Sorry for not posting today but I've been very busy with some rather interesting Lexis-Nexis research.

I'll be back soon.

Due to popular demand, this post has been bumped to the top

In an attempt to inform the public about the various candidates running for office this year, HatCityBLOG is kicking off a new feature entitled "CAMPAIGN SPOTLIGHT." Using a combination of text, audio and video, the HatCityBLOG crew are going give readers a different look at the candidates.

For my first interview, I sat down with the Brian Cotter, candidate for Treasurer and talked about his background, why he's running for office, his "Welcome Back Cotter" theme of bringing back fiscal integrity to Danbury, and why he feels he's the best qualified for the job.

Brian Cotter is the Democratic candidate for the office of City Treasurer. It is the second most important elected office in our city as evidenced by its position on the ballot, next to the office for mayor.

Brian Cotter has been a resident and taxpayer in Danbury since moving here from the south shore of Boston in 1971. From 1972 to 1996, he was a prosecutor for the State of Connecticut in Danbury and prosecuted many high profile criminal cases.

When he left government service, he was the Supervisory Assistant State’s Attorney for the Judicial District in Danbury. He served as the Treasurer of the Connecticut State Prosecutors Association for many years. He is a past president and vice president of the Greater Danbury Bar Association. During the time he was a state’s attorney, Brian Cotter was also an adjunct professor of law at Western Connecticut State University.

The voters elected Brian Cotter to two terms on the Danbury Public Schools Board of Education. He has been a member of the Danbury Democratic Town Committee. He is a graduate of Georgetown University in Washington DC and Boston University School of Law.

Welcome Attorney Cotter.

Cotter: Thank you.

HatCityBLOG: Or should I say, “Welcome back, Cotter!”

Cotter: Well, I thought I might as well finally get something positive out of it.

HatCityBLOG: Since you’re running for the office of City Treasurer, can you tell us your opinion regarding the role of the treasurer in city government?

Cotter: Sure. The treasurer is responsible for the taxpayers’ money. It is his or her sworn duty to conscientiously protect the value of the taxpayers’ dollars. There are two aspects to this responsibility - investment and spending. The treasurer is sworn to administer these responsibilities strictly from a financially sound point of view. Political considerations should be left up to the mayor and the voters themselves.

HatCityBLOG: Do you believe this has been done in the past?

Cotter: No. When funds set aside for future liabilities or to fund capital projects are diverted to cover present spending, this is a recipe for slow but sure financial disaster. A treasurer should not allow this to happen.

HatCityBLOG: Isn’t it illegal too?

Cotter: Well, a lot of politicians don’t seem to think it is.

HatCityBLOG: Can you give me an example?

Cotter: Of course. In 2001, the taxpayers of the city voted to bond a capital project, that is, the construction of a parking garage downtown on Library Place and planning funds for another facility if monies remained. The amount of money they authorized the city to spend to construct the parking garage was $5 million. This was when Gene Eriquez was mayor.

HatCityBLOG: Okay.

Cotter: However, instead of beginning construction of a parking garage that the taxpayers had authorized, the current mayor took $1.3 million from the parking garage bond allocation in 2002. He diverted this $1.3 million and gave it away to the highway department to repave roads. Now, repaving roads was not the purpose the taxpayers had in mind when they approved the $5 million for the parking facility. They thought they were getting a parking garage. Repaving roads is not a 20-year capital expenditure like a garage. Yet, now the taxpayers will be paying for the repaving of the roads for 20 years. The treasurer should not have allowed this.

HatCityBLOG: Why would the mayor do this?

Cotter: Well, it is politically expedient to repave roads. The voters see it. They like it. However, assuming the roads needed to be repaved, the mayor did not want to include this item in his budget.

HatCityBLOG: Why not?

Cotter: Well, for one thing, he would have had to raise taxes to pay for it. And he wanted the voters to think he had enough money for repaving roads when in fact, he had to rely on bond funds to address this.

HatCityBLOG: But isn’t this a good thing if it kept taxes down?

Cotter: No. It did not keep taxes down because it increased the city’s long term debt unnecessarily which eventually has to be paid by even higher taxes. It just looked like it kept taxes down. The taxpayers authorized $5 million of future debt to build a parking garage because they wanted a parking garage. That was their political objective.

HatCityBLOG: So repaving roads with that $1.3 million was not sound spending?

Cotter: Correct. It was foolish. Furthermore, when the voters approved the original bond issue, it became law – an ordinance of the City. The mayor, on his own initiative, took $1.3 million, which the taxpayers will be repaying for a long time after the mayor leaves office, to repave roads. This is an example of taxation without representation. It was a very foolish use of the taxpayers’ money at the least, and legally inappropriate at most.

HatCityBLOG: So, it’s like using the money from your home equity loan on your house to pay for, say, dry cleaning.

Cotter: Exactly. Except in that situation, at least you know what’s happening to your money and it’s your own decision to do that.

HatCityBLOG: I understand. If you want to do something financially foolish, at least you are in charge of making the decision to do so or not.

Cotter: Absolutely. The taxpayers did not authorize this foolish and imprudent use of their money for repaving roads. In fact, many taxpayers don’t even know it has happened. They think everything is fine because their road was repaved. But the mayor had to go back to the voters with a subsequent bond issue he proposed to replace the 1.3 million he took to repave roads and to cover the increased costs of the garage because of inflation. Therefore, the parking garage that we are now building on Library Place is costing the taxpayers much more than they think and much more than it should have cost if the mayor had begun the project as he took office in late 2001. After all, the garage construction started in 2007, six years after the funds were initially approved.

HatCityBLOG: So explain how does the role of the treasurer comes into play here?

Cotter: Of course. A treasurer is exactly what the word means. A treasurer is ethically, morally and legally responsible for safeguarding the money of the taxpayers. The role of the treasurer is not limited to just signing checks. If the treasurer’s role were limited to signing checks, then it would not be an elected office. The mayor’s secretary could do it. And if it isn’t the treasurer’s function to be the watchdog of the taxpayers’ money, well then whose job is it?

HatCityBLOG: And why do you say City Hall thinks the treasurer’s job is to just sign the checks?

Cotter: Ask them. And ask the Treasurer why he didn’t stop the diversion of $1.3 million from the bond issue for the parking garage from being used to repave roads?

HatCityBLOG: So the fox is watching the hens?

Cotter: Absolutely. The mayor has usurped control of the taxpayers’ money from the treasurer. And that’s why the reckless spending continues unabated. Nobody in city hall is paying attention to safeguarding the value, the integrity of our money. Nobody in city hall is focused on preserving fiscal integrity and financial security.

HatCityBLOG: How would you stop this?

Cotter: I will not sign any checks for any expenditure that is not already in the mayor’s budget.

I will not stand for a questionable transfer of funds within a bond issue for a purpose that wasn’t intended by the voters.

I will ensure all pension fund contributions are made in accordance with the City’s actuarial requirements.

I will work to hold the line on more long-term debt being added to the books so that our children and future generations won’t be burdened by having to pay higher taxes for decisions made years before they had a say.

I will restore proper risk management to the city’s financial reserves.

HatCityBLOG: Basically, is it fair to say that you’re running on a theme of bringing back fiscal control for the benefit and protection of taxpayers.

Cotter: Yes. I want put an end to reckless spending. It is time to REALLY put people over politics and not just say it.

HatCityBLOG: Well, thank you for this interview and taking the time to talk to the HatCityBLOG community. You presented an interesting case, which should make the race for treasurer rather interesting.

Cotter: It will. Thank you.

I have the prefect theme song for Cotter...

---

Recently, Cotter (along with Democratic third ward Common Council candidate Jim Kelly ) was a guest on the local access show Community Forum where he went into more detail about his campaign.



Make sure to visit HatCityBLOG throughout the campaign season to read more interviews from the candidates running for office in this year's municipal election.

It's articles like this gem from today that reinforces by belief that the Connecticut Post should shut down the News-Times and move everything up to Bridgeport.

From the worse paper in Connecticut (POSTED TODAY AT 10:15 A.M.)

Joe Carlucci, co-owner of Famous Joe's Pizzeria at 34 White St., will appear on the WPIX Channel 11 Morning Show from 6:30 to 9 a.m. Carlucci owns Famous Joe's with Chris Baruso.

[...]

The WPIX show will be doing a live take of Carlucci every hour, with featured clips of him in between.

Let me get this straight...

A local business owner, who holds the Guinness Book of World Records" for having the highest pizza toss, was on THIS MORNING'S news show on Channel 11 from 6:30 to 9:00 A.M. and the paper of record posted the announcement at 10:15 A.M?!?

Like I said, I sincerely hope the Connecticut Post closes the News-Times down and consolidate everything in Bridgeport. It’s not like the News-Times is really informing the public about anything locally when it comes to the city government and having no news is better than the garbage that's spewing out of this disgraceful periodical.

No wonder so many reporters and employees decided to jump ship and leave in the last year...I'd be embarrassed to work for such a shoddy newspaper that repeatedly fails to properly inform the public.

Launching a weekly (or bi-weekly) paper in Danbury is becoming more tempting by the minute.

UPDATE: Well, I guess it was in the print edition but I wouldn't know because I canceled my subscription months ago.

Still, what's with the timestamp? Ah, the drama...

One of the reasons I decided to start blogging about Danbury was because of several people who were concerned with developmental issues in the area. When this site launched back in the summer of 05, the one thing I’ll never forget was the growing anger over what many called irresponsible or over-development.

Back in ’05, just say the word condominium and/or BRT and residents would throw their arms in the air and scream as if they stubbed their foot. The phrase “Condo” Boughton was thrown around time and time again as residents pointed their finger at the mayor and his administration for the over-developmental problems in the area.

Charges that BOUGHTon is working in partnership with residential developers at the determent of the city’s residents came up time and time again. These same people, who saw an increase in property and sewer taxes for every year Boughton was in office, charged that the mayor and the Republican majority gave away hundreds of thousands of dollars in sewer and water hook-up to selective developers.

That was 2005, and now it’s 2007 and it seems like the nothing has changed...in fact, among many, things in Danbury have gotten worse.

From the anger expressed towards the mayor giving BRT tax giveaways and free-sewer hook-ups for their projects on Crosby and Kennedy Street, and residents of the 1st and 2nd ward fighting back against the proposed Cotswold project, to residents in the 2nd ward shaking their heads in disbelief over the traffic problems at Elmer’s Diner and hundreds of residents in the 3rd ward speaking out against the proposed Dunkin’ Donuts on the corner of Osborne and Springside, in 2007, residents I come into contact with state two things:

1. Irresponsible development is out of control and is contributing to other problem in the city (i.e. traffic congestion, deteriorating roads) and,

2. Mayor Boughton is out of touch (or not concerned) about the real problems that are on the minds of majority of residents.

This brings me to last night’s zoning commission meeting and the original proposed changes to the IL-40 zoning changes that have many small business owners in an uproar and several residents scratching their heads.

While I'll fill in the blanks left by the News-Times in regards to the importance of these zoning changes (and the sudden political flip-flop from the mayor in regards to power plants), I want to take you back to the first public hearing on the zoning changes back in August. Listen carefully to Planning Department Director Dennis Elpern as he address members of the zoning commission regarding a recent public survey the city conducted on land development and safety concerns.

We just completed a public opinion survey on land development and public services to access how the public feels about changes in Danbury. Some of the findings are pertinent tonight and shouldn't be ignored.

First, we asked the public's preferences for encouraging (or discouraging) future development. Only 27.8% said we should encourage an increase in development while 53.6% said we should discourage it.

Now, the kinds of development we should encourage or discourage, only 23.9% said we should encourage heavy manufacturing while 53.6% said we should discourage it.

Light manufacturing was viewed more favorable 64.4 percent encourage and only 21 percent think we should discourage it.

The traffic congestion and safety came up again and again as a serious concern.

For example, Federal Road, Mill Plain Road, Padanaram Road, Newtown Road, White Street all were considered to have serious and very serious congestion problems.

Issues like Elmer's Diner and Dunkin' Donuts only exacerbates the problem and give the impression that things are out of control.

Taken together, these attitudes seems to represent changes in public opinion that are relative new to Danbury. Unless we respond to it, the result can be far worse than many would want to see if the city adopted a no growth policy.

—Planning Department Director Dennis Elpern's comments to Zoning Commission
August 28 2007.

As we endure the political "silly" season, the results of the city's own public opinion survey echoes the exact thing I've stated on this site for the last two years. The main concern on the minds of the majority of residents in Danbury is irresponsible/over-development. Whether it's traffic congestion, deterioration of the city's roads and bridges, or an over-extension of city services, a clear majority of issues plaguing the city can be traced back to one thing: D-E-V-E-L-O-P-M-E-N-T.

Unbelievable.

The mayor who had SO MUCH to say about Danbury's non-involvement in the September raid back in December acted like a cat caught his tongue was singing a different tune today.

In fact, he wasn't saying anything in regards to anything surrounding the suit or the raid. Don't get me wrong, the media picked up on my questions and threw them at Boughton but the last honest man in Danbury REFUSED to answer the question(s).

Afterwards, one reporter said it best when he said "why the f*ck did he call a press conference if he's not gonna answer any questions?"

It's simple...because a bunch of pesky Yale Law Students caught the mayor misleading the public in regards to the extent of Danbury's role in the raid and Boughton (and everyone who's been watching this case closely) knows it.

Mayor Boughton's arrogance has just placed the city of Danbury in a MAJOR constitutional civil rights lawsuit, which will cost the city more money than I care to think about. Maybe those people who support the last honest man and the xenophobes can chip in for Mark's legal defense bills.

I'm working on all the video I shot today as well as catching all the news reports from the media I'll have video from both press conferences for everyone to view later.

Someone is in a LOT of trouble.

Attention News-Times, WTNH, WVIT, WNPR, The Hartford Courant, Univision, New York Times, The Immigrant, CNN, MSNBC, El Canillita, Comunidade News, Tribuna, Associated Press, etc, etc, etc...

Now that the Yale Law student's presser is over, and we learned the details in the lawsuit against Mark Boughton and Chief of Police Al Baker and the actions of the Danbury Polcie Department in last September's raid, PLEASE take note of the following questions and see if the mayor has an answer.

"Did you mislead the public when you stated to the media that the city of Danbury was not involved in the raid last September? If your answer is no, could you explain why the information from the Danbury 11 court case contradicts your statements from December? "

"Is it true that the booking report of the Danbury 11 lists a Danbury Police officer as the arresting officer?"

"Based on the brief to the court, is it true that a Danbury Police officer drove the van used to pick up the day-laborers?"

"Are you worried that your actions could have very well placed the city of Danbury in a lawsuit?"

The people have a right to know if the mayor was being honest when he made these statements to the press back in December.

Channel 8: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...

Channel 30: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...

Now, because of documents obtained by a FOI request, we've learned:

1.: Information obtained from the FOI request shows Danbury police officer as the arresting officer on booking report.



2. According to defense attorney Simon Moshenberg, in brief to the court, the Department of Homeland Security states that DANBURY POLICE OFFICERS were the ones disguised as contractors and driving the van used to pick up the day laborers. This is contrary to statements Boughton made to the press in December and the city of Danbury has not issued an official response in any legal proceedings regarding DHS's statement.



...still waiting on a answer.

Today is round two of the IL-40 (Light Industrial District) zoning changes that has business owners in an uproar.

First, I must apologize for not providing a full account of how upset businesses are at City Hall over the proposed changes and I'll do a full report on this very important situation (complete with video footage from both meetings) at a later date.

The zoning commission meeting is happening tonight at 7:30 in the Common Council chambers. If you're planning on attending, you can grab a copy of the amendment by downloading this .pdf file.

Recently, I've been going around the city talking to residents about what's on their minds and promoting the website. One thing that's beginning to get on people's nerves are the annoying political signs that seem to be popping up all over the place.

When it comes political lawn signs, historically the Republicans have been notorious in breaking the rules and placing signs in public areas, which is illegal.

Sean Hearty, the city's zoning enforcement officer, said in general, temporary lawn signs are not permitted on public property or in the public right of way.

"It's OK on private property as long as the sign doesn't obstruct the line of sight for motorists and the sign is taken down shortly after the event," he said.

Last year, most blatant offender was the carpetbagger who gives new meaning to the term "extra credit", the 107th, 110th, 109th State Rep candidate Gregg Seabury. Everywhere you turned, there seemed to be a Seabury lawn sign in public places. Fortunately, no amount of lawn signs, or acts of desperation such as jumping on the illegal immigration bandwagon, smearing his opponent with outright lies, could help Seabury from getting ripped to shreds in an News-Times editorial and losing horribly to current State Rep. Joe Taborsak.

That was then and this is now and it seems like the Republican Town Committee is at it again by blanketing Treasurer Dan Jowdy signs everywhere.

This brings us to the purpose of this post.

On the request of several people I've talked to, we're going to do zoning enforcement officer Sean Hearty a BIG favor. With the help of you guys, HatCityBLOG will keep daily track of every single illegal lawn sign placed in a public location.

Here's what we're asking out of you. If you think you see a lawn sign that's placed illegally, send us an email with the address where the sign is located and we'll go and take a look at it. If the sign determined to be in a public place, we'll photograph and document it the offense.

The picture of the sign, complete with address, google map, and the date the photo was taken, will be placed on the site for all to see...including the zoning enforcement officer who will be emailed each time we find a sign placed illegally. We'll monitor the location until the sign is removed.

Eventually, this post will be converted to a separate web page for easier viewing.

---

REPORT ILLEGAL POLITICAL SIGNS.

If you see a sign that you feel is in an illegal location, email us at hatcityblog@yahoo.com and we'll check it out and add it to the list.
(click on any image to enlarge)

---

Violating sign 1: Dan Jowdy
Address: Corner of Sand Pit Road and Rockwell Road.
Date reported: September 23 2007
Date removed: September 26 2007













Violating sign 2: Dan Jowdy
Address: Corner of Virginia Avenue Ext. and Tamarack Ave.
Date reported: September 23 2007
Date removed: Still there...













Violating sign 3: Dan Jowdy
Address: Corner of Liberty Street .
Date reported: September 23 2007
Date removed: Still there...
NOTE: Two signs were removed from this location positioned in front of the church at an earlier time.

Come out and help support the man who's going to give Congressman Chris Shays his pink slip.

Cross post from My Left Nutmeg

Our list of blogger co-hosts keeps growing!  The latest addition is Phillip Anderson of The Albany Project.  TAP is one of my favorite blogs, a must-read for anyone following NY politics.  Local favorites Saramerica, CaptCT and Aldon Hynes have also signed up since I posted the last diary.

Have you RSVP'd yet?

Many of our co-hosts will be fielding pub quiz teams, but anyone can play.  Sign onto a team, or get together a group and form your own.  The more the merrier!!!

[...]

Blograiser ActBlue Page

Blograiser Facebook Page

What: Test your knowledge of political trivia in a fun competition.  Join your favorite blogger or politician's quiz team, or form your own and compete for the right to call yourself Jim Himes' geekiest supporter.

Donate: Act Blue
RSVP Here
Facebook Page

When:  Saturday September 29 from 7 to 9PM
Where: Bradford's Grill and Tavern
83 Bedford Street
Stamford, CT
(203) 961 9999
(WEBSITE)

Blogger Co-Hosts:
DavidNYC:: DailyKos & Swing State Project
James Lambert::  Swing State Project
Charles Monaco:: LamontBlog & MyLeftNutmeg
Maura Keaney::  MyLeftNutmeg (aka Maura in VA at DailyKos)
Melissa Ryan:: CT Local Politics & MyDD
Gabe:: CT Local Politics & The Left Coaster
Connecticut Bob:: Connecticut Bob
CTBlogger:: Hat City Blog, CT Blog & MyLeftNutmeg
Spazeboy:: Spazeboy
Saramerica:: Saramerica & My Left Nutmeg
CaptCT:: MyLeftNutmeg
Aldon Hynes::  Orient Lodge & Greater Democracy
Phillip Anderson:: The Albany Project

CT Democratic Co-Hosts

State Rep. Gerry Fox
State Rep. Jim Shapiro
**Suggested Minimum Donation $25**

RSVP Here

Open bar and pizza from 7 to 8.  Pub Quiz will begin promptly at 7:30 and will consist of four rounds of questions.

Can't attend?  Be a virtual participant!  We'll have a live Ustream feed of the event, and a liveblog thread on MLN as well.

Unfortunately, I couldn't make this very important public hearing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) but the News-Times has a REALLY brief piece on last night's meeting.

The whole shoreline management plan has residents along Candlewood Lake in a uproar and back in August, Congressman Chris Murphy worked with FERC to secure this meeting last night. Thankfully, after dragging their feet, FERC finally came to their senses and listened to the public.

Post bumped to the top. Originally posted 09.07.07

Keeping to his word, Congressman Chris Murphy listened to the residents of Danbury and gets Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold a public meeting over the Candlewood Lake shoreline management plan.

On MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24 AT 6PM the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will hold a public meeting for residents of the Candlewood Lake area who have concerns about the shoreline management plan (SMP), which will be used to guide the management of the land surrounding Candlewood Lake. FERC issued a ruling in early July to finalize the SMP, however the agency is still gathering public input on the plan.

J. Mark Robinson, Director of the Office of Energy Projects at FERC, will represent the federal agency at the meeting. Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) will be in attendance.

A month ago, Murphy secured this meeting for the greater Danbury area in response to community uproar over the fact that residents of the Candlewood Lake area, local elected officials, former Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, and Murphy had all requested that FERC hold a public meeting on its SMP – and had all been denied.

Through Murphy’s efforts to address this problem legislatively, FERC reversed course and granted a hearing. Murphy introduced legislation to ensure that FERC allow more public input in future land use decisions. Last month, Murphy also introduced this legislation as an amendment to a comprehensive energy package. When House leaders scheduled a vote on the Murphy amendment, FERC reversed its decision and agreed to give Candlewood Lake a meeting.

The public is encouraged to attend this important public hearing.

WHEN: Monday, September 24, 2007

TIME: 6pm

WHERE: New Fairfield High School, 54 Gillotti Road, New Fairfield, CT.


View Larger Map

I'm a great admirer of Ken Burns' work. His documentaries on the history of jazz, and baseball should be required in all schools and his latest series entitled "The War" is set to be another instant classic.

The documentary is on based on personal accounts of World War II and the impact the battle against the Axis powers had on the nation. For those who don't know, Waterbury played a very significant role in supplying the military with much needed equipment (even providing parts for the atomic bomb. Burns takes note of the Brass City talks a great deal about the contribution residents of Waterbury gave to the war effort throughout the film.

Waterbury, Connecticut: A gritty industrial city of approximately 100,000, situated at the confluence of the Naugatuck and Mad Rivers in central Connecticut, Waterbury had been the center of the American brass industry since the early 19th century. By the 1920s, more than a third of the brass manufactured in the United States was made in the Naugatuck Valley, and Waterbury came to be known as the “Brass City.” Its skilled workers turned out screws, washers and buttons; showerheads and alarm clocks; toy airplanes and lipstick holders; and cocktail shakers.

Waterbury was populated by successive waves of immigrants, primarily from Italy, Ireland, Eastern Europe and Great Britain. By 1930, nearly half of Waterbury’s population was foreign born. It was a city of close-knit, ethnic neighborhoods, where many residents remained their entire lives. Families packed into triple-decker homes, factory row housing and boarding houses, surrounding lively commercial districts with ethnic markets and bakeries, churches and movie houses.

The city, like the rest of the country, endured hard times during the Great Depression, as industries imploded and thousands were thrown out of work. But all that changed when America began to gear up for World War II, and local factories retooled for war production. The Mattatuck Manufacturing Company switched from making upholstery nails to cartridge clips for the Springfield rifle, and soon was turning out three million clips a week. The American Brass Company made more than two billion pounds of brass rods, sheets and tubes during the war. The Chase Brass and Copper Company made more than 50 million cartridge cases and mortar shells, more than a billion small caliber bullets and, eventually, components used in the atomic bomb. Scovill Manufacturing produced so many different military items, the Waterbury Republican reported, that “there wasn’t an American or British fighting man … who wasn’t dependent on [the company] for some part of the food, clothing, shelter and equipment that sustained [him] through the … struggle.”

Because of its concentration of war industries, Waterbury was believed to be a strategic bombing target for the German Luftwaffe. Waterbury Clock — which would later be known as Timex — built a new plant in 1942 to accommodate the military’s demands for mechanical time fuses and other aircraft and artillery equipment. The new factory was nestled among the Middlebury hills and could be flooded and covered with water in the event of an invasion. Its roof was painted with a tromp l’oeil mural of trees, water and grass to deceive enemy bombers. In the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, Waterbury hurriedly appointed air wardens to coordinate a local response to an air raid. The local barbers’ association volunteered to equip the city’s barbershops as first aid stations.

More than 12,000 men and 500 women from Waterbury served in the armed forces during the war; the mayor saw them all off at the railroad station. Each man received a prayer book and a carton of cigarettes, courtesy of the Shriners; 282 of those who served lost their lives.

The civilian men and women of Waterbury contributed to the war effort in hundreds of ways, large and small. War bonds were sold from “Liberty House,” set up in the middle of the town green on the site where similar bonds had been sold to help defeat Germany during the First World War, and local residents bought $270 million worth. They also collected 68,500 pounds of rubber; 5,097,421 pounds of scrap metal; 8,255,640 pounds of paper; and 150 tons of waste fat.

The end of the war spelled the beginning of a sharp decline of Waterbury’s manufacturing base. Military contracts were cancelled in the months leading up to the Allied victory; within a week of V-J Day, 10,200 employees had been let go from Waterbury factories. Many would be rehired when the factories re-tooled for civilian production, but thousands of jobs were permanently lost. By the 1950s, plastic and aluminum had replaced brass for many uses, and cheaper labor overseas competed for the remaining jobs in brass manufacturing. By 1980, there were fewer than 5,000 workers remaining in the Naugatuck Valley’s brass plants.

There will be a discussion of "The War" this Friday at 7 o'clock at Barnes and Noble. If you're watching the film and want to have a chit-chat with others who are also viewing the documentary, come on down.

Besides his luke-warm record short appearance at the Hispanic Center Gala (hmm, I wonder why) and an encounter I had with the last honest man at a Sports restaurant Sunday (and no I didn't ask him anything because there's NO talking politics during football games), no one has seem to pin down Mayor Boughton and ask him a few questions regarding his statements to the press about Danbury's role in the Danbury 11 case.

If you happen to run into this guy, could you ask him a few questions:

"Did you mislead the public when you stated to the media that the city of Danbury was not involved in the raid last September? If your answer is no, could you explain why the information from the Danbury 11 court case contradicts your statements from December? "

"Is it true that the booking report of the Danbury 11 lists a Danbury Police officer as the arresting officer?"

"Based on the brief to the court, is it true that a Danbury Police officer drove the van used to pick up the day-laborers?"

"Are you worried that your actions could have very well placed the city of Danbury in a lawsuit?"

The people have a right to know if the mayor was being honest when he made these statements to the press back in December.

Channel 8: Boughton said the city played no part in the September 19th action...

Channel 30: He [Boughton] said the city was not involved in the planing of the raid...

Now, because of documents obtained by a FOI request, we've learned:

1.: Information obtained from the FOI request shows Danbury police officer as the arresting officer on booking report.



2. According to defense attorney Simon Moshenberg, in brief to the court, the Department of Homeland Security states that DANBURY POLICE OFFICERS were the ones disguised as contractors and driving the van used to pick up the day laborers. This is contrary to statements Boughton made to the press in December and the city of Danbury has not issued an official response in any legal proceedings regarding DHS's statement.



...and remember, I haven't even re-addressed the whole anthrax screw-up yet.

People over politics?