Boards and Commissions II

It looks like we have a controversial appointment this season. Democrat Ross Gulino, a potential alternate to the Planning Commission, has been called into question by someone who believes he has a lawsuit against the city. The Record Journal has weighed in via its editorial page as well.

Because another interested party was not accepted as an appointee by the mayor since she had lodged a complaint regarding potential discrimination over bidding notifications, a cloud formed over Gulino because of a lawsuit filed with his name on it a decade ago regarding the Ridgeline Protection Act. The mayor, desiring to be fair, wants to be sure the vetting rules are being applied consistently.

As noted in an earlier post, the vetting process has never been overly formal. As long as the appointee was an elector, paid up in taxes, and expressed a desire to serve the City in some appointed capacity, they were generally approved. Usually, there was no deep dive into one's background...their word was usually good enough. And a willingness to volunteer for normally thankless jobs in this "let someone else do it" day and age was a big qualification. But, over recent times, a check of the registrars' and tax records was made to confirm the word. Litigation never really was an issue discussed or pursued.

This year is different. Because of the recent flap over Gulino's appointment, a more formal vetting process is being proposed. Letters are to go out to all potential appointees, whether new or veteran board members or commissioners, seeking light on matters of current political affiliation, taxes and legal actions against the City. It is hoped that the responses will show taxes paid, and courts and regulatory agencies free of any initiatives on the appointee's part. It will be interesting to see what happens, though, if any prominent folk owe a motor vehicle tax for several years, or have a "slip and fall" suit that's been lingering for years. And even the best vetting process will have its flaws, as President Obama continually finds out.

As to Gulino, I understand that he has no ownership interest in the corporation that filed suit under his father's name 10 years ago, and that in fact he doesn't believe the corporation, of which he was secretary in order to meet the filing guidelines, even exists anymore. If that's true, and should be easily found out, this particular objection to his appointment should be removed.

I'm sure his opponents will come up with something else, though.

Boards and Commissions

As recently reported in the Record Journal (Boards and Commissions), the Mayor has submitted his appointments to the City Council. The City Charter grants the mayor this power of appointment:

§ C3-3. J. How appointments by City Council made. The Mayor shall recommend any and all appointments to officers or positions within the appointing power of the City
Council (except as to chairpersons of Council Standing Committees to the City Council) for approval. The City Council may, within its next two regular meetings after submission of a recommendation by the Mayor, reject said recommendation by
majority vote of the entire membership except as herein otherwise specified, in failure of which said recommendation shall be deemed confirmed.

Most often, the appointments are ratified readily, although there have been fights. The Council debated heavily on the reappointment of Roger DeZinno to the planning commission by former Mayor Joe Marinan. DeZinno was reappointed on parliamentary procedure. Curiously, back in 2006 when I started this blog, Ross Gulino was appointed in place of Art Geary, who had fought his removal. (Week in Review). Art was ultimately reappointed. This time, Ross is to be appointed, as an alternate, and Art will be leaving once again. And I recall rejecting former Mayor Mark Benigni's replacement for Brit Hall on the ZBA several years ago. The Republicans wished to replace Brit with another of their party. Brit wanted to stay on, and he had been doing a good job in my estimation. I supported him, even though we've disagreed on a number of zoning appeal issues, but I didn't think there was a good reason for a good man like him to be ousted. The mayor reappointed him, and the Council approved.

That's the way it works. Openings occur from time to time on all the boards and commissions. Usually recommendations to fill positions come from the respective party chairmen, but occasionally citizens will write or contact the mayor directly with their interest. The mayor may consider the offer, see if there's a good fit on a board, and presumably does some vetting of the individual (a local elector, no tax delinquency, a commitment to serve, and ideally some expertise in the area the board or commission controls). When I was Majority Leader, I would review the proposed recommendations with the Mayor before they were presented to the Council to see if there were any problems, and to advise whether the Council would have any potential objections. (for example, the Brit Hall removal several years ago.). The Charter requires a two-meeting vetting period after the list is presented to the Council, and then it's generally approved. Mark Benigni started the 2 week vetting period for the off-cycle appointments, and that seems to have been working well.

This is Mayor Mike Rohde's first time at appointments, although he's well-versed in the process, having served as Majority Leader twice before his appointment by the Council last July. I have no doubt his recommendations are sound. It's interesting that he's added We the People representatives along with the regular mix of Ds, Rs, and Us. One thing I don't necessarily agree with though: I don't think length of service should be a major reason to remove a board or commission member. New blood is a good thing, if the process allows for it. But if a member has been serving well, a minimum of absences, and isn't totally out of whack philosophically with the Mayor, they should be allowed to continue if they choose. If it is the philosophical reason, then say so. For example, the mayor has made it clear that the current ZBA Chair, Ed Jones, should resign. Although he's not up for appointment this year, I have no doubt the mayor would not accept Mr. Jones offer to continue. But that's all up front as it should be. If it's just length of service, then some politicians should not be allowed to run again; Mr Weischel would not have been able to serve Southington as its town manager so well over the last 3 decades. And I'm not going to comment on the mayor of Wallingford's number of terms in office. AndI'm sure there are a number of fine Meriden citizens who've been serving for years on boards that are not being asked to leave, just because they've been there a long time. Fair's fair.

If you want to review the list of appointees, call the City Council office for a review. If you have comments on any, let your City Councilor know. And then see how the vote goes in a month.