There’s no need to opine over the name of a candidate’s watercraft or the illicit affairs that an elected official may or may not be having. Those may all be indicative of someone’s character, but one truly need look only at how a person is performing in the public space to reach the same conclusions.
Regardless of what the Rock Cats’ stadium may or may not do for Hartford’s economic state, this process has shined a harsh light on the character of those who are supposed to be serving the residents of Hartford.
What Law?
When the City of Hartford appointed individuals to a committee to ask questions of the three Downtown North Project finalists, little information was shared about the process. The meeting was not posted, but beyond this, there was no information readily available about what guidance or criteria was given to that committee. Since any decision coming from this would need to be defended to a public that had largely felt betrayed by the City government’s months of secret meetings about the “target,” it would seem that every aspect of the process would have been carefully managed. Surely, City officials would do everything possible at this stage to gain back public trust.
When Real Hartford submitted a Freedom of Information request on September 11, 2014, it went unacknowledged for days — beyond what is legally permissible. We sent a reminder. It took the assistance of a volunteer handing a printed request to the Director of Development Services in order to receive any acknowledgement. We then waited. And waited. On the evening of City Council’s vote on the Rock Cats, we got verbal assurance from the mayor’s spokesperson that our request would receive a response. We continued to receive none. It took some arm-twisting to finally receive what amounts to a non-response about what the City of Hartford’s process was. This is the Director of Development Services’ response:
In establishing an advisory committee for selection of a Downtown North developer, Development Services sought people who; lived in adjacent neighborhoods and or represented groups from the adjacent neighborhoods; individuals who had experience in diverse real estate transactions; and people with experience in the redevelopment process in Hartford.
As to criteria to evaluate the proposals, all members were referred to the language in the RFP which has been on line since July. The web address is pasted below.
That’s it: those tasked with asking questions were pointed to the RFP. This piece of information came on October 21, 2014 — a month after the original request was made and after City Council voted on the stadium.
Resident Shaming
When you take office, you have to know there is no way every person will be on board with every vote. But, the job is to represent the residents. This means listening to their concerns, showing respect, and seeing if there are ways to make more people happy by seeking creative solutions or compromises. The latter is not always possible, but should that stop an elected official from trying?
What you don’t do, right before casting your vote on a heated topic, is to verbally dismiss those with whom you do not see eye-to-eye; yet, on more than one occasion, that is exactly what happened last month when City Council spent hours on the stadium vote.
Councilman Ken Kennedy had the decency to give props to everyone who showed civic engagement, including those with whom he disagreed. He noted that the increased civic engagement — the most he said he had seen on any issue — was something to be lauded. Councilman MacDonald also thanked the residents of Hartford for input during the process.
Contrast that with Councilman Wooden’s tirade about the media, followed by his rant against those who marched in opposition to a publicly-funded stadium, and against those who showed up in the hundreds to speak at the meeting held in the Hartford Public Library. Wooden made unsubstantiated claims that most of those opposed have been from New Britain, while ignoring that many of those who had arrived to speak in favor of the stadium this same night were not Hartford residents themselves.
That would have been enough, but Councilman Aponte also dissed residents who spoke against the stadium.
Is there any merit to shunning those whose viewpoints differ? Would it have been more professional to stick to the logic behind why each person decided to vote as he or she did?
There is no need to search for private failings of politicians when such disrespectful behavior — not unlike what has been seen exhibited by some on the Board of Education — has not only been viewed by those sitting in council chambers, but viewed by anyone tuning into Hartford Public Access. The irony is not lost that while trying to promote Hartford’s image with the construction of a minor league baseball stadium, its image is tarnished through politicians’ pettiness.
Abstinence Education Needed
Three people — Councilpersons DeJesus, Deutsch, and MacDonald — abstained from voting on the stadium deal in an effort to avoid casting what could be seen as a negative vote. This tactic seemingly backfired, with residents wondering why those whose job it is to vote were not doing so. By not voting, those who had been elected to cast votes were seen as lacking leadership. Even among some residents who favored the stadium, a strong “nay” would have been more respectable.
At the same time, Councilman Wooden, who should have abstained to avoid the real or perceived appearance of conflict of interest, went ahead and voted anyway. That conflict of interest is the sticky matter of Wooden being employed at the law firm that negotiated the land purchase for where the stadium is planned to go.
Is it time for members of the council to revisit when it is and is not appropriate to abstain from casting votes?
Equity in Process
Public comment for the stadium vote lasted for over two hours on one night in October. There were people signed up to speak who left before they had the opportunity to do so, and only one said it was because he was silently protesting.
One way to speed up the process while not infringing on the process is by enforcing existing rules. If the public is allowed three minutes apiece to speak, then that should be what happens, regardless of the speaker’s perspective.
On some nights we saw attempts to shut down speakers when they veered off topic, but this only appeared to be enforced for those who were opposed to the stadium. This raises all kinds of questions about who is permitted to run meetings and perhaps who should be keeping time and order.
—
Politics seeming dirty in Hartford is nothing new, but it has been one bad move after another, with no honest moves made to earn back the trust or respect of the public who have gotten burned for daring to disagree or for not being savvy enough to know how to disagree in a way that would appease the many lawyers who sit on the City Council. The stadium issue is not the first time these issues have reared up, but this recent hot topic has made the bad behavior of elected and appointed officials impossible to ignore.
Carl Guerriere
Thank you Kerri for stating what many feel, but have become too cynical, tired, apathetic, etc. to speak. Hartford will not rebound unless there is open and honest civic discourse. In a world that is very polarized and a community that is too silent, your voice is extremely important.