update: 2008/Dec/10: To further clarify. The CC never gave any info to the DEP. We did give info directly to FERC. The DEP got all their info independently, sending a representative out to examine the location and included his report in their submission to the DEP. When the ConsAgent contacted DEP to offer support, the DEP had already submitted their comments and it was too late.
Another article was published in the CtPost today, and it's important to understand the full nuances of what is going on regarding the FERC licensed area near the Ousatonic Dam, specifically it's recreational component.
First the link to the article
http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_11066285
And then as is my practice - a cut/paste of the article (the online link doesn't retain content forever) with my comments inserted.
By KATE RAMUNNI Staff writer Updated: 11/24/2008 11:50:20 PM EST
SHELTON -- The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has reversed its decision to allow McCallum Enterprises to close off a portion of the public access on its Shelton Canal Co. property -- but that doesn't mean the fence erected weeks ago there will be coming down any time soon.
"They issued a ruling but haven't issued a ruling on other proceedings," McCallum president Joseph Szarmach said Monday. "It's still up in the air right now."
++ For purposes of comment, I'll try to stay focused on the recreation component of McCallum's FERC license to withdraw electrical power from the public waters. FERC has indeed denied closure of the area to the public. The fence installed recently should be removed, and access restored to viewing areas such as the historic photo display and the steps leading to the river's shore for fishing and portage. There is nothing "up in the air", FERC has ruled. The other proceedings Mr Szarmach refers to are unrelated to the recreation component.++
On Sept. 3, the FERC's Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance approved McCallum's application to amend its recreation plan for the Derby Dam that provided about 1.5 acres of public open space for fishing and picnicking. But about a month later, the state Department of Environmental Protection asked the commission for a rehearing on the application.
According to the ruling, the DEP contended that relocating the area would "unnecessarily diminish recreational opportunities," which is in violation of the hydroelectric company's license. This time, the commission agreed.
++ The Ct. DEP both applied for intervenor status, and made comments in opposition to the request. Those were heard, and the initial opinion of FERC was revisited and changed. ++
"The licensee has not produced sufficient evidence to support relocating the area nor shown that the proposed new site will provide the same recreational opportunities as the existing site," the ruling says. "We are unwilling, without more evidence, to deprive the public of the benefits of recreational fishing at the current site."
++ If evidence can be made to FERC that the McCallum request is with merit, they still may limit the recreational area.++
"I applaud the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for revisiting their decision," Conservation Commission chairman Tom Harbinson said. "The recreation component of the FERC license has been valued by the region for years, and not just by Shelton residents. This was recognized by the [Connecticut] DEP and Shelton Conservation Commission, who, along with their efforts as well as those of others, will be returning a value of passive public use to the citizens."
But, according to Szarmach, the Conservation Commission's assertions that the area is a popular fishing spot are greatly exaggerated. "This ruling is based on misinformation the Conservation Commission gave to the DEP, who gave it to FERC," he said. "We know first hand that it is absolutely false," he said, adding that Shelton Canal Co. employees report there is seldom anyone fishing, and no one has ever launched a canoe from the area.
++ Their is no mis-information by the CC. The City did not file intervenor status in time to make comment on it's own. Yes, we did point to our local knowledge via photos, videos and observations to the Ct DEP - they are all publicly available on our google group msg board, and online web presence that links to the imagery. That includes video of kayak use. The Shelton Canal Co. employees are not an arbitrary party. Why not ask someone who is an advocacy group and body of fisherman like the "Friends of the Housatonic" group that fought dredging issues on this river about a year ago? ++
Planning and Zoning Commissioner Leon J. Sylvester took exception to Szarmach's comments, saying he knows the area is definitely used for fishing and that the level of use depends on the water levels, water condition and time of year.
++ Leon's son writes a regular fishing article in one of the local papers. Leon would know about fishing activities rather than relying on the chance viewing by an employee. ++
The FERC rejected McCallum's claims that the area presents a danger because of the possibilities of drowning and fatalities in the canal.
++ Lets see some facts. How many drownings occured in the "recreational area" of the canal? The canal does run open in some locations down-street toward the Birmingham condos, but that is outside of the FERC licensed area, and being next to Canal Street, has had some auto accidents. To imply that accidents in this "canal" are dangerous to the "recreation area" is sly. The answer is no deaths and drownings have occured in the recreational area, or maybe they occurred but nobody saw them happen - like the fisherman we haven't seen fishing?++
It also rejected McCallum's argument that the expected influx of residents living along Canal Street would increase that danger. "The suggestion that there could in the future be increased public use of this recreation site, which could result in some safety issues, is speculative, but in any event such issues would be considered and resolved at such time as they presented themselves," the ruling says.
++ This is an interesting comment by FERC, and to a certain degree I understand the McCallum perspective. Obviously, there will be economic development occuring in the vicinity. These changes in neighborhood character may require re-evaluating the safety fencing, benches, trash cans and other amenities in the area. Being pro-active to look forward at possibilities makes good business sense, but as there is no application on the horizon for this area for several years - such a claim to needing a course of action to solve a problem that doesn't exist is simply jumping the gun ++
Szarmach said his company is continuing with its plans to appeal the Planning and Zoning Commission recent rezoning of the property from R-4 to R-1, which decreases the number of units that would be allowed if it were to be developed. And it will be either developed or sold, he said. "We are waiting for the zoning to be overturned, and we are confident it will be," he said. "We can't move forward on filling in on the Army Corps [of Engineers] permit until we get that out of the way. "This most recent ruling is not the end all, just one ruling," Szarmach added. "We are still looking to fill in the canal and sell or codevelop it."
++ The public should understand that concurrent to the FERC ruling on the recreational component, there has been a separate application to FERC requesting that McCallum be allowed to fill the canal. I understand that this was already approved. There is however another layer, the Army Corps of Engineers. The ACE issued a pretty expansive letter of requested items in Mar2008, and in Jun2008 McCallum "temporarily" withdrew their ACE application. The Ct DEP, Housatonic River Estuary Commission, State Historical Society, and Housatonic Valley Association all issued comments in opposition.
Additionally, there is a third action going on. The PZC has as part of it's review of their zoning map determined that an area which encompasses the Canal Co. property (and includes a good bit of other acreage from adjacent parcels) should be modified for zone in accord with their Plan of Conservation and Development recomendations. This is unrelated to anything regarding the two FERC applications.++
The CC supports transparency in government. You can get right to all the documents via a webpage created for this subject.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
CtPost tommorrows article on Canal issues
My google alert tossed up another news-wire article under keyword of Shelton.
http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11031243
Tommorrow's CtPost has an article regarding the Canal Co battling with the City. Primarily the article covers the recent P&Z rezoning in the area that included land of the Canal Co, from R4 to R1. Given the owner of the Canal Co's comments in the past regarding his claims of favored treatment of one developer over another - you can guess what subject got drawn into the article. It's not surprising that when the 1st FBI indictment alleges that 4 of the PZC were given rewards for voting favorably to a developer, that the public is going to draw extra scrutiny to every item involving their decisions.
I had separately and coincidentally been emailing the CtPost reporter news regarding the recent FERC decision shared by Teresa via our google group, especially in light of the article a couple of Sundays back in which I appeared in a photo for and gave quotes to. Unfortunately, the updated FERC info was made known after this online article was created, but perhaps tommorrow's print version will have such extra updated content.
These online articles have a commentary / blogging type component, and one of them is at over 300 comments from readers. Naturally, as people can hide behind an alias or "handle", they are a little more blatant about what they say, thinking they have no worry of facing libel or slander. That's not my focus, rather that there is a sentiment voiced by more than one, which paraphrased is "throw all the bums out". They would seem to include any commission or board that has anything to do with land use decisions, and there have been mentioned in these commentaries 2 Open Space purchases.
This is unacceptable, to have our good-will capital with the public, which was built up over the years, swirl down the toilet bowl with the other crap that apparantly has gone on.
After a request from a reporter today, I was separately giving comments regarding the upcoming Public Hearing by the PZC to consider update to the OSPlan. The timing of this hearing could not be worse, or better, depending on your point of view. From my perspective, and what I communicated to the reporter: the OSPlan from 1993 has served the residents well. Modifications to it are in essence recognizing past accomplishments and building upon them. It has helped us garner grants and awards in the past from various agencies, and we hope similar recognitions will occur in the future. There is nothing being requested in the OSPlan update that is extraordinary, and on a whole serves to balance development in the community with Shelton's long held tradition of conservation related aspects - which thus contributes to a quality of life we all desire to enjoy.
It serves little purpose to look in the rearview mirror of what has happened among these PZC individuals. If you continue driving while looking over your shoulder, you will run into things, and there are a lot of important things on the road ahead: OSPlan adoption, RecPath completion, OS acquisitions, monitoring and assisting issues involving recreational use of the Canal area. Reading all this news is certainly a distracting parlor game, one I'm guilty of too. We should all recommit to focusing on our CC issues ahead and let the others reap what they sowed.
By nature of a special email address, this is appearing simultaneously in the CC google group, and on my Commissioner's Blog (which I refer the media to).
http://www.connpost.com/breakingnews/ci_11031243
Tommorrow's CtPost has an article regarding the Canal Co battling with the City. Primarily the article covers the recent P&Z rezoning in the area that included land of the Canal Co, from R4 to R1. Given the owner of the Canal Co's comments in the past regarding his claims of favored treatment of one developer over another - you can guess what subject got drawn into the article. It's not surprising that when the 1st FBI indictment alleges that 4 of the PZC were given rewards for voting favorably to a developer, that the public is going to draw extra scrutiny to every item involving their decisions.
I had separately and coincidentally been emailing the CtPost reporter news regarding the recent FERC decision shared by Teresa via our google group, especially in light of the article a couple of Sundays back in which I appeared in a photo for and gave quotes to. Unfortunately, the updated FERC info was made known after this online article was created, but perhaps tommorrow's print version will have such extra updated content.
These online articles have a commentary / blogging type component, and one of them is at over 300 comments from readers. Naturally, as people can hide behind an alias or "handle", they are a little more blatant about what they say, thinking they have no worry of facing libel or slander. That's not my focus, rather that there is a sentiment voiced by more than one, which paraphrased is "throw all the bums out". They would seem to include any commission or board that has anything to do with land use decisions, and there have been mentioned in these commentaries 2 Open Space purchases.
This is unacceptable, to have our good-will capital with the public, which was built up over the years, swirl down the toilet bowl with the other crap that apparantly has gone on.
After a request from a reporter today, I was separately giving comments regarding the upcoming Public Hearing by the PZC to consider update to the OSPlan. The timing of this hearing could not be worse, or better, depending on your point of view. From my perspective, and what I communicated to the reporter: the OSPlan from 1993 has served the residents well. Modifications to it are in essence recognizing past accomplishments and building upon them. It has helped us garner grants and awards in the past from various agencies, and we hope similar recognitions will occur in the future. There is nothing being requested in the OSPlan update that is extraordinary, and on a whole serves to balance development in the community with Shelton's long held tradition of conservation related aspects - which thus contributes to a quality of life we all desire to enjoy.
It serves little purpose to look in the rearview mirror of what has happened among these PZC individuals. If you continue driving while looking over your shoulder, you will run into things, and there are a lot of important things on the road ahead: OSPlan adoption, RecPath completion, OS acquisitions, monitoring and assisting issues involving recreational use of the Canal area. Reading all this news is certainly a distracting parlor game, one I'm guilty of too. We should all recommit to focusing on our CC issues ahead and let the others reap what they sowed.
By nature of a special email address, this is appearing simultaneously in the CC google group, and on my Commissioner's Blog (which I refer the media to).
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Canal - FERC modifies Recreation Area
There are several subjects regarding the area of the Canal and it's historic locks located on Canal Street in downtown Shelton. This entry covers the recent modification of the recreation area at the location. I'll say upfront, that I am a layman and no expert, but to the best of my knowledge and information available - this is how I see a very complicated subject with multi-jurisdictional issues.
Much information, documents, links to online resources and such data are compiled on a webpage the Conservation Commission created covering the subjects being discussed for this area of the canal.
The dam blocks a navigable channel (the Housatonic River), and takes value from the public domain (water power, sometimes called riparian rights) into private hands (water's energy converted into the portable and marketable electric energy via a hydro-electric generating station). The agency that govern such activity is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). There are also environmental concerns such as fish spawning migration, watercourse impact (besides the obvious Housatonic River, the Captain Curtiss Brook empties into a man made watercourse in the form of the canal), in addition to land use issues. These can variously cause involvement by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the Ct. Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Shelton Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) and the Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). All are regulatory agencies and are in addition to the Shelton Conservation Commission (CC) which I chair, but is purely advisory and can only comment to any or all of the above groups.
The owners of the dam and it's associated infrastructure are currently McCallum Enterprises, and they conduct their operations via a license issued by FERC in 1986/Mar/25, with the filing of final license documents occuring in April and August of 1987. A license of this nature typically has a 20yr period upon which it is reviewed. It is specifically referred to as "Derby Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 6066 - CT". A component of the FERC license (Article 32) is a "Recreation and Public Safety Plan".
On 2008/Mar/14, McCallum sought to alter the Recreation and Public Safety Plan. You can read the submission via this link. The City became aware of this on 2008/Jul/8, as you can see on the scanned document at the top from it's fax date/time. The period for public comment had already closed on June 30th.
McCallum stated two reasons for wanting the change. Safety, and Convenience.
Of the request letter's three bullet items supporting the safety reason: the first will not occur for quite some time, but I agree is a valid concern. The second is so inaccurate that some might think it as deceptive. The third is no change from what has existed for over 20yrs and has caused no increase in hazard from the allowance of access which has occured over that entire period.
Of the request letter's two bullet items supporting the convenience reason: the first, while valid in terms of walking a few 100yds less than what existed, renders a more difficult portage locations, and much poorer fishing location given the attraction of the fish toward the more oxygen laden water in the vicinity of the dam. The second bullet refers to what exists aproximately 2 miles drive away, due to it being on the other side of the river.
The DEP sought intervenor status (basically puts them on a notification list for when things such as hearings or decisions are scheduled and noticed) and concurrently commented on the ammendment request in a non-supportive manner. The CC discussed this at their next meeting in August, and despite the fact that the public comment period had closed, they felt it important and wrote a letter expressing their objections. That letter as you can see, was courtesy copied to all local agents who could express similar objections.
On 2008/Sep/3, FERC approved the request, a new fence barrier and gate was soon installed, and the general public began to become aware of what was lost and voiced confusion and then displeasure when fully informed. (several calls reached the Conservation Agent and Planning & Zoning Dept in City Hall).
To my knowledge, the only other public municipal comments occurred when the PZC wrote a letter on 2008/Sep/10. However, due to the delay in our awareness over the filing (the public notice appeared in a Waterbury newspaper), the period when FERC allows public comment had already expired on 2008/Jun/30, and any effort including that of the CC would have had small affect.
The FERC approval did have an allowance of 30 days for requests of rehearing. The BOA approved filing an rehearing request on 2008/Oct/9 (see item 11.6 on p.16), six days after when such period of opportunity had already expired.
The lessons learned are:
1. Better communication must occur with City government agencies.
2. Better notification must occur between different levels of government.
If a reader of this account is dismayed, disapointed or mad that this was allowed to occur, I encourage you to WRITE to the following officials:
1. Mayor Mark Lauretti
2. Your respective Aldermen
3. CT. DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy
4. CT Representative Jason Perillo
5. CT Senator Dan Debicella
6. Congressional Representive Rosa Delora
7. Congressional Representive Jim Himes
8. Senator Joseph Lieberman
9. Senator Christopher Dodd
10. Your newspaper editor of choice.
There is currently no course of action available to remedy this matter as the regulatory agency (FERC) has issued it's ruling on the request. It is unknown at this time if an outside party (someone other than the license holder) can petition for a review and/or change of articles (The Recreation Plan) within a license.
If you have an interest in this matter, you can additionally comment publicly in this blog forum or contact me privately.
Much information, documents, links to online resources and such data are compiled on a webpage the Conservation Commission created covering the subjects being discussed for this area of the canal.
The dam blocks a navigable channel (the Housatonic River), and takes value from the public domain (water power, sometimes called riparian rights) into private hands (water's energy converted into the portable and marketable electric energy via a hydro-electric generating station). The agency that govern such activity is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). There are also environmental concerns such as fish spawning migration, watercourse impact (besides the obvious Housatonic River, the Captain Curtiss Brook empties into a man made watercourse in the form of the canal), in addition to land use issues. These can variously cause involvement by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), the Ct. Dept of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Shelton Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) and the Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC). All are regulatory agencies and are in addition to the Shelton Conservation Commission (CC) which I chair, but is purely advisory and can only comment to any or all of the above groups.
The owners of the dam and it's associated infrastructure are currently McCallum Enterprises, and they conduct their operations via a license issued by FERC in 1986/Mar/25, with the filing of final license documents occuring in April and August of 1987. A license of this nature typically has a 20yr period upon which it is reviewed. It is specifically referred to as "Derby Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 6066 - CT". A component of the FERC license (Article 32) is a "Recreation and Public Safety Plan".
On 2008/Mar/14, McCallum sought to alter the Recreation and Public Safety Plan. You can read the submission via this link. The City became aware of this on 2008/Jul/8, as you can see on the scanned document at the top from it's fax date/time. The period for public comment had already closed on June 30th.
McCallum stated two reasons for wanting the change. Safety, and Convenience.
Of the request letter's three bullet items supporting the safety reason: the first will not occur for quite some time, but I agree is a valid concern. The second is so inaccurate that some might think it as deceptive. The third is no change from what has existed for over 20yrs and has caused no increase in hazard from the allowance of access which has occured over that entire period.
Of the request letter's two bullet items supporting the convenience reason: the first, while valid in terms of walking a few 100yds less than what existed, renders a more difficult portage locations, and much poorer fishing location given the attraction of the fish toward the more oxygen laden water in the vicinity of the dam. The second bullet refers to what exists aproximately 2 miles drive away, due to it being on the other side of the river.
The DEP sought intervenor status (basically puts them on a notification list for when things such as hearings or decisions are scheduled and noticed) and concurrently commented on the ammendment request in a non-supportive manner. The CC discussed this at their next meeting in August, and despite the fact that the public comment period had closed, they felt it important and wrote a letter expressing their objections. That letter as you can see, was courtesy copied to all local agents who could express similar objections.
On 2008/Sep/3, FERC approved the request, a new fence barrier and gate was soon installed, and the general public began to become aware of what was lost and voiced confusion and then displeasure when fully informed. (several calls reached the Conservation Agent and Planning & Zoning Dept in City Hall).
To my knowledge, the only other public municipal comments occurred when the PZC wrote a letter on 2008/Sep/10. However, due to the delay in our awareness over the filing (the public notice appeared in a Waterbury newspaper), the period when FERC allows public comment had already expired on 2008/Jun/30, and any effort including that of the CC would have had small affect.
The FERC approval did have an allowance of 30 days for requests of rehearing. The BOA approved filing an rehearing request on 2008/Oct/9 (see item 11.6 on p.16), six days after when such period of opportunity had already expired.
The lessons learned are:
1. Better communication must occur with City government agencies.
2. Better notification must occur between different levels of government.
If a reader of this account is dismayed, disapointed or mad that this was allowed to occur, I encourage you to WRITE to the following officials:
1. Mayor Mark Lauretti
2. Your respective Aldermen
3. CT. DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy
4. CT Representative Jason Perillo
5. CT Senator Dan Debicella
6. Congressional Representive Rosa Delora
7. Congressional Representive Jim Himes
8. Senator Joseph Lieberman
9. Senator Christopher Dodd
10. Your newspaper editor of choice.
There is currently no course of action available to remedy this matter as the regulatory agency (FERC) has issued it's ruling on the request. It is unknown at this time if an outside party (someone other than the license holder) can petition for a review and/or change of articles (The Recreation Plan) within a license.
If you have an interest in this matter, you can additionally comment publicly in this blog forum or contact me privately.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Charter Revision - Why I supported it.
I am disappointed that the public turned down the most recent attempt at charter revision for Shelton. The current charter has gaps that allow inaction to occur with no consequences. I have witnessed and been impacted by those gaps in my work with the City. The proposed charter addressed those gaps.
I have followed the Charter Revision pretty closely over many years due to an issue of personal interest. As evidence, I read into the record during the current Charter Commissions deliberations, my letters on it going back to 2002.
My interest and examination of the current proposal led to me discovering an item the Charter Revision Commission included as a component that was of hope to me as Chairman of the Conservation Commission: appointments to boards and commissions.
The Shelton Conservation Commission has always been non-political through my involvement since 1998. The commissioners are appointed to serve for a 3yr term. My witness has been that when there is a vacancy, the commission has experience with someone interested in our efforts and approaches them about possibly serving. If that is a positive response, the person is recomended to the Mayor for appointment to the post and that is carried out to conclusion. Current Mayor Lauretti has never recomended someone or appointed someone to the Conservation Commission from his sole initiation until recently.
As example, I came on in 1998 after Harriet Wilbur (co-chair at the time) asked me if I was interested in serving as they had a vacancy (I had attended a few meetings out of concern for a development proposal near where I lived). Joe Welsh, who was and is involved with the Shelton Land Conservation Trust (a private non-profit entity with preservation efforts similar to those dealt with on the Conservation Commission), replaced Soren Ibsen who simply ended his term. Bill Dyer had been working on trails as a volunteer, and was asked if he wanted to serve on the commission.
A concern over lack of action for appointment to the Conservation Commission arose over two years ago. Harriet Wilbur resigned for health reasons, but the Mayor refused to accept the resignation, a nice gesture to signify he thought she would recover and have a healthy future. Sadly she passed away soon after. In subsequent months, the ConsComm interviewed three candidates, and made a recomendation to the Mayor for filling Harriet's vacant position, along with the resumes and opinions on the other candidates. Despite repeated attempts and encouragement, the Mayor failed to fill the vacancy.
Thus it was with surprise that I read the Mayor's comments quoted in the Aug27 Huntington Herald which I cut/paste here for reference/comment in case they aren't retained at their current online archive:
*** Mayor Mark Lauretti participated in the CRC meeting Aug. 21 by calling in on a speakerphone, but his objections to several provisions didn’t sway the commission. Lauretti was most adamant about two CRC recommendations concerning appointments to boards and commissions. One requires the mayor to notify the Board of Aldermen and the City/Town Clerk 15 days before the appointment goes into effect. The other requires the “appointing authority,” which often is the mayor, to fill a vacancy within 30 days, or the board or commission is authorized to do so.
“Is there a problem with the way I’ve been making appointments?” Lauretti asked. He repeatedly stated there was no problem with the current charter and said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
But the CRC felt it was broke enough to fix. DiMauro said the provisions were intended to promote good government, not as a criticism of Lauretti.
“In real life there’s more important things for me to deal with than appointments to boards and commissions,” Lauretti said.
When he questioned how would he know if someone’s term had expired, DiMauro said notification could be provided by using a computer spreadsheet.
When Lauretti noted that several times members of boards continued to serve for years without reappointment, DiMauro asked, “Why didn’t you reappoint them?”
Lauretti paused, then said it was another example of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
****
My simple experience is that the system IS broke. If the current charter was being violated (the Mayor was not following the process for appointments) there were no ramifications and no course of solution. As Chairman of the Commission, I expressed to the Mayor how displeased I was to read his comments in the news, especially in light of our experience. I informed him that the person recomended over a year previously, who he had interviewed and was fine with appointing - was still interested.
He was surprised at the vacancy and thought that he had already done the appointment. I can't understand that reaction since every ConsComm mtg minutes over the past 2 yrs clearly states in the Call to Order that we only have 6 active members. (for example, see pg 2 of our Sep30 minutes)
On Monday Sept 15, during the Mayor's Golf Classic Tournament (charity benefits the Boys & Girls Club among other recipients), the Mayor informed me that he made an appointment to fill Harriet Wilbur's vacancy: Albert John Grasso (AJ), the owner of Prestige Builders. This brings our membership to a full complement of 7. It is my understanding that the Mayor did not further pursue appointing the ConsComm's suggested nominee from the 3 who expressed interest and were interviewed about 1.5 yrs ago.
I have followed the Charter Revision pretty closely over many years due to an issue of personal interest. As evidence, I read into the record during the current Charter Commissions deliberations, my letters on it going back to 2002.
My interest and examination of the current proposal led to me discovering an item the Charter Revision Commission included as a component that was of hope to me as Chairman of the Conservation Commission: appointments to boards and commissions.
The Shelton Conservation Commission has always been non-political through my involvement since 1998. The commissioners are appointed to serve for a 3yr term. My witness has been that when there is a vacancy, the commission has experience with someone interested in our efforts and approaches them about possibly serving. If that is a positive response, the person is recomended to the Mayor for appointment to the post and that is carried out to conclusion. Current Mayor Lauretti has never recomended someone or appointed someone to the Conservation Commission from his sole initiation until recently.
As example, I came on in 1998 after Harriet Wilbur (co-chair at the time) asked me if I was interested in serving as they had a vacancy (I had attended a few meetings out of concern for a development proposal near where I lived). Joe Welsh, who was and is involved with the Shelton Land Conservation Trust (a private non-profit entity with preservation efforts similar to those dealt with on the Conservation Commission), replaced Soren Ibsen who simply ended his term. Bill Dyer had been working on trails as a volunteer, and was asked if he wanted to serve on the commission.
A concern over lack of action for appointment to the Conservation Commission arose over two years ago. Harriet Wilbur resigned for health reasons, but the Mayor refused to accept the resignation, a nice gesture to signify he thought she would recover and have a healthy future. Sadly she passed away soon after. In subsequent months, the ConsComm interviewed three candidates, and made a recomendation to the Mayor for filling Harriet's vacant position, along with the resumes and opinions on the other candidates. Despite repeated attempts and encouragement, the Mayor failed to fill the vacancy.
Thus it was with surprise that I read the Mayor's comments quoted in the Aug27 Huntington Herald which I cut/paste here for reference/comment in case they aren't retained at their current online archive:
*** Mayor Mark Lauretti participated in the CRC meeting Aug. 21 by calling in on a speakerphone, but his objections to several provisions didn’t sway the commission. Lauretti was most adamant about two CRC recommendations concerning appointments to boards and commissions. One requires the mayor to notify the Board of Aldermen and the City/Town Clerk 15 days before the appointment goes into effect. The other requires the “appointing authority,” which often is the mayor, to fill a vacancy within 30 days, or the board or commission is authorized to do so.
“Is there a problem with the way I’ve been making appointments?” Lauretti asked. He repeatedly stated there was no problem with the current charter and said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
But the CRC felt it was broke enough to fix. DiMauro said the provisions were intended to promote good government, not as a criticism of Lauretti.
“In real life there’s more important things for me to deal with than appointments to boards and commissions,” Lauretti said.
When he questioned how would he know if someone’s term had expired, DiMauro said notification could be provided by using a computer spreadsheet.
When Lauretti noted that several times members of boards continued to serve for years without reappointment, DiMauro asked, “Why didn’t you reappoint them?”
Lauretti paused, then said it was another example of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
****
My simple experience is that the system IS broke. If the current charter was being violated (the Mayor was not following the process for appointments) there were no ramifications and no course of solution. As Chairman of the Commission, I expressed to the Mayor how displeased I was to read his comments in the news, especially in light of our experience. I informed him that the person recomended over a year previously, who he had interviewed and was fine with appointing - was still interested.
He was surprised at the vacancy and thought that he had already done the appointment. I can't understand that reaction since every ConsComm mtg minutes over the past 2 yrs clearly states in the Call to Order that we only have 6 active members. (for example, see pg 2 of our Sep30 minutes)
On Monday Sept 15, during the Mayor's Golf Classic Tournament (charity benefits the Boys & Girls Club among other recipients), the Mayor informed me that he made an appointment to fill Harriet Wilbur's vacancy: Albert John Grasso (AJ), the owner of Prestige Builders. This brings our membership to a full complement of 7. It is my understanding that the Mayor did not further pursue appointing the ConsComm's suggested nominee from the 3 who expressed interest and were interviewed about 1.5 yrs ago.
I met AJ personally on FriSep19 (in the interest of full disclosure, we were in the same home-room at Shelton High School, but haven't traveled in the same circles since we graduated). We discussed his interest in serving on our commission. He was sworn in by the City Clerk, and began serving by our next meeting in October. AJ is a member and Director of the recently formed Shelton Builders Association, and has done some developments in Shelton, for example Freedom Way off Buddington Road. A developer has the potential to bring a complementing contribution and developer's perspective to our Conservation affairs, but the Conservation Commission is meant to be a balance to the development perspective.
Thus, coming from a builder/developer background will obviously raise questions for some in the public. The public impression of the ConsComm's affairs is of great value, having been compiled through years of earning the public's respect. I have a duty to see that this wealth of respect is not squandered. Where there are obvious conflicts of interest, it is easy for any commissioner to abstain from voting, or more thoroughly, recuse themself from discussing or deliberating on the issue. The City has a Board of Ethics and those regulations and rules are given out to any new appointee. More complicated are when the ConsComm deals with land acquisitions issues as executive session items, and if/when it is warranted for someone to be excused from such discussions. This was just discussed openly and frankly by the ConsComm at our first meeting with AJ as a commissioner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
