Planning and Zoning Commission Opens a New Term

The newest member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Daniel Russo, wasted no time before making his ambitions clear at the Commission's first meeting since the election, "I nominate myself as chair." The Commission could not agree, and the meeting ended without a chair.

As written in the bylaws, the November meeting is for the election of officers. Director of Planning Bill Warner presided over this process, and after the roll call, he recognized Commissioner Catherine Johnson. Johnson had barely started her first word when she was abruptly cut off by Russo, who asserted that, according to Roberts Rules of Order, nominations for chair should occur before any other business. Warner allowed Russo to proceed.

Russo thanked the public for electing him, and said that he had gotten multiple suggestions from the public that he should serve as chair of the Commission. After nominating himself, he expressed frustration at the partisanship on the Commission and frustration at the media, "I'm disappointed that the process has been politicized... I'm disappointed that The Middletown Eye published a list of criteria [for chairing the commission] from one member of the commission."

Russo, who is chair of the Democratic Town Committee, helped to stop an election of chair at the January 14th meeting, when he rendered the legal opinion that seated alternate members could not vote to elect officers (acting chair Pelletier refused to allow an election to proceed, following Russo's advice).

Several attempts to elect a chair last night also failed, with the 4 Democrats and the 3 Republicans each voting as a block (it takes 5 votes for the Commission to do anything). First, Les Adams ran against Russo, then Adams ran against Richard Pelletier, in each case deadlocking 3 to 4.

For vice-chair, Russo against Nicholas Fazzino, then Barbara Plum against Fazzino deadlocked. Finally, Richard Pelletier was elected as vice-chair, unanimously.

For secretary, James Fortuna against Johnson deadlocked 4 to 3.

There was then a parliamentary law squabble over whether it was possible to nominate Pelletier, the newly elected vice-chair, as a candidate for chair. The Republicans insisted that this could not be done before Pelletier submitted a written resignation to the Mayor, but since they could not find this clause in the bylaws, there was another election for chair, with the same outcome between Pelletier and Adams.

The Commission adjourned after agreeing that the election of chair and secretary would carry forward to the next meeting.

[Comment: I published excerpts from an interview with Commissioner Johnson on Thursday, I think it is important for the community to know the views and actions of elected officials and would be delighted to publish interviews with any other members of the Commission.]

Kleckowski Responds to Democratic Town Chair

From Deborah Kleckowski

I want to take this opportunity to thank all you who have supported me. This article is to address the comments made by the Democratic Chairman Daniel Russo and Anonymous as reported on July 6, 2009.

In response to Dan Russo's comments, "She effectively left the party two years ago. She stopped communicating with the party." That is an inaccurate assessment. I have not "stopped" communicating with the Democratic Town committee. There has not ever been any communication.

The only time there has been communication between me and the Democratic Town Chairman or other members of the party has been when my involvement in the party was "inconvenient" or an apparent threat to the "status quo", which Dan himself promotes as a positive working relationship among party members and the community at large. For example, shortly after the 2009 municipal election Dan Russo asked me to step aside to allow a long time commissioner, who was not re-elected, to resume his position. The reasons were that this person had served for several years and was an asset to the commission, which is true, and, now that I was a mother and had "mother duties" it may be a good time for me to resign. The commissioner in question had NO knowledge of this request. Frankly, there was something very unsettling about "manufacturing" the outcome of an election. This is a very slippery slope of which I wanted no part.

Another example of "party communication" is in reference to the election of the P&Z Chairman. The Democratic Chairman requested a meeting with me. The discussion was about the contentious subject "seated alternates”, which could affect the votes for the Chairman. Many may recall there was a debate as to the interpretation of the language in the City Charter, the P&Z By-Laws and State law as to whether or not "seated alternates" can vote for leadership. Dan Russo contended that "seated alternates" do not have the right to vote for leadership (Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary). In the end I did not agree with Dan's legal interpretation of the By-Laws/Charter. Dan Russo expressed his point of view in front of P&Z that same evening about 1 a.m. However, Dan gave the commission his legal opinion without disclosing his position as the Democratic Town Chair. I had to ask myself the obvious questions, "was Dan interpreting the law/Charter/By-Law on the basis of who held the current majority/leadership", "or was his interpretation void of any political motive at all”? Yes, "seated alternates" can vote for leadership the same as with any other land use matter.

Finally, on April 15th, 2009 I submitted to Dan Russo my letter of intent to run for re-election for P&Z. I received no response. My change of party was not noticed until June 1, 2009. Where was the interest from the party in supporting my re-election bid? Where was the support of the party when I was attempting to ensure leadership was present at meetings? Where was the communication between the party and myself for the past six years?

It is the culmination of all the examples given which has led me to switch parties and to seek office on the Republican slate.

Regarding the statements made by Anonymous, your facts are wrong. I have never been invited to or participated in a Republican caucus.

We reside in an interconnected community with the unique problem of having many qualified people interested in serving in an elected capacity. It is time to open the "business as usual" gates and to give others the opportunity and privilege to serve their community. Just because "things are working" does not mean things are working well or that things could be working better! Status quo does not mean working to full potential it means there is no movement-it is just stagnant. I believe Middletown residents have more potential then "status quo" and more importantly, residents of Middletown deserve more than the "status quo'!