After reading the article on the “Ideas Suggested on Charter Change,” I immediately, as a taxpayer and lifelong resident of the city of New Haven, had to respond for several reasons.
First, none of the groups give any indication of the inclusion of the taxpayers who will be ultimately affected by these decisions, and weather or not the taxpayers currently have any input in those recommendations. Not taking into consideration the option of student aldermen should raise hairs, as this committee may not be aware that this is a blatant act to exclude any attempt made by the taxpayers to learn more about their city government, who is ultimately responsible for how their family budgets will be affected.
Second, the decision to determine whether members of the Board of Education should be appointed or elected, again, should be determined by the taxpayers, who eventually would be fitting that bill. It is bad enough that parents are not able to enroll their children in the neighborhood schools that they live in because of the decisions made by appointed board members who have no affiliation whatsoever to these neighborhoods.
As it applies to the office of mayor, city clerk, aldermen and registrar of voters, and their term limits, this responsibility should not be placed in the hands of a few people whose ties to the city are not known, and whose position will inevitably be supported by taxpayer monies the like. In the end, regardless of what your title or position is within the city. The voters will ultimately determine if you should stay or be removed.
This is what has caused the resistance and rebellion in countries like Syria, Egypt, Russia, and many third world countries. Leaders in government, whether on a state or local level, will eventually see the results of their disapproval, and not necessarily at the polls before, during, or after election time. Anyone who has had their car towed for taxes has already felt that pain.
Taking away the voice of the taxpayer via these secret charter revision committees to determine what’s best for them and their families, is a recipe for continued frustration and disdain towards elected officials by the struggling taxpayers.
The 5-0 votes to increase the stipend for the aldermen, and simultaneously advocating against the removal of the vehicle property tax, should also be a red flag. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy was prudent in this decision to propose this legislation. This is another form of corporate welfare that has been enforced with strong-arm tactics, to preserve the convenient lifestyles of the typical city official at the expense of the First Amendment-deprived taxpayer.
In addition to the false information that the committees are not allowed to consider residency requirements for current and future city employees, and that they do not have the legal authority to set term limits, contradicts the purpose of revising charters in the first place. What purpose do you serve to modify a charter, if all options to do so are impeded by the special interests of non-city residents? This is where the problem originated.
In any event, regardless of what term limits may be, and whether all fire, police and board of education personnel should be required to live in the city, the final decision should be of the taxpayers, who have supported the lavish salaries of appointed city officials for far too long. Most don’t reside in the city. There should be no time devoted to the definition of residency, as you either live in the town that pays your salary, or you don’t.
It has been said many times over that it takes a “Wise Man” to learn from his mistakes, but it takes a “Wiser” man to learn form the mistakes of others. The decisions of the charter review committee once it is final, will clearly in the “near “future,” determine whether they have the best interest of the taxpayers in the city of New Haven at heart or not.
Maurice W. Smith
New Haven