayoral nominations to the Longbrook Park Commission must now be approved by the Town Council. Mr. McGuire and Mr. Sorrentino would not be currently on the Commission if the Town Council was not granted this additional approval authority. Remember they used to be direct appointments by the Mayor for this commission.
I initiated a discussion (April 1o 2008) about the TC Powers of Investigation. I fought for and was able to get language inserted that the T/C has the explicit authority to appropriate funds for an investigation. Ben Proto drafted the rest of the expanded language we have in that section.
One little known fact is that I fought against language that would had given any Mayor automatic pay increases each year through Charter Mandate. That was indeed on the table and I fought that and won.
Last my not least I fought to have all Directors approved by the T/C. Again, I did not get everything I wanted to see but as you know the Town Atty must now be approved by the Town Council.
Again just a few examples. Thanks for reading.
Anne Stapleton // July 15, 2009 at 11:11 am
Mr. Forrester,
I heard that you have quit the Democratic Town Committee and I was wondering what your reasons were if you care to share them.
Thanks-