Watch and learn.



A seven-year tax deferral (which will cost the taxpayers a boatload of dollars" for a project that's nothing more than a college dormitory that the mayor and Republican majority defends (regardless of what they say now).

In an effort to make sure that the new optical scanning machines worked properly, today, Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz ordered the following voting districts in Danbury to be audited.

Shelter Rock School Gym - Ward 4
War Memorial Gym - Ward 5
Park Avenue School Gym - Ward 6
Mill Ridge Intermediate School - Ward 7

Secretary of State Bysiewicz's office issued the following release:

In preparation for the November 4, 2008 General Election and to ensure Connecticut’s optical scan voting machines are working accurately, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz has ordered the primary results of one-third (1/3) of the voting precincts used on August 12, 2008 to be audited. Sec. Bysiewicz was joined by voting rights advocates and elections officials from across Connecticut at a news conference at the State Capitol on Tuesday August 19th to randomly select the voting precincts which will have election results audited – as required by Public Act 07-194, An Act Concerning the Integrity and Security of the Voting Process.

The audits can begin no sooner than August 27, 2008 and must be completed by September 10, 2008.

“Auditing election results isn’t just a good idea, it’s absolutely essential in order to guarantee the integrity of our elections,” said Secretary Bysiewicz. “As Connecticut prepares for perhaps its highest turnout election in a generation, it is important voters have faith that their vote will be recorded accurately and that’s why the independent audits are so vital.”

[...]

The law requires a hand audit 10% of all polling places in all elections and primaries. (Polling precincts which are already part of a recount are exempt from audits by statute). The provisions in the law, developed in close cooperation with the computer science department at the University of Connecticut , give Connecticut one of the strictest audit statutes in the country. Connecticut is the first state in New England to require a comprehensive audit of election results.

Public Act 07-194 states that local Registrars of Voters, “… shall conduct a manual audit of the votes recorded in not less than ten per cent of the voting districts in the state, district or municipality, whichever is applicable. Such manual audit shall be noticed in advance and be open to public observation.” The results of audits will be analyzed by the University of Connecticut and then presented to the Secretary of the State’s Office and the State Elections Enforcement Commission, and ultimately made available to the public.

The law contains a detailed description of the audit process:

“The manual audit… shall consist of the manual tabulation of the paper ballots cast and counted by each voting machine subject to such audit. Once complete, the vote totals established pursuant to the manual tabulation shall be compared to the results reported by the voting machine on the day of the election or primary. The results of the manual tabulation shall be reported on a form prescribed by the Secretary of the State which shall include the total number of ballots counted, the total votes received by each candidate in question, the total votes received by each candidate in question on ballots that were properly completed by each voter and the total votes received by each candidate in question on ballots that were not properly completed by each voter. Such report shall be filed with the Secretary of the State who shall immediately forward such report to The University of Connecticut for analysis. The University of Connecticut shall file a written report with the Secretary of the State regarding such analysis that describes any discrepancies identified. After receipt of such report, the Secretary of the State shall file such report with the State Elections Enforcement Commission.”

Let's be clear here...the audit is being done NOT because there was a problem with the optical scanning machines. The Secretary is doing an random audit to make sure there was no problem with the machines in general. This is nothing new as Secretary Bysiewicz has done audits after every election since the start of the use of the new machines. It's that this is the first time the machines in Danbury were selected to be audited.

Usually, CT-N cover the audit press conference and if they did, I'll catch it and post it at a later date.

3rd Ward Councilman Mike Caladrino and Common Council President Joe Cavo
have some explaining to do...

In my reporting on the idiotic attempt to give away city owned land to Dr. Fry, I forget to mention two other Republicans who deserve credit in their attempt to push this deal through.

1. 3rd Ward Councilman Mike Caladrino:

If you watch the video clip, you'll notice that Councilman Caladrino was so anxious to make a motion to APPROVE THE AD-HOC REPORT that he forgot to wait for Councilman Knapp to actually read the report into the record. This brings me to...

2. 3rd Ward Councilman/ Common Council President Joe Cavo:

It was 3rd Ward Councilman Cavo who seconded 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino's motion to APPROVE THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE REPORT.

If you MAKE A MOTION or SECOND the motion to TO APPROVE A REPORT, to usually because you approve of the measure so much that you have no problem bringing it to a vote. This is EXACTLY what 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino and 3rd Ward Councilman Cavo meant when they made and seconded the motion to APPROVE the ad-hoc report.

This begs the question:

• Why would 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino and 3rd Ward Councilman Cavo make a motion to approve the ad-hoc report's recommendation THEN turn around and vote against the same report?


• Why was 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino in such a rush to make a motion to approve the ad-hoc report (before the report could be read into the record) given the history with the land in question and knowledge of the public's past opposition to the deal?
  
  Why would 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino know about the public's past opposition you ask? Why because the land in question...84 Hospital Ave...THE 3RD WARD...you know, Cavo and Caladrino's WARD!


• Why, after seeing the overwhelming negative response from the other council members, didn't 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino simply withdrawn his motion?

Here, I'll get to the obvious.

The Republicans screwed up and covered their asses. It's painfully obvious that this screw-job of a land deal was set to pass or else it would have never gotten to the floor in the first place. Remember Seabury's recommendation during the ad-hoc committee:

Mr. Seabury moved to recommend to the Council to approve the license agreement with active input from the Director of Public Works and Traffic Engineer

Althogh was NO input from the Director of Public Works and Traffic either at the ad-hoc committee OR at the council meeting that night, they (the Republicans) brought this item to the floor anyway.

Let's not forget:

Along with being a TEACHER, Seabury is also the MAJORITY LEADER of the Common Council. He's been around long enough to know about the past attempts by Dr. Fry to acquire this land and the disapproval from the council in regards to giving this piece of land away so WHY did he approve the ad-hoc report AND vote in favor of the deal WHILE stating during the ad-hoc committee that he doesn't recall a time ever when the council went against the recommendation of the Planning Department (who disapproved of the deal)?

Here are Seabury very words from the ad-hoc report:

Mr. Knapp stated the charge of the committee was to consider a request to lease land located at 84 Hospital Ave. Mr. Knapp said the report from the Planning Department was negative and asked Mr. Pinter to explain. Mr. Pinter said that the requirement of state law is to provide a report. The council would have to override a negative Planning Commission recommendation by a 2/3 vote. Mr. Seabury said that he didn't ever remember going against a Planning recommendation.

3rd Ward Councilmen Caladrino and Cavo's action exposes the fact that the Republicans on the council were moving forward with approving this deal plain and simple...what really happened is that there was a Republican absent which screwed the 2/3 majority needed to get this land deal passed. Once they knew that they didn't have ONE Democrat on board with the deal, the Republicans bailed out on the whole thing and left Knapp (whose a freshman) out to dry.

Does this give Knapp a pass? NO. He was the former chair of Zoning and should have had the foresight to simply extend the ad-hoc committee until more information was available (i.e. hearing testimony from Public Works and Traffic) as well as asking himself whether or not there were any opposition from the neighborhood towards this deal (and YES there is PLENTY of opposition from neighbors towards this deal as they've spoken up against this and other attempts to develop that stretch of road on Hospital Ave in the past (again the property is in the 3RD WARD, Caladrino's ward).

Whatever the case, although Knapp (and DEFINITELY Majority Leader Seabury) votes are bizarre, 3rd Ward Councilmen Cavo and Caladrino's vote to APPROVE THE REPORT makes absolutely NO SENSE given that they turned around and voted against the deal....unless their true intentions WAS THE APPROVE the deal (which definitely AND WITHOUT QUESTION would go against the majority of residents who live on Hospital Ave.) until they realized that they didn't have to votes to make it happen.

Oh...did I mention that the neighborhood (who has been opposed to any further development on that stretch of Hospital Ave) had NO IDEA about the land deal because they weren't notified by the city?

No heads up from 3rd Ward Councilman Cavo.

No heads up from 3rd Ward Councilman Caladrino.

This brings back memories of the Terrywile land swap which brought about the bill by State Rep Joe Taborsak that requires any municipality to hold a public hearing whenever the city sells off city owned land (the case of Hospital Ave is different because of a land license loophole in Taborsak's bill that someone at City Hall found out).



UPDATE: Silly me, in m haste, I forgot to mention that Joe Cavo is ALSO a Councilman who is SUPPOSE to represent the 3rd Ward. The post has been updated to reflect that fact.

Just a reminder...

In order to leave a comment, you MUST enter a VALID email address and username. Without those two items, you get no dice.

It's that simple.

One person is a teacher.

The other is the former chairman of the Zoning Commission.

Together, they make complete fools of themselves in voting in favor of a obvious idiotic land deal between the City of Danbury and a doctor who wants to take city-owned land and use it for PARKING SPACES for his office.

First, a little background.






Land in question is marked off in red (approximately)

Dr. Fry has a practice on 84 Hospital Avenue and for some time, has attempted to acquire the land next to his property for additional parking. There's one problem, that land is city owned land and is connected to Broadview Middle School.

For as long as I can remember, people have long stated that Dr. Fry knew what he was getting into when he moved into that location and should move instead of tearing down trees for parking spaces. Why? Because the parking lots that are there now conforms to the zoning regulations for the property and if the doctor's business needs more parking, maybe the doctor should consider moving his practice instead of asking the city to accommodate his practice.

If the council would EVER approve such a deal, that strictly accommodate ONE business and ONE business only, the effects of that decision could be devastating as the Common Council would set a president where anyone in a similar situation as Dr. Fry, could come before the city looking for the same deal (you could see the problem that would create as the city would have a rather hard time turning one business down once they approved this deal).

Now, taking that into consideration, let's take a look at the bizarre vote from the former chairman of a land-use board and a TEACHER.

Here's the write-up on the ad-hoc committee meeting chaired by Knapp and attended by Seabury (take note at the sections in bold):

Mr. Knapp stated the charge of the committee was to consider a request to lease land located at 84 Hospital Ave. Mr. Knapp said the report from the Planning Department was negative and asked Mr. Pinter to explain. Mr. Pinter said that the requirement of state law is to provide a report. The council would have to override a negative Planning Commission recommendation by a 2/3 vote. Mr. Seabury said that he didn't ever remember going against a Planning recommendation.

Mr. Iadarola said that the property abuts the Broadview Middle School property. The heavily wooded property is 18 feet by 150 feet, and would have a fence that could be mutually accessible. Public Works has no negative referral, but would like Traffic and Public Works to review it.

[...]

Mr. Seabury moved to recommend to the Council to approve the license agreement with active input from the Director of Public Works and Traffic Engineer. Mr. Knapp seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Seabury moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:35pm. Seconded by Mr. Knapp. The motion passed unanimously.

Now that you read the highlights from the committee report, let's recap:

1. The PLANNING DEPARTMENT report on the "leasing" of the land to Dr. Fry a BIG FAT negative.

2. This is not the first time Dr. Fry has tried to acquire this land from the city with no success.

3. ALTHOUGH Seabury (a TEACHER) stated that he COULD NEVER REMEMBER GOING AGAINST THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATION, (you know, since the Planning Department would know a bit more about land-use issues than people on the COMMON COUNCIL), he VOTED AGAINST THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT and in FAVOR of the so-called "lease" agreement.

4. A former chairman of the Zoning Department (a land-use board) went AGAINST THE REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT and WITHOUT INPUT from the Board of Education or input from the neighbors in the area WHO WERE MOSTLY UNAWARE OF THE LAND DEAL and many (once notified of the land deal) were AGAINST THE IDEA, VOTED AGAINST THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT and in FAVOR of the so-called "lease" agreement.

Seeing the writing on the wall, knowing that approving this agreement would create a firestorm in the neighborhood, and NOT ONE Democrat would go for something so outlandish as to approve this nightmare, the other Republicans on the council thought twice before falling on Knapp and Seabury's sword.

Now, with that in mind, sit back and watch what I call the Republican majority throwing the new kid (AND FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING COMMISSION) and teacher UNDER THE BUS. Take note of how the mayor tried in vain to persuade the council to send the whole thing back to committee.

This is UGLY...



Based on the fact that:

• Dr. Fry has attempted to acquire the land in question in the past with no success,


• The public wasn't very keen on this idea that the city give over the land to the doctor AND were not notified of this land agreement in the first place,


• The Planning Department gave this a NEGATIVE recommendation,


• Approving such a god-awful land deal would definitely cost one votes from people in the surrounding neighborhood in the third ward come Nov 2009,

...why on earth would a former chair of a land-use board and a teacher ever approve of this land deal in the first place?

When the city is so-called attempting to acquire a certain amount of open space before a set date, why are we trying to GIVE AWAY land and tearing down trees in order to give a doctor a few more parking spaces?

What were Knapp and Seabury thinking?!?

UPDATE: The News-Times wonders what Knapp and Seabury were thinking also. Two words: Thumbs down.

If you get a chance, take a trip down to St. Anthony’s Maronite Church on Granville Ave and check out the Lebanese (Mahrajan) Festival.

Unfortunately, I'll be out of town today so I won't be able to report on the celebration so in order to give you an idea of what to expect, here's my video from last year...

This is rich...cue up the nonsense

U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy said Thursday he asked House leaders to bring a comprehensive energy package that includes expanded offshore drilling to a vote in the near future.

Murphy, D-5th District, said in a press statement that he sent a letter to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, asking Democratic leaders to find a compromise with Republicans and pass an energy bill. Murphy previously rejected calls for increased offshore drilling.

"It has become clear that without a compromise on some increased, sensible offshore drilling, we will not be able to move forward on ideas that will make us truly energy independent," Murphy said. "We have to work together to negotiate a common-sense solution to help consumers, who can't afford the bickering."

He added expanded offshore drilling won't solve the energy crisis, but the issue shouldn't bar Congress from passing energy legislation.

State Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury, who is challenging Murphy for the 5th District congressional seat, issued his own press statement Thursday, calling out the congressman for flip flopping on the issue.

"Murphy's election-year conversion on offshore drilling is a day late, a dollar short, and totally disingenuous," Cappiello said. "His latest flip flop proves he cannot be trusted to address America's energy crisis unless he is dragged kicking and screaming to do so."

This is just more nonsense from a politician taking his cues from Nancy Johnson's dishonest playbook.

Murphy never flip-flopped on offshore drilling...in fact, I blogged about this very topic back in July when Murphy held a press conference in New Britan and in Danbury (right by Cappiello's house).

Let's take a peek back in time and look at my post from July:

Unfortunately, I couldn't make it to videotape Congressman Murphy's presser today in New Britain. That being the case, when it comes to the high price of gas, while I strongly agree with one portion of Murphy's stance in his latest press release...

“While energy traders on Wall Street artificially inflate the price of a barrel of oil, Connecticut families are paying the price at the pump. Until we wean ourselves off of our addiction to oil, we’ve got to crack down on the market that is distorting the price of oil and hurting our economy,” said Murphy.

Murphy is supporting legislation that aims to restore the fundamentals of supply and demand to the oil markets, ending rampant speculation in the energy commodities markets which place a distorted premium on the price of oil. Since 2000, investment in oil futures has increased more than 2,600%, from $9 billion to $250 billion. In testimony before House and Senate Committees, Energy Information Administration (EIA) officials and private sector experts have agreed that speculation has driven up the cost of a barrel of oil. Last week, Murphy voted to give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) emergency powers to curb speculation. The House is expected to continue debate on this issue in July.

I'm somewhat lukewarm when it comes to calls for an increase in drilling (although I understand the Congressman's point).

With average gas prices in Connecticut at $4.37 a gallon and rising, Murphy is also supporting legislation to call on the oil and gas industry to drill on the 68 million acres of public lands currently under oil company control but unexplored.

Last week, Murphy voted for H.R. 6251, the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act – more commonly known as the “Use It or Lose It” bill – which would deny oil and gas companies any new federal leases until they demonstrate they are active in developing oil exploration on the 68 million acres they’ve already leased. Most offshore and onshore oil and gas is already available to be drilled. According to federal government surveys, 82% of the gas available offshore and 79% of the oil offshore is available for leasing – enough land to produce 86 billion additional barrels of oil. The measure has not yet passed the House because of Republican opposition.

“We can’t drill ourselves out of this problem – but the fact is there is land and offshore resources currently available to the oil and gas industry, and they aren’t using it while they know that Connecticut families are paying skyrocketing prices at the pump,” said Murphy

Although Congressman Murphy's call is better than the ridiculous notion to drill in the ANWAR refuge in Alaska, the bulk of the energy crisis has nothing to do with supply and demand. The origins of this fiasco stems from speculation and greed from energy companies that were allowed to run amok with the help of what's called the "Enron loophole".

Now, I could do a huge write-up on this but recently Keith Olbermann did a excellent report on the history of the Enron loophole that's better than anything I could type.

Watch and learn.



As Olbermann notes, and as several people testified in Congress, close the loophole and most of your problem goes bye-bye and greedy oil companies' record profits will become a thing of the past. Increase drilling simply makes no sense when a majority of the problem comes from speculation as opposed to supply and demand.

And why would you want in increase in the production of oil? Shouldn't we be talking about this country getting off it's dependency of oil? What makes more sense, cars that get 100 MPG (which is available NOW), or cheaper gas, a return to the arrogant SUV era, and back to business as usual? I'd rather deal with the speculators that brought us such goodies as the power shortage in California and hopefully Congressman Murphy will focus on this problem before even thinking about an increase in drilling.

Offshore drilling is simply a joke....PERIOD. Cappiello's latest garbage is simply that...garbage. According to federal government surveys, 82% of the gas available offshore and 79% of the oil offshore is available for leasing – enough land to produce 86 billion additional barrels of oil YET Cappiello's spinning this latest attack because he really has nothing else to offer.

The Republicans banned offshore drilling under Ronald Regan's watch and you didn't hear a peep from the GOP back then. On the other hand, the State Republicans under John Rowland and David Cappiello's watch sat back and allowed the residents of Connecticut suffer under one of the highest state gas tax in the country.

Lowering the gas tax would have an instant impact in Connecticut...where's Cappiello's so-called "leadership" on this matter in the last 10 years?

Cappiello's fooling no one...

Give me a break...hot-tempered/short-fused/angry McLachlan is at it again. There's no whining in politics.

McLachlan called on Perkins last week to return the public financing he received for the primary.

"Public financing was meant to take out special interest groups, which it essentially did, and level the playing field," McLachlan said. "But by receiving the public financing for the primary Perkins essentially had $35,000 more to spend on his campaign than I will. When I am elected I will submit a bill to correct this flaw."

A few things about the Mike the whiner and his latest hissy-hit.

1. Mike McLachlan opted to do the public financing therefore you can't whine after you approved of the program.

2. McLachlan can AT ANY POINT opt OUT OF THE PROGRAM and raise all the money he wants.

3. Before whining about anyone giving back any money, why don't you tell your boss to do what David Cappiello did and hand back the ILLEGAL BUNDLED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS he received from James Galante.



You know, I liked McLachlan better when he running around the city videotaping the mayor's press conferences (a.k.a. showing his chief of staff skills).






No, no, I liked him better when he had himself filmed walking around the 9/11 memorial for the city's GOVERNMENT channel.



No, no, no, I liked it better when I heard about McLachlan's incredible bad temper and the fits of rage he has towards people at City Hall.

No, no, no, no I liked it better when the old timers have a laugh about McLachlan's younger years and filled me in to what the term "Sparky" means.

Here, let me fill you in...



...too easy.

Host: John Gogliettino
Guest: Eva Colon: Executive Director, Patsy Rapela: Board member, Camilo Fadul: Board member Hispanic Center of Greater Danbury.

To host "ice cream" parties?



So lets see, people have long complained that the City Clerk is NOT in her office yet our City Clerk (and her BFF the legendary Mary Ann Doran) have the TIME to host a ICE CREAM PARTY.

Tell me again why the position of City Clerk (that pays 48,000 PER YEAR) shouldn't be eliminated and replaced with a civil service staff (which would be at a lower cost to the taxpayers of Danbury)?

Trust me, when it comes to me fully exposing Jean Natale and why she best symbolizes why the City Clerk position should be axed, you haven't seen ANYTHING yet.

Keep your eye on this land-use application that's currently in front of the environmental impact commission (aprox. area in question is shaded in blue).

Pembroke Road Regulated Activity # 770 R

Roger L. Crossland Assessor's Lot # G07044, RA-40 Zone.

Date of Receipt: 4/23/08. Proposed day care center, 2.503 acres.

First 65 Days: 6/27/08. Second 65 Days: 8/31/08. CCA, LLC. Revisions rec’d. 5/14/08. Existing drainage map rec’d. 5/20/08. Alternative rec’d. 6/11/08. Extension ltr. rec’d. 6/30/08. Comments from Traffic Engineer rec’d. 7/9/08. General plans red’d. 7/14/08.

Word from the residents in the Barnum Road area (2nd Ward) is that there is a great deal of concern over the development of this piece of land so it's safe to say that people are watching this application closely.

As promised, here's my video report on primary night from Democratic Headquarters and my interview with the winner of last night's primary, Duane Perkins.

In the end...it wasn't even close.

I was unable to post footage from Duane Perkins primary victory because I ran down to Norwalk to cover the 4th Congressional primary between Jim Himes and his god-awful joke of a challenger who I won't even name on this site.

Here are the unofficial results I received as the numbers came into Democratic Headquarters (numbers are incomplete because I had to leave). Later, I'll grab the official results.

Danbury
Ward 1: Perkins 154 / Tierney 18
Ward 2: Perkins 67 / Tierney 19
Ward 3: Perkins 131 / Tierney 16
Ward 4: Perkins 108 / Tierney 25
Ward 5: Perkins 116 / Tierney 14
Ward 6: Perkins 115 / Tierney 10
Ward 7: Perkins 96 / Tierney 14

New Fairfield
Results: Perkins 65 / Tierney 11

Bethel
Dist 2:
Dist 5:

Sherman
Results:

Absentees:
Perkins 57 / Tierney 16
TOTAL
Perkins: 844
Tierney: 132

After his victory, the Perkins campaign issued the statement:

Duane Perkins, the endorsed Democratic Candidate for State Senate is happy to announce his win in the Democratic primary that took place this past Tuesday, August 12th, 2008. Duane beat his opponent Terry Tierney with 87% of the votes. This is just one of many examples of the success of the Perkins 2008 Campaign.

“I am proud to be the official Democratic nominee for the 24th State Senate district. I believe in universal healthcare, renewable and new clean energy, a better business environment and I care deeply about my constituents. I plan on working hard to get my message across to every town and person in the district. I can not wait to speak with my constituents and get to know them better, especially when talking about what matters most to them. This is going to be an exciting election.”

Duane will continue to get his message out from now until November, his new energy and fresh ideas will help bring the 24th district to a new level of efficiency and overall prosperity in Danbury, Bethel, New Fairfield, and Sherman.

Later, I'll post the video footage from Democratic Headquarters, my exclusive interview with winner Duane Perkins, and my comments on the entire primary, including my analysis on Terry Teirney's campaign.