August 3, 2008
July 31, 2008
Not a Cadillac, just basic transportation
This afternoon, Governor Rell announced that she will make $25,000 in state funding available to help ensure the continued operation of a senior-citizen’s transportation program operated by United Community & Family Services. The Governor has asked the City of Norwich to match the state’s $25,000 grant and the Mayor has said that he would ask for approval from the Council on Monday night. This is good and necessary program that keeps senior citizens from becoming completely homebound. The program, which has been successful for 20 years, was going to be eliminated because of state budget cuts and would not have continued if the City hadn’t stepped up to fill the gap. I’m glad we are stepping up, but we can’t keep doing things the way we are doing them. Earlier this month we spent $25,000.00 out of the contingency account for a piece of fire equipment. This second $25,000.00 expenditure means that we’ve already spent half of the entire year’s contingency funds and we’re not even a full month into the fiscal year.
And that brings me back to my point on the Sachem Account. In these difficult economic times, we need to be focused on the things that really make a difference in people lives – small things that can literally make or break families and households – things like energy assistance, transportation, foreclosure prevention, rent-default assistance, and even groceries. This economy is hitting people hard and it’s hitting people who never had financial difficulties before. We need to get our priorities straight because we can’t afford to pay for everything all at once. Today’s newspaper reported that net income at the Mohegan Sun was down 89% last quarter over the same period last year. Pessimism isn’t going to help improve the economy, but neither is unthinking optimism. We need to pay attention to our immediate problems and not spend extravagantly. We’ve been building toward a new economy and we can still get there, but right now we need to take small steps to keep from tripping up.
July 28, 2008
Alright folks . . . the charter belongs to all of us. What do you want to do about it?
I’m looking for feedback on the following possible resolution. If you haven’t notice by now, pride of authorship isn’t a big hang up for me. Have at it. Tell me what you think we need to do (or not do). Thanks!
Resolution
WHEREAS each member of the City Council of the City of Norwich has heard from residents and taxpayers who believe that the City Charter should be modified, and
WHEREAS the last charter revision effort in 2000 addressed many issues, but left ambiguous language, and
WHEREAS a majority of the City Council believes that it is desirous have a group of volunteer citizens review the Charter with the purpose of recommending changes that could be made to improve the effectiveness of the city government, and
WHEREAS it is also desirable for the Charter Review Committee to have access to professional technical and legal staff,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that there is established a seven member Charter Review Committee,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Mayor Benjamin P. Lathrop is hereby authorized and directed to recommend seven electors from the City of Norwich who will serve on the Charter Review Committee,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Mayor’s recommendations for appointment to the Committee shall be reviewed and modified or approved by the Council on or before the second city council meeting in October 2008,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to enter into contracts for technical and professional services to support the Charter Review Committee; such contracts shall not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in the aggregate,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Charter Review Committee shall make a report to the City Council and the people of the City of Norwich on or before April 20, 2009; such report shall detail:
- Language in the Charter that could be clarified to improve the public’s general understanding of, and confidence in, the Charter, its intent and purpose,
- A comparative analysis of each chapter of the City Charter and similar chapters of municipal charters from citie around the country written within the last ten-years.
- Recommendations regarding substantive changes that could be made to the Charter along with a detailed explanation of the potential costs and benefits of making such changes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all authority conferred upon the Mayor, the City Manager and the Charter Review Committee by this Resolution shall lapse on April 30, 2009 and the Committee shall cease to exist on that date unless extended by the City Council by further resolution.
Alderman Robert Zarnetske
July 23, 2008
Your name will no longer be . . .
Yesterday a friend stopped by to let me know that he was upset with me and my handling of the Sachem Fund resolution the other night. He said “I’m hearing that the Council is dysfunctional and you’re part of the reason that’s the case.” Then he asked “why do you have to argue everything?” The answer is this –
You can’t get to the truth or even something close to the truth unless you argue it, struggle with it, and conquer it. This is one of the basic truths of western, Judeo-Christian, thinking. And while our traditions aren’t always correct, this one, which has given rise to the Anglo-American adversarial model of judicial fact-finding is solid and has served mankind well for a very long time.
The best analogy I know to summarize the idea may be Jacob wrestling with his angel. In the Book of Genesis, Jacob wrestled with an angel until the breaking of the day. Throughout the night, neither Jacob nor the angel could gain the upper hand for very long but Jacob refused to give up, even after being hobbled. He would not release the angel until he agreed to give Jacob a blessing. The angel did so, saying the blessing was deserved because “you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” As the morning sun began to rise, Jacob realized he was looking upon the face of God himself.
The blessing that comes from striving for truth and understanding, is truth and understanding. If Jacob had surrendered to his fears or stopped struggling because he was tired he would never have earned the gift he was given. It’s the same way with public policies, if we’re not willing to struggle, to really puzzle through all aspects of the issue, then we can never expect to secure the blessings of the liberty we hold so dear.
I have never believed that I have all the right answers, but I have always believed that vociferous, open, honest debate is the surest way to get to the right answers. Lies, misunderstanding and errors all have a way of being identified and addressed when full discussion is allowed. When we don’t fully discuss things, lies, rumors and mistakes fester and grow. If we don’t have a way to test the veracity of an idea or a statement, than any statement is as good as the next. A lie can prevail over a demonstrable fact – and that is a formula for disaster, just the kind of disaster we have and have had in City Hall.
All of that having been said, I value the advise I receive from friends and I recognize what I’ve heard recently is right. My strategy for pointing out that we need more open discussion isn’t working as well as I had hoped. I will change my approach, but not the goal of promoting better public policies by ensuring greater openness.
July 22, 2008
Thoughts on the Sachem Fund Resolution
Last night, the Norwich City Council approved more than $640,000.00 in discretionary spending on arts, entertainment, historic preservation, and related activities. Many of the items on the list of recommendations will be helpful in building and supporting the economy we want to have. But, in my view, there isn’t enough on the list to support the economy we do have.We’re aiming for a better tomorrow – and that’s good, but we need to make sure that we’re dealing with the immediate needs, the realities of today.We can’t build a better economy for tomorrow, if we don’t shore up the foundation of the economy today.I attended a portion of the Sachem Fund Board meeting last month and one of the things I heard said was that it was appropriate to spend money on entertainment items because in tough times, like these, people need some distraction. Reference was made to the ancient Roman circus as justification for this approach to government spending.
I will note that the Roman Emperors understood there were two sides to the coin – their formula for social harmony included the provision of both BREAD and circuses. Entertainment is a poor distraction and poor policy when people are hungry or cold or stressed out about being unable to keep their homes.
I moved to amendment the funding resolution to reduce all recommended expenditures by 15% across the board and to allocate the $90,000.00 savings to be spent on emergency home heating oil and energy assistance programs for this coming winter because I think we need to do something to help people deal with real issues that threaten to undermine one of the fundamental cornerstones of the local economy – the housing market. Houses in foreclosure generate no conveyance taxes and dropping real estate prices undermine the property tax structure. We need to help keep renters in in their units, so landlords can continue to operate their buildings and we need to keep homeowners in their homes because its good for the community. The city can’t solve this problem alone, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the problem.
I spoke to the Executive Director of the United Way for Southeastern Connecticut and was told that last year United Way spent $125,000.00 on it’s emergency home heating oil assistance program. This year, because of budget constraints the agency has only been able to allocate $50,000.00 for the coming winter – this despite the sharp increase in oil prices and the general slump in the economy that has put more people in a difficult financial situation.
I spoke to the Executive Director at TVCCA and the story there is the same. Further, the state has already put local non-profits on notice that the state will not be able to assist in with these programs the way that it would like.
We are looking at a real crisis in the next 6 to 10 months. A crisis that will likely dramatically impact homeowners, renters and landlords throughout the city.
If we care about the economy of the city, we will try to mitigate against the worst impacts of current and impending difficulties.
Last night we spent more than $300,000.00 in taxpayer money. That’s about 3/10 of a mil or about $75.00 for a typical homeowner. That’s $75 dollars that we’re telling each and every Norwich homeowner (and renters too) they can’t spend taking their families to diner or the movies or for a day at the beach. And of course, we’re telling them they can’t use that money to pay their light bills, or heating bills, or commuting costs.
Under the guise of economic development, we decided how Norwich families are going to spend their money. And in my view it’s not clearly appropriate for government to decide where a family’s entertainment dollars will be spent. As for the notion that all of these activities will generate revenue for local businesses, I think we need more than an impression to go on. I attended the 4th of July Celebration this year and was amazed by the huge crowd that had come down town. But I noted also that the vendors at the harbor were from out of town and even out of state. When I asked down town business how much additional business they did that night, the answer was some, but not much. Crowds don’t necessarily translate into a broad economic benefit – like everything else you’ve got to work at it to make it work.
A list of disjointed functions is a far cry from the grand economic development partnership that was announced when the Sachem Fund was created. In the future we need to develop a clear and cohesive strategy to tie these disparate activities together – to make them something more than a list of disjointed expenditures.
Finally, I want to comment on an allegation made by Alderman Jacaruso last night. The Alderman accused me of grandstanding and surprising the council with my desire to discuss the resolution. He noted that I should have talked about the issues in a different forum, perhaps in front of the Sachem Fund committee itself. First, it’s worth noting that there was no meaningful opportunity for any member of the council (other than those on the Sachem Fund committee) to discuss the allocations before the council meeting. I could not go to the committee meeting, pull up a chair and puzzle through each proposal with the committee – I am not a member of that committee. I did attend the one meeting that I knew about and I listened as various proposals were discussed. No other member of council even did that.
But Mr. Jacaruso’s comments about my alleged grandstanding reveal a much more disturbing facet of thinking about how local government is supposed to work. Mr. Jacaruso said, in essence, he doesn’t want to be surprised by the need to discuss public business at a public meeting of the decision-making body charged with making decisions on the matter. If public officials don’t discuss public business at their public meetings, guess where they do discuss it, guess where they do come to conclusions – that’s right out of public view away from accountability. I understand that nobody necessarily likes having to think on their feet. Everything’s easier when the answers are already known before public “debate” begins, but easier isn’t better and in fact easier in this context isn’t even good. If I had spoken to Alderman Jacaruso and the other aldermen in any detail about my concerns before the meeting, I would have violated Connecticut’s open meeting laws and, more importantly, I would have violated the trust the public put in me to do their business where they could see it being done.
I know the majority of the council doesn’t see it my way. But there can be no compromise on certain principles of good government. Public business should be done in public view. The exceptions are few and far between, and they certainly don’t include the expenditure of public tax dollars on discretionary projects like those funded last night.
Remember, this is an open forum and anyone who disagrees with me is free to post here. I only ask that you keep it clean and maintain an appropriate tone.
July 18, 2008
Give me the bad news because the good news just makes me weak!
I once worked for a Senior Executive in the federal government who used to say “Bob, give me the bad news, because the good new just makes me weak.” He understood that sweeping problems under the carpet doesn’t make them go away.
The Norwich Police Department, like much of the city government, needs to be reformed. The problems are familiar to anyone who has read a local newspaper in the last eight years. The solution is subtle, but simple (though not easy). What the PD needs, what city hall needs, is a radical change in the dominate culture of public service. The culture that prevails – again not only in the PD, but throughout many local agencies – is “see not evil, hear no evil, and by all means speak no evil.” Too many of the city’s managers and employess think that if you don’t talk about a problem it’ll go away, especially if you can keep others from talking about it. Those who point out problems are labeled “troublemakers.” Too many city officials want to believe that we’re living a Norman Rockwell fantasy, so they avoid the uncomfortable conversations, the conflicts and the difficulties. Our local government is living off a diet of homemade sugar-coated platitudes that have no substance nor nutritional value and we are weaker because of it. The solution is to stop whispering, start talking straight and engage in conversations that will produce meaningful solutions. I know it doesn’t feel good, but as they say at the gym — no pain no gain.
July 17, 2008
Accountability . . .
Politicians love to use the word “accountability,” especially when applied to somebody else. How do we ensure that everybody in government is truly accountable to the people they serve, the people who pay their salaries, the people who make it possible for them to enjoy all of the economic benefits of a career in government? The answer comes in the form of three questions that must always be asked before accepting any proposed government policy. The three questions are: Why? Says who? and Compared to What?
Why?
It may seem like a basic question, but it often isn’t asked. And when it is asked, it often isn’t pursued long enough to get to a satisfactory answer. We’re too quick to accept kiss-off answers when we really should be insisting on details. Government officials usually want to play the role of the great Wizard of Oz, billowing smoke and making loud pronouncements that are unquestioningly accepted. The goal of the people who would restrain government is to teach every government agent and every government department to step out from behind the curtain and sing the song from the Wizard of Oz. You remember the song; it goes “because, because, because, because . . . ” We must demand real answers, real explanations.
Says Who?
John Bonine is a law professor at the University of Oregon who teaches young people how to safeguard the environment through the use of administrative appeals and lawsuits against arbitrary government decisions. Bonine reminds his students to always follow the chain of authority. Remember what you understood as a child, remember to ask “Says who?” Every government decision has to be based on an appropriate delegation of authority. Every government agent must be able to point to the regulation, the law, the constitutional (or charter) provision that allows him or her to be the “decider” and to make the decision the way he or she has or is proposing to make it. This is huge. Insisting on an acceptable answer to this question is the surest way to ensure that government agents and agencies don’t just make it up as they go along.
Compared to What?
Edward Tufte is a renowned professor at Yale University. He has written several books on how to present complex information in graphic forms — using charts and pictures to help people understand all of the details of an information set. Tufte points out that it is critically important to give people comparisons — “big” only means something when compared to “small.” Whenever government proposes a solution, we need to ask — how does the proposed solution compare to other solutions. Whenever government says things are going well, we need to ask “what do you mean by “well?” When government says it’s policies are succeeding, we must ask “how do you measure success and how does your success compare to that of others who have dealt with the same problem.” Norwich compares its present to it’s past. We’d would do better to compare ourselves to other communities because by doing so we begin realize where we can really improve.
July 14, 2008
What’s a mayor to do?
Under the Norwich City Charter the Mayor of the City is given the following charge:
“The mayor shall have primary responsibility for economic development and be the catalyst, in consultation with members of the City Council, the City Administrator, and any other agencies created by the City Council, for the economic development of the city.” (Norwich City Charter, Chapter V, Section 2).
This section has been widely understood to mean that the mayor is “in charge of” economic development in Norwich. In fact, the mayor can’t be in charge of economic development . . . in fact, government (even big federal governments) cannot be truly “in charge of” economic development. Adam Smith’s 18th century description of the basic laws of economics correctly pointed out that economies rise and fall because of the influence of “an invisible hand,” a force beyond the control of any one actor, that allocates resources according to supply and demand.
Economic development isn’t a government project and where governments try to undertake massive intervention in the markets, they fail more often than not. What governments can do effectively is provide information that allows buys and sellers, investors and developers to understand the forces at work in a particular place at a particular time. Goverments have tremendous power to gather, organize and present information about the state of affairs. This is what we do when we require the posting of gas prices at every gas station so consumers know where to buy the cheapest fuel. This is what we do when we require sellers to post health warnings so consumers can make informed decisions. Governments also have the power to restrict the use of misinformation — this is what we do when we punish fraud in the marketplace.
So what’s the mayor of a small New England community to do in order to promote investment in his or her community? Start with the little things — ensure that developers know that your community exists; let them know the price of real estate and the costs of doing business (taxes, utilities etc.). Distinguish your community from all of the other spots on the planet where money could be invested. Advertise, advertise, advertise. And remember that what appeals to an investor isn’t necessarily the same thing that appeals to a resident. Money follows money or the promise of money. It doesn’t care how quaint a place it is, or how grand it was a hundred years ago; it wants to know how profitable that place is going to be next year and the year after that.
A mayor who would succeed in promoting economic development cannot control the economy (or even try). He or she must watch what’s happening and direct energy and resources to activities that look promising and sap the energy from activities that will tend to injure the overall health of the local markets. The job of promoting economic development is more like that of a traffic cop than it is like that of a bus driver.
July 12, 2008
Huntington For President
The Pre-Constitutional history of the United States really is one of the greatest stories of world political history. The ’shot hear ’round the world’ was fired because of the strong reasoning and dedication of men and women of good intention and high principles. And it’s true that Connecticut patriots literally made the Republic possible. Roger Sherman was one of 5 who drafted the Declaration of Independence. Jonathan Trumbull, Sr. (of Lebanon, Governor of Connecticut and advisor to General Washington) is credited with helping win the Revolution. His son John Trumbull (born in Lebanon and lived for awhile in Norwich) is known as the Painter of the Revolution. He painted the famous ‘Signing of the Declaration of Independence,’ which in fact documented, not the signing but the presentation of the document by the Drafting Committee. He also painted most of the paintings that adorn the walls of the US Capitol Rotunda. Samuel Huntington, Sherman and Oliver Wolcott (of Windsor) were all present in Philadelphia when Trumbull painted the famous Declaration painting.
Huntington was a very capable man who helped hold the loose confederation of colonies together under very difficult circumstances. Huntington’s term as 1st ‘President of the United States in Congress Assembled’ began on March 1, 1781 and ended just four months and eight days later on July 9, 1781. However, Huntington had been the (6th) President of the Continental Congress at the time that the Congress approved and the states ratified the Articles of Confederation. Huntington served as President of the Continental Congress from September 28, 1779 to March 1, 1781.
Under the Articles, the term of the President or presiding officer was limited to one year, but prior service wasn’t considered, so Huntington stayed in office as President of the United States in Congress Assembled, until he became sick and had to return to Norwich to rest and recover from his illness.
There are great Norwich stories to be told about this era, but they are more than local interest stories, they are stories about the American political philosophy and the ideals that have shaped the world over the last two and a half centuries. As local custodians of these stories and artifacts, we have an obligation not only to the men and women of the past, but also to the future.
July 11, 2008
Obama for President
Politics can get pretty complicated. But if we remember that the point of policits, the point of government is to enforce and reinforce the ideals that we collectively believe in, then the challenge becomes manageable. On a fundamental level, all we have to do is be decent and pursue the truth. This is what we must ask of ourselves without hesitation and what we must demand of our government without exception. We need no more lies from Washington and no more delusions about the very real challenges we face here and abroad. It’s time to get real and start tackling our problems one simple solution at a time. I think we need to start by getting Senator Obama into the White House!