(Post bumped to the top with additional info).

Did you know that there was a public hearing on the changes to the charter revision today on Monday?

If your answer is "no" then your not alone. Out of a city of aprox 75,000 people, only three people, or 0.0004 percent of the population of Danbury spoke at the hearing!

...a PUBLIC meeting that was set at the ridiculous time of 6:30 when MOST OF THE PUBLIC is coming home from work might I add!!! (FYI: one has to wonder if the meeting was set for the comfort of the commission of the public).

Now, let me explain WHO spoke at the meeting and then you'll understand when I say NO ONE from the general public actually spoke at the meeting.

Like I said ONLY THREE people spoke at the meeting..Joel Urice, Lynn Waller, and Greg Williams.

...now, here's the connection.

Lynn Waller is the producer/host of a local access show in the area and has made it a habit to attend numerous meetings at City Hall for a number of years.

Her co-host, Planning commission member Joel Urice, (a person who's known better for his boneheaded offensive and racially insensitive emails against immigrants that he doesn't regret forwarding to people) has also attended a number (if not majority) of the revision meetings and commented about the topic on Waller's show.

Since these two individuals attended a great number of meetings, and talked about the subject numerous times on local access TV, it's clearly logical to assume that they would be at the public hearing offering their two cents on the revision to the charter.

Let's move onto the other person who spoke at the meeting...former Republican Common Council member Greg Williams (pictured in the left image below).



During the Thanksgiving break, Williams, a former co-host for Ivon Alcime's show "Ideas at Work and Beyond", filled in as co-host for Urice on Waller's show. During that particular episode, Waller mentioned the public hearing and noted that she was going to interview the chairman of the charter revision commission, Carlo Morano, and broadcast that interview next week (last Friday).



Since Waller tapes two shows per week, she interviewed charter revision Chariman Morano the same day she taped the show with Williams (take note of Waller's shirt and necklace in the above four photos). It's rather fair to assume that Williams (again, a former Common Conncil member) was in attendance at the taping and decided to attend the meeting based from his participation with the show on that day (which was verified by his remarks at the public hearing where he thanked Waller for providing him with tapes of the meetings).

I can hear you know...well, they're members of the public right? Well, not exactly.

You see, when you talk about members of the public, it better to exclude activists or people who follow local politics as they're outside of the norm when it comes to the GENERAL public. You're always guaranteed to hear a comment from people like Waller at most meetings (not that it's a bad thing BUT if she's the only person you're hearing, then can she be considered a good sample of the GENERAL public?) Whenever you see yours truly speaking in front of a commission of board (as I have on several occasions), it's fair to say that I'm not a member of the general public because I follow this political crap stuff much closer than the normal guy walking up or down the street AND I talk about it on this site on a daily basis.

In short, my opinion (right or wrong) can't be considered a sample of the viewpoint of the general public just as much as the people who spoke at this particular public hearing. That being the case, this ENTIRE public hearing was a COMPLETE waste of time because it served no purpose than to hear from the same members of the public that have already spoke at EVERY OTHER CHARTER REVISION MEETING EVER HELD to date. Now that's not to diminish what they do BUT even those who were in attendance would testify that the so-called turnout at the meeting was a joke...and definitely did not warrant a front page article where the chairman offered these remarks.

"Your input has been valuable throughout this process," he said.

I mean come on! I've watched every single one of the charter revision meetings (either attending them or catching them on TV) and I would hardly say that the input of two or three people made a great difference in terms of what was offered in the draft report.

For instance:

• I recall members of the public express opposition towards having a four year term for elected officials (while the rationale from elected officials favoring four year terms making NO SENSE whatsoever.


• I recall myself and several members of the Common Council (most notably member Warren Levy) express opposition towards allowing the Mayor appoint a legislative clerk (sucker's bet on who Mark will pick if he gets his way)


• Don't get me started on the whole bonding issue


• During the first public hearing back when the commission was established, a number of people spoke about the gross violations of the charter committed by the mayor and the need for sometime to be done so that there would be some type of penalty for violating the charter. That was to my knowledge, never addressed.


• NO ONE spoke in favor (or requested) that members outside of Danbury be allowed to speak during at meetings (this is now in the draft)

I could go on and on but problems I have with the commission's decisions but now is not the time for that...I'm saving that discussion (and break down) for next year. For now, this post is only meant to illustrate the laughable attendance at Monday's meeting and why it was worse than was reported by the News-Times.

For your viewing pleasure, here's video of the pubic hearing from Monday night...view for yourself.



Now, is this really a representation of the viewpoint of the GENERAL public? Today's editorial pretty much sums things up...

Over many years, public participation in public issues has diminished in Danbury. Voters are busy, public input is often not encouraged by city officials and people get the message that their opinion doesn't count.

The Charter Revision Commission proposal to switch from two-year to four-year terms for elected officials is another example that City Hall is tone deaf when it comes to honoring the public's voice.

What's wrong with expecting elected officials to ask the voters for backing every two years? Why would City Hall want to discourage public participation?

Proponents of this change claim government jobs in the city of Danbury are so complex that they require a four-year term so those elected can have time to figure out what they're doing before they run for re-election.

Goodness. No one should run for office if they think it will take them four years to figure out what they're doing.

The presidency of the United States is a four-year term, but those running for president never claim they need four years to figure out how to do the job.

Democracy is messy and running for office can be demanding. That's at the heart of this charter proposal. The politicians don't want to run every two years.

There is no groundswell of public opinion demanding fewer elections and four-year terms for politicians. Yet the Charter Commission is insisting Danbury needs this change because the politicians want it.

Food for thought...