67°
NORWALK, Conn. — The Norwalk Daily Voice accepts signed, original letters to the editor. Letters may be e-mailed to letters@dailyvoice.com.
To the Editor,
At the Oct. 9 council meeting, the five undersigned council Democrats introduced a nonbinding resolution. If adopted, the resolution called for the Norwalk Police Commission to reverse a ban halting the rank advancement of police officers who successfully met the requirements for promotion to captain. We believe there are very sound reasons to reverse the current ban. We admit men and women may hold different views. But given the wave of violent crime striking our city, we believe having a serious, open discussion about public safety makes sense.
So it was with great distress to watch the administration of Mayor Richard Moccia use parliamentary "gamesmanship" to stop any discussion from taking place.
In a premeditated scheme to prevent debate, the mayor and two Republican council members immediately moved to "table" the resolution, a nondebatable motion, which effectively terminated any opportunity for an open, transparent discussion.
We do not understand what the Moccia administration fears.
Debates matter. The honest, forthright and passionate exchange of views is not just "hot air" or a "waste of time." Debate is at the heart of our democratic, representational government. Sometimes that debate fails to change anyone's views. Sometimes people see things in a different way. (Ask President Barack Obama if debates matter.)
It may be that those who fear debate do so because they know that their ideas cannot stand up when challenged. It may be that those who voted to avoid debate over this issue did so because they had "better things" to do with their time. However, the council folks whose names were affixed to the resolution thought of our city's well-being and the type of nonpolitical leadership within the ranks of the police department to be of great importance. This is a vital part of improving Norwalk's public safety and the morale of the staff. The remaining councilmen's vote to stop debate, to "hide the issue" from public view, was another sad mark in the life of this administration.
Because we believe that it is time to have a real debate over public safety issues in our city, we will reintroduce the resolution at the next council meeting. The Moccia administration may again use procedural tactics to halt debate. We hope not. But just because the Moccia administration has the votes to stop debate at the council does not mean that the Moccia administration can stop Norwalkers from asking these same questions. It is time we started to talk honestly about public safety.
Anna Duleep (D, At-Large, Minority Leader)
Warren Pena (D, At-Large)
Matt Miklave (D, District A)
David Watts (D, District A)
John Igneri (D, District E)
Comments (14)
Anybody notice the Great OZ's puppet voice, Iwitherspoon, never did show us where Chief Kuwalhik clearly explained how the letter from the council members was political gamesmanship ?
They were elected to represent us and a lot of us believe there needs to be public discussion about the decision to let ALL the candidates for promotion die on the list. We paid for the exams that led to the list, candidates were selected and listed in order of their marks and now we are being told the entire process was a waste of time and our money, and there will be NO peeking behind the OZ's curtain to find out why ?
Nobody but the union president was brave enough to bring this travesty to our attention in the first place. We can only hope he keeps up a loud drumbeat on this issue.
Now we see a story emerging that moccia was so unhappy with Nancy Chapman, a reporter for the Voice, that he filed a criminal complaint with the state police, claiming illegal eavesdropping for some comments he made during a council meeting recess being recorded on her recording equipment, similar to equipment all the reporters use at such meetings. With caucus rooms for private conversation, right next to the council chambers, it is hard to understand how he can complain about his privacy being violated for comments made inside the council chamber with all kinds of recording equipment running. Her mistake was giving him the courtesy of telling him he had been recorded. The conversation itself was apparently harmless and only indicated the mayor and the head of the teacher's union shared an interest in resolving the BOE shortfall issue. She no longer works for the voice, as a result.
Wow I did not know dead actor John candy was a Norwalk cop. Look at the picture.
Why isn't this issue being included as a Discussion Item on the Health Welfare Public Safety Committee first, and then advanced to the full Council for debate? Or for that matter, coming up through the Personnel Committee? Although both of these are chaired by Republicans (Ms. Romano and Mr. Hempstead, respectively), I don't think I've ever seen a committee chair refuse to include discussion items, brought either by committee members or the public at large.
(for the record, I neither support nor oppose the notion of a captain rank, and would personally like to hear the pros and cons of reinstituting another level of management - perhaps the supporters of the resolution could organize a public information forum on the top, with a good cross panel of supporters and opponents).
whatever will help them catch the bad guys!
Meantime back onthe streets people are getting shot
The Chief of Police's remarks at the Council meeting on this subject made it pretty clear that this is political gamesmanship by the signers of this letter. In the interests of giving equal time to both sides of this issue, I hope the Daily Voice will reprint those remarks.
"Police Chief Thomas Kulhawik, addressed the resolution about reinstating the rank of Captain in the Police Department. He said that this is not a good solution and said that since 2007 there have been no Captains promoted. He said that it was not until 2010 when the Union grieved. He said that the Deputy Chief positions are 24/7 positions and that is necessary to deal with the 24/7 aspect of Policed work. Promoting Captains will decrease the number of officers available for patrol. Chief Kulhawik said that the resolution should not be approved."
Cut and pasted from the meeting minutes.
Now please point out to us exactly where anything he said "made it pretty clear this is political gamesmanship by the signers of this letter"
Newly APPOINTED, with no search, Chief Kulhawik made a statement that reinstating the rank of Captain is not a good idea. There is an existing list, (expiring next month) prepared for this police commission, at their direction, to find candidates that meet standards for promotion to Captain set entirely by the commission. The rank does not need to be reinstated, the contract needs to be followed and the promotion process, entirely controlled by the commission, needs to be followed. Unless, of course, there is somebody who is now on the list they do not want, for reasons they will not explain. They intend, instead, to APPOINT "commanders", pay them a bit more than captain's, and hope the union doesn't make too big a fuss.
The City's easy success with outsourcing DPW jobs to a private contractor, emboldens them to violate the contract section on promoting captains. The term used for the candidates who have earned but will be denied promotion is "to die on the list". These people cannot avoid feeling betrayed and will hardly be motivated to do much of a job. Their attitude will be contagious and we will see, may already be seeing, the results.
Let's add your own gamesmanship to that of Watts, Miklave, Pena, and friends. What you cut and pasted from the meeting minutes was NOT a verbatim transcript of the Chief's remarks, in which he clearly explained that having more captains would not increase the department's effectiveness at fighting crime. In fact it has been a long-standing policy of the department not to promote new captains, and they have been clear about that to all members of the PD for years now.
I especially encourage people to read the comments posted on the Hour's web site by Councilmen Watts and McCarthy, located here:
http://www.thehour.com/news/norwalk/council-democrats-attempt-to-resurrect-resolution-to-maintain-rank-of/article_928f3faa-90c4-5432-ac6c-8b71284f0c68.html
Councilman Watts claims that there is a desperate need to have a debate on whether or not the Norwalk PD needs more officers promoted to the rank of Captain. Yet in response to comments by Councilman McCarthy, rather than articulate a cogent argument for why the department needs captains, Councilman Watts resorts to his usual partisan finger-pointing, name calling, and personal attacks. We've seen him do the same thing on the Daily Voice. The fact that all Councilman Watts could do was resort to these tired old tactics is proof enough for me that all the recent bloviating about more captains in the Norwalk PD is simply partisan gamesmanship.
It is verbatim cut and pasted from the published minutes. The commission adopts policy that defies the contract, signed by the mayor ? It has been a long standing policy, spelled out in the contract, that appointments to Chief and Deputy may be made fro the ranks of Lts. and Chief Rilling and Chief LaBianca were both appointed without ever being Captains. If you were accurate on the facts, you would know this police commission authorized a promotional exam for captains two years ago that resulted in the list that expires next month. Apparently, we have another case where politicians were for it before they were against it. (promotions instead of appointments) Nobody is arguing that command level officers are not needed, only argument is how officers get to command level. It would help this discussion if we knew who, on the list is so out of favor with the mayor, and, possibly, why.
We have noticed it doesn't take much to convince you someone who disagrees with your opinion is "bloviating". If the argument to eliminate the rank is so strong, why not discuss it in public ?
What you cut and pasted from the meeting minutes was NOT a verbatim transcript of the Chief's remarks. It was simply a SUMMARY. Obviously you know that, yet you repeat that it's verbatim. That's clever of you, but not at all persuasive, and it proves my earlier point that you are engaging in gamesmanship.
Councilman McCarthy noted in comments on the Hour's web site that prior to the test being given, it was made clear that there would not be any Captains promoted, so doing so now might open the City to lawsuits from those who didn't take the test. Councilman Kimmel's comments on the same story bemoaned the politicization of the issue, and supported the view of the Chief of Police and other law enforcement experts who have studied the issue.
Councilman Watts had the opportunity to use that same public forum -- the Hour's comments section -- to engage with his opponents and proceed with the debate, in writing, that you and he claim is so desperately needed. Such a forum would have been more accessible to the general public than a Council meeting, which is difficult to attend if you have a busy schedule. Yet rather than debate with facts and logic, Councilman Watts chose instead to engage in name-calling and attacks on those who disagreed with him. I think that just about says it all - this is not people attempting to help Norwalk, this is about opportunistic politicians (Miklave, Watts, Pena, Duleep, Igneri) attempting to bloviate and throw mud at their political rivals.
Are you telling us the published minutes are not verbatim, but somebody's summary opinion of what was really said ? Why do we bother paying a high-priced secretarial service for somebody's summary opinion of what is being said ? Wouldn't it be better to have some city employee/typist transcribe the verbatim recordings ? Are you also telling us the City went to the expense of conducting a promotional exam, told the candidates nobody on the resulting list would ever get promoted, and still got a number of fairly bright police Lt's to take the exams ? Are we expected to believe that ? Why would anybody take the exams if there was no prospect for promotion ? That may be what you are being told now, but there was a written announcement of a PROMOTIONAL exam, and I bet it does NOT say what you are being told now. Look it up, and then tell us what it said.
They don't want to promote somebody on the existing promotion list just because he or she is best qualified by standards they set.
Both "gamesmanship" and eliminating the rank of police captain fall under the same heading. The mayor and his hand-picked police commission see it as a control issue, a way of solidifying "I am in charge". Anything percieved as a challenge to moccia's control is seen as a threat. Makes no difference if it comes from a political opponent, an appointee who fails to toe the party line, a union, elected council representatives, or even critical reporters. Like the WIZARD of OZ, his worst fear is somebody might look behind the curtain that conceals what really makes things happen. By drawing public attention to this effort to grab further control of the police department, where party politics should have no role, you have "looked behind the curtain".
Please keep looking. Maybe you will find what the OZ is hiding.
Great post Old Timer...Funny and true