Tuesday, May 15, 2012

History: Willimantic Redevelopment, Part 1


Peter Crowley Image





Vacant Lots and Broken Dreams:
Urban Renewal in Willimantic Connecticut
Richard Baber, 1993

Part 1 of 8

It started quietly for Willimantic, Connecticut on June 13, 1966, the Common Council voted to create the Willimantic Redevelopment Agency.  It ended with a crash on Oct.21, 1976 when, among  protests, demolition began on the Hurley- Grant building and the Union block.When it was over much of Willimantic's downtown  business and residential district including ten acres in the city's center was gone.  In its place a handful of new public buildings three parking lots and vacant land  At this point the city fully expected a private developers to come in and rebuild a shiny and prosperous new Willimantic and some did.However 15 years later most of this land remains vacant and many people are wondering how this could have happened.  The reality is that Willimantic had the same experience as countless towns and cities across the nation: the promise of urban renewal  often turned out to be dreams.  Instead of creating new retail centers, new housing and new jobs, instead of revitalizing  the economic well being of the municipality and the quality of life of its residence urban renewal left Willimantic with broken hopes and little else

The primary agrarian roots of the United States resulted in an anti-urban bias that persists to this day .Although cities grew and population shifted as trade and manufacturing began to dominate the economy, a natural distrust of urban centers developed.  As industries grew, cities attracted immigrants and rural poor seeking jobs and housing: ethnic and cultural differences caused further divisions.  By the end of the nineteenth century cities had become economically strafed with poor in the ghetto and the wealthy in exclusive neighborhoods and the middle class seeking refuge in the outlaying areas. Initially cities absorbed these areas as populations grew, but by the 1920s this practice ceased when political opposition to it grew.  Suburbs resulted as retreats to the middle class.

In the 1920s suburbs experienced tremendous growth.  The nation appeared economically prosperous and as more families owned automobiles, the commute to the cities and jobs became more convenient  This was followed by an even bigger explosion of suburban growth following WWII.  Again this was primarily a middle class movement.  Several factors contributed to these population shifts'  The federal government began building modern highways.  New people not only could easily commute to the cities for their jobs but could easily escape at the end of their work days.  As commuter towns grew so did the services: doctors, lawyer, shopping malls and eventually manufacturing and offices.  People began to have fewer reasons to travel into the city.

Concurrently, populations shift from south to north, from the center to the coasts and from rural to urban areas.. The overwhelming reason for this was a declining agricultural economy which prompted the rural poor to give up farming and seek employment opportunities available in the cities. Coupled with this movement was unrepresented immigration . In the 1950s, 28 million people immigrated to the United States and 85 percent settled in urban areas.

These newcomers crowed into the inner cities and further pushed the middle class out .If they needed additional incentives two other factors encouraged their movement.  One was blockbusting , where disreputable realtors would connive to get minority families to buy homes in all white neighborhoods They would literally go door to door attempting to create panic of the prospect of a racially changing neighborhood.. This often caused the value of real estate to decline.  Established neighborhoods were thrown into turmoil and property owners, fearing a total loss would sell their home at deflated prices.  The realtors  would then  inflate the price and sell to minorities or convert them to multiple family units and rent them.  While illegal this practice flourish.  The other factor was the FHA and VA loan guarantee program which offered liberal terms on new housing for newly married couples, preferably with children.  They required only minimum earnings and good credit histories.  This new housing was being built in the outlying areas close to the cities in what became known as suburban tract housing.  With there older housing the cities were left to the poor, the elderly and the minorities.  It was at this stage that urban renewal began.


Peter Crowley Photo


Vacant Lots and Broken Dreams:
Urban Renewal in Willimantic Connecticut
Richard Baber

Part 2

Urban renewal, the seizure and wholesale clearance by the government of blighted and and decayed properties in low income section of cities to be replaced by privately developed buildings had sparked debate and controversy in every community it has touched.  Its purpose as stated in the title 1 of the housing act of 1949 was "the realization  as soon as possible of the goal of a decent goal and suitable living environment for every American family."  Through the clearing of slums and "the reconstruction of blighted areas,"  Congress sought to eliminate substandard housing and community development sufficient to remedy the post- war housing shortage.

Immediately,  Congress authorized $100 million for the purpose and within one year, planning had begun on 124 nationwide.  By 1953 the amount  had risen to$400 million with planning begun on 260 projects. A federal court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of private property be seized for the purpose of selling to other private interest.  The court reaffirmed and earlier ruling ,"that the taking of property of selling or leasing  it to others is not within the scope of government power." And the stated objective in this case did not constitute a public purpose.

In 1954 the decision was appealed in the U.A. Supreme Court in what turned out to be a pivotal year for the urban renewal program.  After hearing arguments,  the court overruled its earlier finding, stating that "the concept of public welfare is broad and inclusive....Once the question of public  purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project....rests in the discretion of the legislative branch." Although the courts were repeatedly asked to review this ruling they  never overturned it  "on the theory that the primary objective was slum clearance, not the seizing of property of one individual and turning it over to another.

The same year Congress  passed the Omnibus Housing Act which had a clause that extended urban renewal for the first time to commercial property.  So with the constitutionality question settled and residential restrictions lifted, money was readily forthcoming.  By 1954 Congress had actually begun.

Like Eastern Connecticut, Willimantic's prosperity rested on the textile industry.  Cotton and silk mills on Bridge Street, Valley Street , Church  Street, the largest of these, the Willimantic Linen Co. later restyled as the American Thread Co. became one of the largest thread manufactures in the world,  As the mills  grew so did the economy. Housing was built and a downtown business district was established. The railroad came and with it more growth  commercial blocks, municipal  buildings, hotels, theaters, churches, train depot and opulent Victorian style homes  were erected making Willimantic  one of the showplace communities of Connecticut. Before the 1929 stock market crash, Willimantic was considered  a regional finical and cultural center boasting one of the highest standard of livings in the region.






Peter Crowley Image

Vacant Lots and Broken Dreams:
Urban Renewal in Willimantic Connecticut
Richard Baber, 1993

Part 3 of 8


With the depression some mills closed.  Although American Thread survived it would eventually phase out of Willimantic and look to the South. Other industries in town did not offset the losses of the mills.  Blue collar jobs began to disappear.  What growth occurred  in the decades from 1940 to 1960  bypassed the town.  Newer housing was constructed on the outskirts and in neighboring communities  Along with this housing appeared strip malls and shopping centers drawing retail traffic from downtown.  Many of the downtown property owners also began living elsewhere leaving the old neighborhoods to the growing unemployed.  Although its former Victorian grandeur was still evident with most of the nineteenth century buildings still intact, the luster was gone from Main St.  The town looked tattered. 

Seeking to reverse economic trends present in the early 1960s and restore stability to the city, the Willimantic Common Council looked to the federal government and the urban renewal  renewal for answers.  A local redevelopment agency was created but in the absence of concrete goals or plans and with no money, it was dissolved after a few years. It was next decided that a plan was needed  and the firm of Byran & Panico was hired to do a study and put forward recommendations.  The results were presented in September 1965 and were a major role in Willimantic's future

The "Comprehensive Panning Program, City of Willimantic. Town of Windham, Connecticut" which contained an evaluation of existing and potential development and neighborhood analysis definitively reflected contemporary  thinking.  It studies the "serious problems of mixed land use, poor streets, inadequate parking and obsolete building types" in "significant areas of blight, deterioration and potential decline....concentrated in and around the downtown core of the city."  The area of blight comprised virtually all of downtown from Windham St. to Milk St. and Valley St. to the railroad yards.

In the companion study, a "Comprehensive Panning Program, City of Willimantic. Town of Windham, Connecticut," a series of recommendations were outlined.  Some of these such as the "adoption a building code and zoning for the town and the City"  were overdue.Some of the recommendation were bizarre including the demolition of the historic Willimantic town Hall and Windham County court house; construction on the site a new government center housing fire, police and and all city and town offices.  Other recommendations that would eventually have the most impact on the city targeted the Central Business District Neighborhood.

Armed with the study, the Common Council on June 3, 1966 voted to re-establish the redevelopment agency and appointed John Wrana, Wilbur Goldberg, Rudolph Pino, Baron Bray, Earl McSweeney as its first commissioners.  On August 10 of the same year approved providing  The Willimantic Community Redevelopment Agency (WRA) with $1000 to hire  a consultant to prepare a grant application based on the Bryan & Panico plan. A target area was established  and funds to implement a comprehensive urban renewal program were requested.
Outside of monthly meetings, however, the WRA was relatively inactive while waiting for funding approval until February 14, 1968, when an event occurred that served as a catalysis for the program..


Main Street 1963

Vacant Lots and Broken Dreams:
Urban Renewal in Willimantic Connecticut
Richard Baber

Part 4

In the early mourning of Valentines Day 1968 a report came into the fire department of an explosion at the Sherwin-Williams paint store on Main Street  It was investigated but nothing was found but within hours, fire had erupted with 40,000 gallons of paint providing the fuel for one of the most extensive fires in the history of the city.  After a day the fire was extinguished leaving four buildings gutted and  several others smoke and fire damaged including the First Baptist Church.  .   In all nine businesses were effected: The Prep Shop, Sherwin-Williams, The Lincoln Shop, Mustard Insurance Agency, Superior Electronics, Church- Reed, The Country Shop, Gay's Florist and Archembeault's Barber Shop.  Twenty families were homeless.  The event served as a springboard for the urban renewal  proponents to pressure HUD to approve the grant application.  Mayor Stanley Kososka in response to the event stated  "the ruinous  fire that ripped through two downtown blocks ... could have been avoided by faster federal action on a request for urban renewal funds.  We have a overcrowded situation with people living in obsolete and dangerous structures. 

Coincidentally, these building were in the target area, prompting  a renewed effort to get the program off the ground.  Although funding did not arrive for another year, the city took action.  Petitions were signed and plans evolved.  A badly deteriorated building at 14 Union St.,also in the target area, was condemned and razed.  The last remaining of the Holland Silk Mill building on Valley Street was acquired along with the Amvets building.  These were demolished and a new state courthouse was built in there place.It did not seem to matter that the new building occupied only a fraction of the parcel cleared  for it.  People saw old, obsolete buildings replaced by newly constructed ones,  and there was beliefs that things were changing.

On June 25, 1969 it became official.  In a telephone conversation with WRA commissioner Earl McSweeney,  Lawrence Cox of HUD confirmed the approval of a grant reservation for $6,155.000 which represented 75 per cent of the estimated cost along with $277,000.00 planning advance. The grant approval was contingent on the state and municipality committing to the remaining 25 per cent share of the cost  Urban renewal  had come to Willimantic.  To the people that had made it happen, this meant the acquisition and the demolition of every building within the already defined target area and the rebuilding a new prosperous Willimantic. Blinded by the promises of a healthier community,  it is likely that few people took  a hard look at the proposal and the potential consequences.

The first activity was to conduct a search for a full time, community development professional to administer the program.  On September 9, 1969 , Betty Lou Williams  was selected by a vote of the WRA commissioners to assume the position of executive director effective October 1, 1969.  If Byran & Panico were the architects  of Willimantic's urban renewal project, then Betty Lou Williams  with a single minded sense of purpose, administered the plan and oversaw every detail.  Her credentials as executive director of Rockville urban renewal efforts  seemed respectable on the surface.  One wonders however if it made a difference  if they knew she earned the moniker "Bulldozer Betty for her indiscriminate clearance of Rockville's architectural past

In 1970 and 1971 the groundwork was laid for executing the project.  Windham Heights was completed: it was a privately built apartment complex in anticipation of the need for low-income, subsidize housing which would result from urban renewal.  This gave the WRA the compliance they needed with the HUD requirement that replacement housing be available for displaced people..  In 1971 a public referendum was held for the final approval of the urban renewal project and overwhelmingly passed as did bond issue to cover the city's contribution to the cost of the project.  On February 15, 1971, the loan and grant application was formally filed for The Central Business Renewal Project, Conn R-119.  An examination of the application reveals that it closely adhered tothe Byran & Panico recommendations of 1965. A study almost casually drawn up at a cost of a couple thousand dollars with very few changes, the primary design for an eleven million dollar project that forever altered the city.


Jillson House 1963

Vacant Lots and Broken Dreams:
Urban Renewal in Willimantic Connecticut
Richard Baber

Part 5
With everything in place, the project began to move forward.  Appraisals were conducted on all properties in the target area: a relocation staff was hired and all property owners, business owners and tenants were notified that their property would be acquired   As appraisals came in, offers were made and properties were bought.  Overall the project was proceeding smoothly and although there had been much debate throughout the process there had been relatively little controversy  That however would soon change.

At a regularly  scheduled meeting of the WRA on January 24, 1973, a request was made to amend the original plans to eliminate Broad Street which had been designated for residential units.  This change would create one large downtown commercial parcel which, it was argued, would be attractive to developers.  The housing needs could be meet by working with The Willimantic  Housing Authority at developing alternative sites..

It was proposed that the building at 696-704 Main Street (commonly known as the Hurley-Grant building) be changed from re habitation status to "be acquired status."  What was revealed in the course of discussion that this building was owned by WRA  Chairman  Dr. Rudolph Pino.  Furthermore, he had purchased it in June of 1971. only 18 months earlier.  He claimed that he had intended to rehabilitate the buildings but the cost soon made it prohibitive and there was no conflict of interest or impropriety.

The federal government responded the following day.  According to HUD legal council, Atty Joseph Gelletich, WRA chairman Pino violated contracts between HUD and the WRA.  Citing section 508. "No member of an agency may profit from the activities of the Agency." He said Dr Pino's  involvement could result in the federal government terminating its financial obligations to the city.

In spite of this, on October 18, 1973, the WRA agreed to buy the Pino building for the appraised price of $89,500, which would result in a $40,000 windfall for Dr. Pino.  At the next meeting on October 25, 1973, Betty Lou Williams refused to reveal the appraised amounts, and when asked about the Pino transaction  by James Aubrey she responded by saying "actually its none of your damn business."  Three days later Mayor David Calchera reacted:  Commissioners have no business speculating in the redevelopment area...if there is one thing we don't need its more distrust of public officials. The agency in turn attacked the mayor for not attending WRA meetings and not taking an interest in the project. The local bickering on the issued ended when, on October 30, 1973, HUD  determined that the Pino transaction constituted a conflict of interest and threatened to freeze the funding.  The state concurred, on January 1, 1974. 

On January 17, 1974 almost a year after it began the Pino controversy ended with Dr. Pino's resignation as  WRA chairman and Mayor Calchera appointed long time WRA nemesis John Ashton to fill the vacancy.  Although Pino's resignaation satisfied HUD officials, the purchase of the Hurley- Grant building proceeded as planned and Dr. Pino realized his profit.  In the course of the investigation of this affair HUD uncovered numerous other infractions among them: Commissioner Milton Kozelka was vice president of Republic Oil  which owned property in the target area;  his brother John Kozelka preferred  developer status for redevelopement of parcel 9; Commissioner Joseph Tubridy owned property and a business in the target area; Rudolph Pino leased offices to the WRA and WRA attorney Charles Tarpinian's son Craig and Chairman Pino'd son Rudolph were both put on the WRA payroll.  These infractions were investigated  and they resulted in negative publicity.

Meanwhile, while this was taken place, Betty Lou Williams launched an attack on the Willimantic Housing Authority (WHA). HUD had made$1.6 million available to the WHA for the construction of low income housing, but the housing authority rejected it. After failing to convince the WHA members to reverse their decision Williams called for the members resignations citing non-performance of duties.  Her concerns were that without this housing more renewal efforts could be delayed due to the Weicker  amendment; section 210 of the U.S. Housing  and Urban Development Act of 1969 stated that demolition cannot take place in an urban renewal area unless the people whose  homes are being torn down have replacement housing.

The WHA members responded that they were philosophically opposed to building a high rise, low income housing project.  Said WHA Commissioner Earl McSweeney, "I'm for housing  but  I am for it in certain ways...[he said he wanted to].find ways to fit these people into the community rather then create another ghetto."  WHA Commissioner Richard Jackson after defending the Housing Authority's position called for an investigation of the WRA, calling on them to answer questions:Does the redevelopment Agency rent space from its Chairman? Does its chairman own property in the redevelopment  area?  Are other commissioners gaining finicially from redevelopment? He called for the resignation of Betty Low Williams and Dr. Pino because "they are endangering  our entire redevelopment program by allowing [the conflict of interest] situation to exist."  After six weeks of debate, the Housing Authority voted to build  low income housing, not the 54 units that HUD would finance for $1.6 million at one site but thirty two units at scattered sites to comply with urban renewal requirements.

In spite of all that was happening the urban renewal project kept moving ahead. After submitting the low bid of $62,700 for the demolition of forty two buildings in the target area, David Jones, president of Jones Destruction of Farmington signed a contract with WRA on September 27, 1973.  And on October 9, 1973 seven years after the WRA was created the first building was demolished with director Williams, complete with hard hat and perched on a crane, directed the razing of a vacant garage on Main Street.  Afterward she said that the project was set for compleation by April, 1977.  Ten days later it was discovered that Jones was illegally dumping its rubble in Lebanon and the state issued a stop order. It took until February before an approved dump site was secured and demolition continued.

Another problem developed.  A primary goal of the downtown project was to attract a  regional major retail  mall.  This was undermined by the announcement  on October 25, 1973 that a mall would be constructed on a 23 acre site on the Willimantic town line.  This mall had commitments from Sage-Allen, Caldor, A & P, two banks and several other businesses and would be open by the following Christmas.  In spite of the news demolition continued.
Jillson House 2005

Part 6

On January 17, 1974 almost a year after it began the Pino controversy ended with Dr. Pino's resignation as  WRA chairman and Mayor Calchera appointed long time WRA nemesis John Ashton to fill the vacancy.  Although Pino's resignaation satisfied HUD officials, the purchase of the Hurley- Grant building proceeded as planned and Dr. Pino realized his profit.  In the course of the investigation of this affair HUD uncovered numerous other infractions among them: Commissioner Milton Kozelka was vice president of Republic Oil  which owned property in the target area;  his brother John Kozelka preferred  developer status for redevelopement of parcel 9; Commissioner Joseph Tubridy owned property and a business in the target area; Rudolph Pino leased offices to the WRA and WRA attorney Charles Tarpinian's son Craig and Chairman Pino'd son Rudolph were both put on the WRA payroll.  These infractions were investigated  and they resulted in negative publicity.

Meanwhile, while this was taken place, Betty Lou Williams launched an attack on the Willimantic Housing Authority (WHA). HUD had made$1.6 million available to the WHA for the construction of low income housing, but the housing authority rejected it. After failing to convince the WHA members to reverse their decision Williams called for the members resignations citing non-performance of duties.  Her concerns were that without this housing more renewal efforts could be delayed due to the Weicker  amendment; section 210 of the U.S. Housing  and Urban Development Act of 1969 stated that demolition cannot take place in an urban renewal area unless the people whose  homes are being torn down have replacement housing.

The WHA members responded that they were philosophically opposed to building a high rise, low income housing project.  Said WHA Commissioner Earl McSweeney, "I'm for housing  but  I am for it in certain ways...[he said he wanted to].find ways to fit these people into the community rather then create another ghetto."  WHA Commissioner Richard Jackson after defending the Housing Authority's position called for an investigation of the WRA, calling on them to answer questions:Does the redevelopment Agency rent space from its Chairman? Does its chairman own property in the redevelopment  area?  Are other commissioners gaining finicially from redevelopment? He called for the resignation of Betty Low Williams and Dr. Pino because "they are endangering  our entire redevelopment program by allowing [the conflict of interest] situation to exist."  After six weeks of debate, the Housing Authority voted to build  low income housing, not the 54 units that HUD would finance for $1.6 million at one site but thirty two units at scattered sites to comply with urban renewal requirements.

In spite of all that was happening the urban renewal project kept moving ahead. After submitting the low bid of $62,700 for the demolition of forty two buildings in the target area, David Jones, president of Jones Destruction of Farmington signed a contract with WRA on September 27, 1973.  And on October 9, 1973 seven years after the WRA was created the first building was demolished. with director Williams, complete with hard hat and perched on a crane, directed the razing of a vacant garage on Main Street.  Afterward she said that the project was set for compleation by April, 1977.  Ten days later it was discovered that Jones was illegally dumping its rubble in Lebanon and the stated issued a stop order. It took until February before an approved dump site was secured and demolition continued.

Another problem developed.  A primary goal of the downtown project was to attract a  regional major retail  mall.  This was undermined by the announcement  on October 25, 1973 that a mall would be constructed on a 23 acre site on the Willimantic town line.  This mall had commitments from Sage-Allen, Caldor, A & P, two banks and several other businesses and would be open by the following Christmas.  In spite of the news demolition continued.
Strand Theater Bulldozed, Fedor Litryn  owner watches, 1976  Chronicle photo


Part 7


The following May a debate ensued weather or not to use a portion of the central business district parcel for housing.  A proposal was made for fifty state funded units along Jackson Street. in a letter to the editor in the Willimantic Chronicle, dated may 4, 1974, Rev. John K Honan, Pastor of St Joseph's Church and a long time affordable housing advocate wrote:  I am not concerned with the use of this piece from a tax viewpoint because I believe  there is more redevelopment land  going to be available then there will be a demand for by commercial developers.No one seems to be knocking down the doors to get in line for purchase.His letter proved prophetic.

By June 1974 eighty two of one hundred one buildings slated for demolition had been acquired.  The owners of the remaining nineteen were challenging the WRA in court but by the end of the year they would also be acquired through the powers of eminent domain.  Demolition was complete on forty of the structures and contracts had been signed for the remaining forty two.  Preferred developer status had been awarded for two of the smaller parcels and the WRA decided it was time to lock in a for the crown jewel of the project.- the shopping mall on the ten acre downtown parcel.  Developers  kits and the deadline for completed proposals was set for 2p.m. on September 25, 1974.  The city got the first indication that Reverend Honan may have been right about,  "no one knocking down any doors to get in line to purchase" when the deadline came and went without a single proposal submitted.  Yet the project went ahead without modifications as if it had a life of its own . 

It took an additional two years for the first phase of urban renewal to be completed.  Although during that time the focus was still on the major downtown parcel, there was much activity elsewhere.  Site improvements were bid out  and improvements began on the city's infrastructure. An in depth historic survey was conducted, and commercial and residential rehabilitation were planned. Restoration began on the only structure on the major parcel, the historic Jilson House.  They planned to turn it into a museum.  Much needed downtown parking was created and a new fire/police complex on a cleared parcel on Meadow  Street.  These parcels were funded by HUD as part of the overall renewal grant and overseen by the WRA.  The city began spending its allocation of urban renewal funding as well as such items a storm sewers, sidewalks, recreation facilities and human services. In the private sector renovations  began on the Willimantic Trust building and The Connecticut Bank and Trust. The Willimantic Savings and Loan was the first business to locate a new structure in the downtown business district. When it opened its doors at the corner of Church and Main on June 20. 1976, it went unnoticed that the parcel had previously been home to nine businesses, four offices and twenty five apartments.

As demolition proceeded on the major downtown parcel, opposition to the continued leveling began to appear.  This was reflected with town meetings, demonstrations and letters to the editor, It was as if many people were realizing how total the destruction and how much they were losing.  In a letter to the editor of the Willimantic Chronicle, Francelia Butler wrote: "These nineteenth century buildings may mean more to Willimantic  then earlier colonial structures.  Sooner or later everyone deeply  will regret there disappearance."  These sentiments were echoed by John Stearns.. " I pass through the slowly disappearing city almost every day and I can't believe how efficiently  it has been turned into a big vacant lot....The WRA has done away with our landmarks. The next building that will come down are the Hurley and Union Blocks. These two buildings  have stood longer then most can remember."  And Georgia RonDeau lamented that " I think we have Willimantic to thank for Willimantic being the most inconvenient , little city around. Nothing is centrally located.  One has to drive around willy-nilly looking for a place of business that were once on Main Street. (re) development-indeed."  Michael Ziesing
defended businessmen:  "The business people in downtown Willimantic are not responsible for the fact that Storm troopers  from outside the area blitzkrieged the central business area.  Many of us radically oppose it."

By the summer of 1976, the Hurley-Grant building and the Union Block were the only two buildings slated for demolition that were still standing.  People began rallying together in a movement to preserve them.  It was as if these two building for everything that had been lost over the previous three years. There were many private offers to fund the restoration of these structures  and there were almost daily demonstrations.  Support  came from all quarters: residents, city officials, the Chamber of Commerce and downtown merchants. But in the end Betty Lou and the WRA  prevailed  and on October 20, 1976 demolition began on these buildings.  A photograph in the Willimantic Chronicle showed a crane chomping down a wall where some one had painted: "In the spirit of '76  don't tear me down."  In the aftermath, members of the community seemed stunned at what happened to the city.


Main Street, 1963

Conclusion, Part 8

Over the next two years, redevelopment efforts were in full swing.  Downtown utilities were buried. hundred year old water and gas lines were replaced, and sidewalks were laid and new street lights were installed. Landscaping was done citywide: parks and parking lots were planned, and the newly restored Jillson House was turned over to the Windham Historical Society. The downtown rehabilitation and restoration of the many historic buildings was begun. However in the middle of the city was a ten acre vacant lot. Bids were received and proposals were reviewed but either the plans were not appropriate or the developers  were not acceptable.  When Betty Lou Williams resigned as executive director February 26, 1079, there  was no potential developers in site.

Today the downtown parcel, the centerpiece of what was to be a model for urban revitalization  is still empty,  The WRA did use redevelopment funds to create a municipal parking lot on it and a small strip surrounding the Jillson House museum was landscaped  and deeded to the city as a park.  The only private commercial development occupying a half acre was the six screen Jillson Square Cinema built by Cates Enterprise of Cambridge Massachusetts and opened in 1978. The remaining 9.3 acres remain as open space. Although proposals are still occasionally being submitted  to the WRA  non have been found  acceptable. In the aftermath. there are many questions regarding the value of Willimantic's redevelopment program to the city.
On the plus side the city did benefit from the many physical improvements that were funded by HUD money.  In addition to the improved infrastructure, such as wide well lit streets, new brick bordered sidewalks, parking lots, parks and attractive landscaping citywide, Willimantic added new government buildings. Also there was some private commercial development which is tax generating. Liberty Bank and Clark's Restaurant , the old Willimantic Trust and Connecticut Bank and Trust, The Broadcaster and WILI buildings  and the Jilson Cinemas were all built on redevelopment parcels, The rehabilitation program did and still does provide  people with grants and low interest loans to apply to the historic structures that remain. Many of the beautiful Victorians that are showcased in Willimantic were restored under this program.

On the human side there were benefits from some additional housing as a result of urban renewal. The high-rise elderly complex on Valley Street and the clustered Father Honan Village on Jackson Street were financed with federal and state money as replacement housing for those elderly displaced  by urban renewal.  As a result of the downtown clearance, the privately funded Windham Heights project was built in anticipation of the need for low- income housing. There were many people that found that relocation was an improvement. "It's the best thing that ever happened to me" said Adelainda Cichon of her move from Union Street were she frequently saw or was a victim of crime, to the high rise for the elderly on Valley Street. Benjamin Morales, who was relocated from a three room apartment for $100 per month on Valley Street Extension, to a five room apartment  for $120 per month at 17 Pearl Street said: I like the new surroundings much better and have basically  kept the same friends since moving. " Mr and Mrs Estaban Coinception were moved from a rental apartment in the target area to a home at 13/15 Pearl St.that they were able to purchase with a replacement housing payment from WRA.

A look at some of the negative consequences of urban renewal reveals that not everyone fared as well. In total 154 families and 104 individuals representing 675 people were displaced due to phase 1 of urban renewal. Although some moved to new homes of the same quality or better then the one they left, most did not.  Those that ended up at one of the city's subsidized housing complexes or at Windham Heights found themselves living with more crime and despair then before and without the sense of neighborhood that was present downtown. In addition 129 businesses were displaced. Many such as Sherwin-Williams, Friendly Variety Store,relocated nearby and are still in business today. Some such as Tubridy's or The Hoot, deserted downtown for the East Brook Mall while others such as Lindy's Restaurant, Railroad Street Package Store, Gay's Florist or the New England Institute of Music could simply not afford to relocate, or if they did, they found they were too far away from their old clientele to survive.

Other negative aspects of Willimantic redevelopment include the unfulfilled goals, the loss of tax revenue and the potential for profiteering and graft. But without question one of the biggest drawbacks was the permanent loss of much of Willimantic's architectural heritage.  Joy P. Favretti said it the best."I'm compelled to put in writing my feelings about your city as it seems to me that there are to few who understand or appreciate charm. For goodness sakes while you still have something left down there, slow down, Take time to study Willimantic's history. Then take a whole day to walk your town... its many parks, open space, waterfalls, old factory buildings...Willi is a fantastic collection of 19th century architecture  and a delightful small town atmosphere pervades its tree shaded byways...Your town is a real calender picture   town of a type that many can only dream of now  While you still have it , For God's sake, and for the sake of all future generations, take it to you heart, love it, don't destroy it,"

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Transparent Town Council



Observing the local political process and those that make (or don't make) it happen, I often wonder what goes in the minds of those newly elected on election night. Exactly when do they become  authorities or the experts that many become? When do they shed that pre-election humility and concern for those that look up at them and support them? When does their listening ability cease? 

When the last ballot is counted or is a slower evolution? 

On Dec 6, 2011 Windham's Town Council majority returned to their authoritive mode after the November elections. Election time is when most politicians pretended to listen to their constitutes  (Hard work but a fact of life at election time)
Councilmen voted 7-4  to change how it operates meet­ings, including the controversial elimination of the second public comment period.

Voting in favor of the change were Councilmen Charles Krich, Thomas DeVivo, Joe Underwood, Kevin Donahue, Arnaldo Rivera, Christel Donahue and Jerry Iazzetta, all members of majority party.

 Dissenting were Tony Fantoli, Lorraine McDevitt, Mark Doyle and Windham Mayor
 Ernest Eldridge.


The rationale behind the proponents decision was to make council meetings more efficient, "we were finding people were coming to speak twice. This will encourage people to focus on what they have to say."

Being a one party town  for years there has been no incentive to inform the town's civic society nor to listen.  "The less they know the easier to keep being re-elected."  Being re-elected guarantees the good old boys keep doing the same old thing--driving Windham to an unknown place.  Wherever that be.

December of 2010 with our schools failing a report from The Nagg School of Education, commissioned by the State Commissioner of Education hit the streets.The Report on District Governance devoted  many paragraphs to the lack of or poor communication between the various town boards, the board of education and town citizens. They further  emphasize that this major problem could be fixed with little or no cost.  They suggested that communications was the route of Windham's troubles. 

The decision to eliminate the second public comment is deeply disturbing when put into context of other  moves the town council has made in recent years.
  • The Granicus Proposal:  To replace the audio-video system, from the Philo Farnsworth  eraused to broadcast meetings on the town cable channel.  The proposal has been lost in sub-committee.
  • Ad-Hoc Open Government Communication Committee: To promote communications between government and citizens with a focus on enhancing interest and web based communications   The first meeting took place in Sept of 2010, 19 months have past without a second meeting. 
  • Meeting Minutes:  According to The Conn. Freedom of Information Commission all towns are required to upload the minutes of a committee or commission meeting within 48 hours of that meeting to their website.  If the town is unwilling or incapable of complying they must shut down their web site.  In 2010 when this law took effect many towns choose to shut down their sites including  neighboring towns of Scotland and Andover.  Windham flaunted the mandate.  If there was a FOI  jail many Windham officials would be behind bars today.  Of 140 meetings listed on the Board of Finance website. 65 have no minutes.  Interesting enough, most  occured under the  tutelage of previous chairman McGrath and most occurred during budget season. The Town Council has improved the timing of uploading minutes but are still non-compliant. Chances are agendas are uploaded after the meeting occurs.  The Adm. &Finance, Health & Human Service sub committee to the Town Council and Town Council-Willimantic Service Dist both fail miserablely informing its citizens. The Town Council-Public Safety, Recreation & Public Works Sub Committee has a commendable record
  • Political Caucus:   A closed meeting of party members within a legislative body to decide on questions of policy or leadership. Windham, being a one party town  has used this legal mechanism for decades to successfully control town boards.  It is a  method for party leadership to control their members through intimidation. Most party members who perceive themselves to hold a minority point of view will be less likely to speak out for fear of being isolated, thus a few control the party, hence they control the direction of town government. For the taxpayer following the council's process of changing the meeting procedures there was no need to offer an opinion or get excited. This particular legislation had been pre-decided in secret session. Eliminating the second council public comment option had been written in stone before the sham council vote.  Call it theatrics, call it smoke and mirrors, call it (houdinism or houdini-it ??) --- I call it distrust in the neighbors we elect.
  • The Upstairs-Downstairs Magic Show:  The renovated ballroom became available for overcrowded meeting in the 2010-11 budget season.  While this hall maybe great for social events it is not up to snuff  for meetings.  Acoustics are non-existent, lighting feeble, the setting sun blinds both spectators and meeting participants and best yet (for politicians) the room lacks both audio and video equipment.   Finance Chair, Barbara McGrath  used this room to her advantage.  When a hearing was expected to draw undo negative comments in her crusade to provide more funding to the school board she would move the finance board hearing to the ballroom,(No TV coverage) even if a sparse crown was in attendance.  Conversely when the school board filled the meeting room,  hallway and out the front door of town hall with  and those sympathetic to her cause she chose to remain downstairs forsaking the much larger hall on the second floor.  (TV coverage)
  • Playing Favorites:  We're splitting hairs here but why should an"important person" be allowed an extra 45 seconds to talk over "Just Plain Joe" or someone with "more stature" be allowed to interject his thoughts during a meeting.  It doesn't happen often but when a citizen is limited to exactly three minutes why are others accorded special status? 

 Going through Town Council minutes on the Windham web site proved interesting. Sixty two meetings, 124 opportunities to speak  ( Sept 21, 2009 -Dec. 6, 2011). Public hearing not included.The findings:
  • Total comments: 605 
  • Early comments: 391 (2/3) 
  •  Late comments: 224 (1/3) 
  • Most comments: July 20, 2010 54 first comment session, 10 second comment session
  • Heavy participation always occurred during the first comment session when controversial items were on the agenda:  Union issues, ballroom naming, drinking in town hall, wrestling club, Card St, senior citizens issues, magnet school concerns. 
  • Budget season 2011 saw a reversal in public comment.  More people spoke during the second comment session.  Budget season 2010, near equal citizen participation.
"We were finding that it was the same people coming to speak twice,” those councilors voting to eliminate the second comment period claimed. “ This will encourage people to focus on what they have to say.” In fact:
  •  (Nov. 2009-Dec. 2011), 81 citizen took advantage of both the first and second   comment period at least once. Familiar names such as Stone, Santucci, Lary, Crane, DeVivo, Hoxie, Niles, Galucci, Fantolli, Montalovo, Veins, D'Auteille, Millard, Giordano, O'Brian, Jeffers, Doyle, Council members Iazetta & Underwood (who voted to elimanate the second public comment,)  & Quercas. 
  • Of the 81citizens speaking twice, 64 offered different subject matter during late comment
  • 14 contributor's  repeated themselves to some degree.
  • Three speakers definitely repeated themselves.  
The most recent buzz at town hall is adding a third polling place.  Windham's voting results have sunk to embarrassing levels. The November 2011 municipal elections saw a turnout less then 15%, Education budget referendums, even less. Our authorities say the convenience factor is a detriment to voter turnout. Convenience has little to do with voter turnout:
  • Poverty and voter turnout go hand and hand. As poverty rates increase, voter turnout descends When you don't know where tonight's supper will come from or how your fuel bill will be paid voting is quite trivial.
  • When government shuts down citizen participation and stymies public engagement government suffers.  When government becomes hearing impaired and forgets how they got where they are, when government considers their position a God giving right we are on the brink of government breakdown and moral  bankruptcy
Maybe some day a third polling place will be required but first our  councilors must change their tune. The town council should offer citizens increased, not less, opportunities to participate in policy making and to provide town government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information.  Public engagement enhances the government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Government must be tuned toward a bi-lingual format.  We are currently shutting out hundred of voters and potential leaders.
For once politicians must serve the town first not their party. Our government cannot withstand power plays.  Yes, we know that one party controls town government, they always have.

In 2009 then state representative,Walter Pawelkiwicz, concluded a speech for a Main Street substance abuse center dedication with these words: "Windham, the the second poorest town in Conn., but we have heart."
Heart ain't going to do it nor is closed government going to solve Windham's problems 
  • We need leaders with integrity and intellectual honesty.
  • We need politicians who respect their political opponents, treat their constituents like adults and promote openness and transparency in government.
  • We need leaders with compelling ideas---and the ability and vision to turn those ideas into action. 
  • We need leaders who can see beyond the next election cycle and who have the political courage to lay the foundation for Windham's future success--even if it means making unpopular decisions today.
  • We need leaders who are willing to work with those from across the aisle to get things done.
  • Most importantly We looked for men and women who are not afraid to challenge their party’s leadership when that leadership is putting politics and partisan mudslinging above what’s best for  us all.
And so,  Councilmen Krich, DeVivo, Underwood, Kevin Donahue,  Rivera, Christel Donahue and Iazzetta when did it happen?
When did  you  grown too big and now you don’t care about the people that elected you? When did you see them as a herd of the needy that comes to you to find purpose in life? Oh come on, if you keep up this attitude, the herds of people will soon start disappearing. And what are you without your little people or jerks that BOF member Jeff Smith calls us? Who will consider you an authority that you pretend to be if there is nobody to listen to you? 

Listen to us, respect us, we'll do the same.



Observing the local political process and those that make (or don't make) it happen, I often wonder what goes on in the minds of those newly elected on election night. Exactly when do they become the "authorities" or the "experts" that many become? When do they shed that pre-election humility and concern for those that look up to them and support them? When does their listening ability cease?
Do these things happen when the last ballot is counted or is it a slower evolution?

On Dec. 6, 2011, Windham's Town Council majority returned to their authoritive mode after the November elections. Election time is when most politicians pretended to listen to their constitutes. (Hard work, but a fact of life at election time.)

Councilmen voted 7-4  to change how the Council operates meet­ings, including the controversial elimination of the second public comment period.

Voting in favor of the change were Councilmen Charles Krich, Thomas DeVivo, Joe Underwood, Kevin Donahue, Arnaldo Rivera, Christel Donahue and Jerry Iazzetta -- all members of the majority party.

Dissenting were Tony Fantoli, Lorraine McDevitt, Mark Doyle and Windham Mayor Ernest Eldridge.

The rationale behind the proponents' decision was to make council meetings more efficient. "We were finding people were coming to speak twice. This will encourage people to focus on what they have to say."

Being a one-party town  for years, there has been no incentive to inform the town's civic society nor to listen.  "The less they know, the easier it is to keep being re-elected."  Being re-elected guarantees the "good old boys and girls" keep doing the same old thing -- driving Windham to an unknown place. Wherever that may be.

December 2010 brought our schools a failing report from The Nagg School of Education, commissioned by the State Commissioner of Education. The Report on District Governance devoted  many paragraphs to the lack of or poor communication between the various town boards, the board of education and town citizens. They further emphasized that this major problem could be fixed with little or no cost.  They suggested that communications was the root of Windham's troubles.

The decision to eliminate the second public comment is deeply disturbing when put into context of other  moves the town council has made in recent years.
  • The Granicus Proposal:  To replace the audio-video system from the Philo Farnsworth era, used to broadcast meetings on the town cable channel.  The proposal has been lost in sub-committee.
  • Ad-Hoc Open Government Communication Committee: To promote communications between government and citizens with a focus on enhancing interest and web-based communications  The first meeting took place in Sept. 2010, 19 months have passed without a second meeting.Meeting Minutes:  According to The Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, all towns are required to upload the minutes of a committee or commission meeting within 48 hours of that meeting to their website.  If the town is unwilling or incapable of complying they must shut down their web site.  In 2010 when this law took effect many towns choose to shut down their sites including the neighboring towns of Scotland and Andover. Windham flaunted the mandate.If there was an FOI  jail many Windham officials would be behind bars today. Of 140 meetings listed on the Board of Finance website, 65 have no minutes.  Interestingly enough, most occured under the tutelage of previous chairman McGrath -- and most occurred during budget season. The Town Council has improved the timing of uploading minutes, but is still non-compliant. Chances are, agendas are uploaded after the meeting occurs.  The Administration & Finance, Health & Human Service sub committee to the Town Council, and the Town Council-Willimantic Service District fail miserablely informing their citizens. The Town Council-Public Safety, Recreation & Public Works Sub Committee has a commendable record.
  • Political Caucus: "A closed meeting of party members within a legislative body to decide on questions of policy or leadership." Windham, being a one-party town has used this legal mechanism for decades to successfully control town boards.  It is a  method for party leadership to control their members through intimidation. Most party members who perceive themselves to hold a minority point of view will be less likely to speak out for fear of being isolated, thus a few control the party, hence they control the direction of town government. For the taxpayer following the council's process of changing the meeting procedures, there was no need to offer an opinion or get excited. This particular legislation had been pre-decided in secret session. Eliminating the second council public comment option had been written in stone before the sham council vote.  Call it theatrics, call it smoke and mirrors, call it "Houdini-ism" -- I call it distrust in the neighbors we elect.
  • The Upstairs-Downstairs Magic Show:  The town hall renovated ballroom became available for overcrowded meetings in the 2010-11 budget season.  While this hall maybe great for social events, it is not up to snuff  for meetings.  Acoustics are non-existent, lighting feeble, the setting sun blinds both spectators and meeting participants, and best yet (for politicians) the room lacks both audio and video equipment.   Finance Chair, Barbara McGrath  used this room to her advantage.  When a hearing was expected to draw undo negative comments in her crusade to provide more funding to the school board, she would move the finance board hearing to the ballroom (no TV coverage) even if a sparse crown was in attendance. Conversely, when the school board filled the meeting room, hallway, and out the front door of town hall with those sympathetic to her cause, she chose to remain downstairs -- forsaking the much larger hall on the second floor. (TV coverage)
  • Playing Favorites:  We're splitting hairs here, but why should an "important person" be allowed an extra 45 seconds to talk over "Just Plain Joe" -- or someone with "more stature" be allowed to interject his thoughts during a meeting.  It doesn't happen often, but when a citizen is limited to exactly three minutes why are others accorded special status?
Going through Town Council minutes on the Windham web site proves interesting. Sixty two meetings, 124 opportunities to speak ( Sept. 21, 2009 -Dec. 6, 2011). Public hearing not included.
The findings:

  • Total comments: 605
  • Early comments: 391 (2/3)
  • Late comments: 224 (1/3)
  • Most comments: July 20, 2010, 54 first comment session, 10 second comment session
  • Heavy participation always occurred during the first comment session when controversial items were on the agenda: union issues, ballroom naming, drinking in town hall, wrestling club, Card Street, senior citizens issues, magnet school concerns. 
  • Budget season 2011 saw a reversal in public comment.  More people spoke during the second comment session.  
  • Budget season 2010, near equal citizen participation.
"We were finding that it was the same people coming to speak twice,” those councilors voting to eliminate the second comment period claimed. “This will encourage people to focus on what they have to say.” In fact: 

  • (Nov. 2009-Dec. 2011), 81 citizens took advantage of both the first and second comment period at least once. Familiar names such as Stone, Santucci, Lary, Crane, DeVivo, Hoxie, Niles, Galucci, Fantolli, Montalovo, Veins, D'Auteille, Millard, Giordano, O'Brian, Jeffers, Doyle, Council members Iazetta & Underwood (who voted to elimanate the second public comment,) and Quercas.
  • Of the 81citizens speaking twice, 64 offered different subject matter during late comment. 
  • 14 contributor's repeated themselves to some degree.
  • Three speakers definitely repeated themselves. 
The most recent buzz at town hall is adding a third polling place. Windham's voting results have sunk to embarrassing levels. The November 2011 municipal elections saw a turnout of less than 15% ... Education budget referendums, even less.
Our authorities say the convenience factor is a detriment to voter turnout.
But, convenience has little to do with voter turnout:

  • Poverty and voter turnout go hand in hand. As poverty rates increase, voter turnout descends. When you don't know where tonight's supper will come from or how your fuel bill will be paid, voting is quite trivial.
  • When government shuts down citizen participation and stymies public engagement government suffers.
  • When government becomes hearing-impaired and forgets how they got where they are ...
  • When government considers their position a God-given right ... 
  • ... we are on the brink of government breakdown and moral  bankruptcy.
Maybe someday a third polling place will be required, but first our councilors must change their tune. The town council should offer citizens increased -- not fewer -- opportunities to participate in policy-making and to provide town government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information.  Public engagement enhances government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions.
Government must be tuned toward a bi-lingual format.  We are currently shutting out hundreds of voters and potential leaders.
For once politicians must serve the town first, not their party. Our government cannot withstand power plays.  Yes, we know that one party controls town government, they always have.

In 2009, then state representativeWalter Pawelkiwicz concluded a speech for a Main Street substance abuse center dedication with these words: "Windham, may be the the second poorest  in Connecticut, but we have heart."

Heart ain't going to do it, nor is closed government going to solve Windham's problems:

  • We need leaders with integrity and intellectual honesty.
  • We need politicians who respect their political opponents, treat their constituents like adults, and promote openness and transparency in government.
  • We need leaders with compelling ideas -- and the ability and vision to turn those ideas into action.
  • We need leaders who can see beyond the next election cycle and who have the political courage to lay the foundation for Windham's future success -- even if it means making unpopular decisions today.
  • We need leaders who are willing to work with those from across the aisle to get things done.
  • Most importantly we look for men and women who are not afraid to challenge their party’s leadership when that leadership is putting politics and partisan mudslinging above what’s best for  us all.
And so, Councilmen Krich, DeVivo, Underwood, Kevin Donahue, Rivera, Christel Donahue and Iazzetta ... when did it happen?
When did you grow too big and stop caring about the people who elected you? When did you see them as a herd of the needy that comes to you to find purpose in life? Oh come on, if you keep up this attitude, the herds of people will soon start disappearing. And what are you without your little people -- or jerks as BOF member Jeff Smith calls us? Who will consider you the authority that you pretend to be if there is nobody to listen to you?

Listen to us. Respect us. We'll do the same.






From: Kate Fortier <k

Delleted from text above

Public engagement enhances the government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is a widely dispersed comity, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. The town council should offer citizens increased, not less, opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their town government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information.  Public engagement enhances the government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is a widely dispersed comity, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. The town council should offer citizens increased, not less, opportunities to participate in policy making and to provide their town government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information.





















  1. 2. Not speaking out (whether or no






  1. their view really was the minority position) makes it seem to others like that point of view is even less common.
3. A downward spiral occurs because the less one hears in support of the perceived "unpopular" idea the more unpopular it seems. One's fear of isolation for expressing that view intensifies. Eventually some people really do decide not to hold that view (so they can feel part of the majority).

Why people don't vote-poverty

•In 2007, 10.6 percent of Connecticut children under 18 (85,530 children) lived in a family with income below the federal poverty level ($21, 027).
•In 2007, the state's largest cities had extremely high child poverty rates — Hartford (47 percent), Waterbury (31.4 percent), New Haven(28.7 percent), and Bridgeport (28.4 percent)."
•Undernutrition and environmental factors associated with poverty can permanently retard physical growth, brain development and cognitive functioning.
•Families earning low wages cannot afford to work if they lack access to affordable child care. Families who cannot work fall deeper into poverty, and the children don't receive the early education they need to succeed later in school.
•Research shows that a father's absence in a child's life can be devastating. Children living in fatherless homes are: five times more likely to live in poverty; nine times more likely to drop out of school; 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs; and 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
•An average child growing up in a low-income family receiving welfare hears one-half to one-third as many spoken words as children from more affluent households. At these rates, a low-income child hears 10 million words by age 3 while a high-income child hears as many as 30 million words by then. The low-income child would know about 3,000 words by age 6, while the child of the high-income family wou


Voter turnout 

The second is to motivate people to participate. This will be more difficult, but it is critically important. Democracy is predicated upon the participation of informed citizens. When voters stay home, they are less likely to get competent or accountable government, which in turn affects the quality of schools, public safety and town services.
A hot local issue, or a compelling candidate, can still get voters out. But it is hard to explain why, to take eastern Connecticut as an example, Hampton and Sprague turned out 63.75 percent and 55.70 percent of their voters, while Sterling, with a turnout belying its name, had only 6.01 percent of its registered voters bother to cast ballots.





Cacus

a. A meeting of the local members of a political party especially to select delegates to a convention or register preferences for candidates running for office.

c. A group within a legislative or decision-making body seeking to represent a specific interest or influence a particular area of policy:a minority caucus.


hronicle-freedom of speech
that angered some citizens.

Councilmen voted 7-4 Tuesday to change how it operates meet­ings, including the controversial elimination of a public comment period.

Voting in favor of the change were Councilmen Charles Krich, Thomas DeVivo, Joe Underwood, Kevin Donahue, Arnaldo Rivera, Christel Donahue and Jerry Iazzetta.

Those dissenting were Tony Fantoli, Lorraine McDevitt, Mark Doyle and Windham Mayor
 Ernest Eldridge.

The change was made as part of a revision to the council’s standing rules, which are revisited every two years when a new council is elected.

In the previous term, the council had two public comment sessions during its regular meetings, one at the beginning and one at the end.

Now, the council will have just one public comment session at the beginning of the meeting.

The change was recommended by Krich.

Krich said Wednesday the change was made to make meet­ings more efficient.

We were finding that it was the same people coming to speak twice,” said Krich. “ This will encourage people to focus on
 what they have to say.

Willimantic Republican Town Committee Vice Chairman Lori Jeffers, speaking during the final public comment session, was vis­ibly upset about the change.

She said the second public com­ment session gave the citizens the opportunity to give feedback on items discussed during the meeting.

“I think you made a mistake in the way you voted tonight,” said Jeffers.

The decision was made to have the session at the beginning so people would not have to stay until the end of the meeting.

“ To a lot of people, that’s a bur­den,”
 said Krich. Krich said the public has “ plenty of access” to council members other than during meetings and can write them letters or speak with them at other times.

Beets noted that, although the council elimi­nated the second public comment session, it did revise the rules so council members can address citizens.

Another change made was the format of council meetings.

Historically, the town council has had sub­committees report to the full council during its meetings.

The full Windham council, including Willi­mantic representatives, meets on the first Tuesday of the month while Willimantic councilmen meet by themselves on the third Tuesday of the month.

Previously, there were two subcommittees: the administration and finance, health and human services committee, and the public safety, recreation and public works committee. Beets recommended the first meeting of the month be used as a “work session,” dur­ing which the full council will be introduced to issues and ask questions, as well as voice opinions.
The second meeting of the month will be used as a “ regular business session,” during which the council will vote on action items.

Following Tuesday’s vote, there will no lon­ger be subcommittees.

Beets said Wednesday this approach would be an experiment and noted other public “ bod­ies” have operated in this manner, including the Windham Board of Education.

The school board recently set up workshop meetings per the recommendation of Special Master Steven Adamowski, the state-appoint­ed liaison working with school officials to turn around the struggling district.

Beets said the change could result in fewer meetings. “I thought we’d give it a try,” said Beets. “I always thought it was a productive way to go.”

Fantoli said he likes the new format. “It’s a good way to go,” he said.

McDevitt agreed, and said having commit­tees was a “complete waste of time.”

“Committees can kill you,” said McDevitt. “I think more work can be done if we’re all here.”

Significant changes were also made pertain­ing to Windham Mayor Ernest Eldridge’s role
 on the council, a recommendation made by Krich.

Eldridge will no longer have the authority to vote on Willimantic service district matters.

Krich said people in the Willimantic Service District felt Eldridge should not be allowed to vote on matters in the district because he resides in Windham.

“I think it’s a conflict,” said Krich.

He said residents were upset when Eldridge voted to increase taxes in the Willimantic dis­trict, Krich said.

“I take offense by that,” said Krich.

Per the new rules, Eldridge will no longer have the opportunity to vote on behalf of the Willimantic Service District, a change he felt was unfair. “I should have a vote,” he said.

Doyle said Eldridge is an “ex-officio” for both the Willimantic Service District council and the full town council.

“I don’t see that we need to change that based on the mayor’s residence,” said Doyle.

Eldridge will still have a vote on the town council.

This morning he said he is seeking a legal opinion on the council’s action to eliminate his vote on the Willimantic 

Service District.












10 signs of a good listner
http://writermel.hubpages.com/hub/10-Signs-of-a-Good-Listener

Transparency in government-the white house
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

overnment should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.  Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.





Open meetings,open records and Tranparency in government (what is a meeting)
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/introduction/open-meetings.html

Of course, transparency means that something can be seen through. When we talk about transparency in government, we mean that citizens must be able to "see through" its workings, to know exactly what goes on when public officials transact public business. Government that is not transparent is more prone to corruption and undue influence because there is no public oversight of decision making.

What is an open meeting law?
To protect transparency in government, every state in the United States has some variety of law mandating that all government business be conducted in open meetings to which the public has access. These are sometimes referred to as "sunshine laws," open government laws, or, in California, the Brown Act. The Oklahoma Court's decision in Oklahoma Ass'n of Municipal Attorneys v. State (1978) gives a clear statement of why open meetings are important: "If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed."
In addition, most states have laws ensuring public access to government documents and records. These are often versions of the federal Freedom of Information Act. 
What do open meetings have to do with ethics?
Transparency is a way of protecting fairness and ensuring the common good. When citizens know what their government is up to, they have a better chance of ensuring that decisions treat everyone equally and protect the common conditions that are important to everyone's welfare. As the Carter Center puts it: 
Democracy depends on a knowledgeable citizenry whose access to a range of information enables them to participate more fully in public life, help determine priorities for public spending, receive equal access to justice, and to hold their public officials accountable. Inadequate public access to information allows corruption to flourish, and back-room deals to determine spending in the interests of the few rather than many.



What makes a good politician-good read
http://congress.indiana.edu/what-makes-good-politician
The press and public often pay attention to what politicians say, but less to how well they do what they're supposed to do. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton asks, "What Makes A Good Politician?"

Perhaps just as important, they also understand the limits of their power — both what a legislator can realistically accomplish, and the fact that legislators might react to events but rarely can control them. 
This ability to keep oneself in perspective is crucial to a politician. After years in office, it is supremely tempting to think of a legislative seat as an entitlement, as something held by right. It's not. Good politicians not only understand that they serve in a representative democracy, they embrace the challenges and opportunities this offers them. 
The occasional exception notwithstanding — Richard Nixon comes to mind — they are good communicators who genuinely like all kinds of people and are comfortable talking to perfect strangers in all kinds of environments. They are accessible to the grand and the humble alike. They are sensitive to the mood in a room, know how to read an audience, and are quick to respond. They are generally open to other points of view, and know that while they may differ with someone on one issue, they'll likely be working with him or her on another in the future. 
And perhaps most important, they understand that politics involves give and take, and the ability to find common ground. A good politician listens very carefully to those on the other side, not only to learn their arguments, but especially to learn how far he or she can move them and how far he or she has to be moved in order to reach consensus. 
This is why politics puts a premium on resourcefulness and intelligence, and tends, over time, to discourage ideological blinkers — if you approach a problem by saying that all the good is in your side and all the bad lies with the opposition, then you'll never accomplish anything. Good politicians persist in trying to forge agreement on policy or political goals, and they can take defeat in stride; they know that setbacks and criticism go with the territory, and are quick to learn from them and move forward. 
Finally, they never forget where they're from and fight hard not to succumb to Potomac Fever. They understand their districts and states, remain loyal to their constituents, and have an abiding faith in the decency, intelligence and patriotism of the voters. Without that, it's almost impossible to be a true representative, able to express in the halls of the powerful the hopes, dreams, and interests of ordinary Americans. That's what they got sent to Washington to do, and the very best never forget it. 




T
Why Andover web site was closed
The new web site — http://ando­verconnecticut. org — was cre­ated by a group of volunteers after selectmen shut down the original site in October 2008.

It was originally shut down due to a state law requiring all towns with web sites to post meeting minutes for all boards on the site within 48 hours of a meeting.

The original web site did not have minutes posted.


Mr. Malloy was advocating ways to make voting easier, including Web-based voter registration, Election Day registration and larger penalties on efforts to intimidate or impede voters.

New London Hot Dogs
http://www.theday.com/article/20111017/NWS01/310179914



Bridgeport Discord
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Records-detail-the-discord-on-Bridgeport-s-school-1469788.php#page-1

AYP info
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2662&Q=333592

Plan, Organize, Lead/Direct, Control
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/management-concepts-the-four-functions-of-management.html

Public Finance
Collection of sufficient resources from the economy in an appropriate manner along with allocating and use of these resources efficiently and effectively constitute good financial management. Resource generation, resource allocation and expenditure management (resource utilization) are the essential components of a public financial managementsystem.

ts role is to act as a balance against the Board of Selectmen or School Board, which usually set the budget and present it to the public at town meeting. Typically the Board of Finance is seen as being more cost-conscious than the governing body - that is, it prefers smaller budgets.

Quote:
The Day really needs hammer this story, the city may be short on cash but this is ethically bankrupt.

Jan 18 2012 link of Jan 17th meeting agenda
http://www.windhamct.com/meetings.htm?id=lj59ef58

So you become an authority when you're elected or appointed to a board
Mark Phelps, feels the message sent tonight by Council members was a poor example for the youth of the Community. He said the professionals you just kicked off the Committee are exactly the same professionals you are talking about putting back on. You should have added people with certain areas of expertise to the existing committee. He was shameful of the hours of personal time, and dedication that everyone has put into this, only to have the Council disband them. From July 20, 2010 minutes

An informed society
These panels focus on how a healthy democracy requires an informed citizenry. 
This panel will examine from a historical perspective how we access the information we need to participate in a democratic society, with a focus on public education, public libraries, and how we learn about the people we elect.

 An ability to vocally express oneself in a manner that exudes a clear and purposeful discourse for oral communication; 


Government should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.  .
Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

What is the definition of transparency?
Of course, transparency means that something can be seen through. When we talk about transparency in government, we mean that citizens must be able to "see through" its workings, to know exactly what goes on when public officials transact public business. Government that is not transparent is more prone to corruption and undue influence because there is no public oversight of decision making.

What is an open meeting law?
 "If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed."



From Budget Picture is Bleak/Windham - In note pad
Councilman Thomas DeVivo, chairman of the Willimantic Ser­vice District, said he thought the town should charge a user fee for the placement of newspaper boxes on Main Street.

What do open meetings have to do with ethics?
Transparency is a way of protecting fairness and ensuring the common good. When citizens know what their government is up to, they have a better chance of ensuring that decisions treat everyone equally and protect the common conditions that are important to everyone's welfare. As the Carter Center puts it: 
Democracy depends on a knowledgeable citizenry whose access to a range of information enables them to participate more fully in public life, help determine priorities for public spending, receive equal access to justice, and to hold their public officials accountable. Inadequate public access to information allows corruption to flourish, and back-room deals to determine spending in the interests of the few rather than many.


“There is too much mystery …”
“Process is far too secretive …”
“Take the mystery out …”
“Veil of secrecy should be lifted
 …”