Quantcast

Letter to the Editor: Here is Why We Need to Establish a Norwalk Citizens’ Council of Accountability

Ok folks, tired and disgusted like me on talking to a WALL of leadership that has turned a blind eye and ear to the concerns of the public taxpaying funders of their pedestal of power?

I have decided enough is enough. I am now focusing my attention on petitioning for a Charter Revision to create a legally powerful Norwalk Citizens’ Council of Accountability not as an advocacy group, as we have many of those. Their voices of public outcry even in volume of numbers have proven un-fruitful. There is a difference between organized groups for advocacy and Charter mandated binding authority that will “force” a seemingly tyrannical system into needed submission.

Organizations like Norwalk Taxpayers for Accountability and neighborhood established groups have tried to lobby in numbers, but their voices are quelled because they don’t have a legal authority of organizational structure written into the Charter.

When elected leaders have forgotten their obligation to hear and act responsively to the overwhelming and well voiced concerns of the public they were elected to serve, and instead reject, neglect, and ignore them at each and every level; there is the need for “legally binding enforcement of oversight to ensure accountability”. This is no longer an option; this is a necessary check on governance that has gone rampantly out of control and has become an ENEMY of the public interest in this town we try to peacefully live in called Norwalk, CT.

The only reason for this type of un-acceptable governance that can and must be held to accountability; is corruption at a catastrophic level to achieve such devastating incompetence that has produced an intolerable level of double digit property tax increase, decreased city services and complete neglect of the majority of the public’s right of service that has become “taxation without representation”. This country fought the revolutionary war and established itself due to such unchecked and un-accountable governance that no longer served “we the people”. I for one am not willing to let an unchecked authority lord over my right to be free and governed by representation that takes an interest in taxpayer’s rights, not ignore them as they sit on a pedestal of power that ignores taxpaying voices intentionally to serve their own bought and paid for interests.

State law governs adoption by petition of 10% of voters registered and a majority vote at the ballot box to establish a legal citizens’ council focused on enforcement of accountability via through a local petition under the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Chapter 99, where residents can compel the creation of an appointed Charter Commission to draft the council’s framework. This would establish a group of community members appointed by each major party and independents to be representative of the “public” and force by law such things as audits, investigations for ethics violations (that could actually remove corrupt officials) and review and publish voting records of elected and appointed officials to give taxpayers the information they need to know before they VOTE again for council members and mayors that don’t vote in support of their interests.

My vision is that such a council will scrutinize and seek to ensure that elected officials make decisions that support the interests of their constituents, or be ready to be ousted at the ballot box when EXPOSED by the council. This council will seek to ENDORSE representatives who stand with the public when there are legitimate issues of opposition or support represented en masse.

The council will seek to petition for further Charter revision and ordinances to create “moratoriums on new apartments” ordinances that limit property tax increases etc….. this can be a gold-mine of check on the last decade of incompetence that has brought us to where we are and change the trajectory of the future to make decisions more “taxpayer” focused.

I think it is the only way to end “taxation without representation” and the clear favoritism of certain owners/developers over the taxpayers and voters in Norwalk. Norwalk has been taken over and is now ruthlessly ruled by one political party and by the influence of developers.

I firmly believe that this is not just a political party issue either, rather a moral and ethical one that members of both parties Republican and Democrat as well as Unaffiliated Independents would support. The only way through this brick wall is to force more accountability and full transparency. No more lies and un-lawful pushing through of projects and needless spending that the public clearly is not in favor of and tired of funding with exorbitant tax increases year after year that do not benefit their interests.

We need to force the establishment of a Norwalk Citizens’ Council of Accountability as a matter of law, and give the authority of Audit, Investigation of Ethics violations and Public scrutiny of voting records and oversight of elected officials who continue to invalidate the will of “we the people”.

As taxpayers, we need to assert our right to representation. It seems talk and public meetings of outcry do nothing; advocacy doesn’t line our elected official’s pockets like developers and other infiltrators of our democracy here in Norwalk, CT.

We need the power of law by our right of redress and petition for force their hand and oblige them to return to their oath of office requirements to serve the public that elected them.

If we can’t achieve that at the ballot box, we have to find an alternate path of process to effect the much needed change that is required to declare our Constitutional rights to expect fair and representative governance.

Rebuking the negligence of the elected officials at every level in Norwalk CT and forcing them to HEAR and ACT as the community requires is the only logical step forward.

My relentless vision forward is to make heard the forgotten and exploited taxpaying citizens of Norwalk that fund this place WITH NO REPRESENTATIVE VOICE; and are sick and tired and nor forced to revolt in profound numbers to force the elected officials to get their collective BUTTS back in line with the interests of this taxpaying public at large

If we want to challenge the big money and developers that have invaded this town and disrespected our interests, the time is now and the road to do so has been established.

Please look forward to my continued voice on this mission of petitioning for our right to be heard as taxpayers of Norwalk, CT. If you are with me, reach out and join the mission to establish a Norwalk Citizen’s Council of Accountability.

Liz Conti Norwalk Republican Town Committee Member

Editor’s note: This piece is an opinion article. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the perspectives of the publication or its staff.

Comments

19 responses to “Letter to the Editor: Here is Why We Need to Establish a Norwalk Citizens’ Council of Accountability”

  1. Marissa santangelo

    How can I help Liz?
    100% agree with you.

    Marissa santangelo

    1. Liz Conti

      Thanks Marissa. There will be more on this as it evolves.

  2. David Muccigrosso

    This is incoherent. We already elect a council. They make decisions. You’re just mad that they don’t do what YOU want. Because you’re in the minority party. That’s how this works.

    I’ve advocated for years for breaking up the 2-party system. No one listens to me. Everyone insists that “minority party representation” will somehow fix things… by making the minority lose by 12-3 votes instead of 14-1. Right.

    You’re proposing that we have a council “appointed by each major party and independents”. Okay, great, so Alex Knopp who you already hate is going to get appointed to serve on this council by the Dems. Lisa will presumably get either herself or her handpicked person. Oh, what was the breakdown you wanted, anyways? 7 Dems, 7 Reps, 1 Independent? Something more proportional — oh wait, nevermind, you don’t care about proportionality, you just want to entrench the 2-party system even FURTHER.

    I’m not happy about the stupid roundabout decision either. But this is a ridiculous way to respond. The Republicanism *I* was raised with, taught the metaphor of Chesterton’s Fence: Don’t just tear down some fence because it’s in your way; someone probably put it there for a good reason. Conservatism is about prudence and ensuring an equitable small-r republican form of government. This “Citizen’s Council” is nothing of the sort; if anything, it resembles the Soviet ethos of recrimination and suspicion which I was raised to hate.

    Shame on this proposal.

    1. Jordon Hensley

      David, you are right on!

    2. Becca Stoll

      Kinda agree here, how is what you’re describing not just redundant to the existing city council?

      If you don’t feel adequately represented, you as a citizen of Norwalk have the option to run for that office!

      Also, can you please elaborate on who you mean when you say “taxpayer?” Since all of us who reside in Norwalk pay taxes (either via a bill or as a portion of rent), is “taxpayer” not synonymous with “resident?”

      Developers may seem to you to have a loud voice in local politics (please correct me if this is an incorrect understanding of your feelings on the matter) but businesses, whether or not they are headquartered in our city, do not get a vote. People do. If we had more small local developers and landlords, they could as individuals vote for representatives who empower them to contribute to our local economy in a way that (again, please correct me if I’m wrong) we both seem to want: smart, architecturally tasteful, affordable augmentation of the existing housing stock that allows us to increase the tax base and spread the burden across more people, and also offer entry-level newcomers to our amazing city to rent while they save for a down payment, or buy something small as a way of starting to put down roots here.

      Lastly, if such a council were to form, would you be in favor of other forms of representative diversity among its members besides just party affiliation (or lack thereof)? Should at least one member have to be a renter, one a condo owner, one a parent with students in NPS, one a local business owner, one a resident of a local senior center, one from each neighborhood association, etc?

      1. David Muccigrosso

        One of the major problems with our system, though, is that even though “only people vote”, what’s REALLY happening is that “only [at most <29% of the] people vote". As I wrote when I highlighted this a couple weeks ago**, most of our local elections are set up in ways that MINIMIZE turnout. Even if that wasn't intentional, if you asked me how to minimize turnout, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better combo than: "first-past-the-post" + "off-year elections" + "closed party nominations and primaries" + "single member districts" + "only two viable parties, stagnant political machine has been running things for over a century".

        ** https://norwalkcurrent.com/opinion-a-healthy-democracy-requires-an-actual-democracy/

        We already have arguably TOO MUCH kabuki theater of "accountability" in our local politics. It's why the machine works so slowly — every outsider gets a chance to complain and grandstand, any outsider who actually wants to get something done has to become an insider, every insider has their hand out, and everyone gets a piece of everything before anything ever gets done.

        Even though ENNA/Liz are correct on the underlying roundabout issue, their methods are abhorrent to me. Any sufficiently dedicated minority can flood a meeting hall with a hundred or more people and make themselves look like a majority when they really aren't. And the constant air of suspicion and conspiracy betrays their utter lack of understanding of what's actually going on. It's not just ONE consultant buddy that ever gets paid; no, that'd look too corrupt. Instead, the machine disperses the contracts into a whole ecosystem of dozens of consultants and vendors who all politely wait their turn on the gravy train and jockey for position within a carefully constructed pecking order. Liz and her confreres imagine that this council will find some sort of magic smoking gun evidence, but the plain fact is that the entire system is set up to NEVER produce a single instance of a legally prosecutable "quid pro quo", or even something that looks like favoritism. The rare instances where outright prosecutable corruption gets caught these days, are when someone accidentally slips their guard and drops the charade on an email or recording, and then it just devolves into the usual partisan mud-slinging. But we shouldn't mistake that charade for the entire system being prosecutable, because it simply isn't. It was already designed around that.

        I'd rather not have our entire local political class spend the next decade distracting the public with endless investigations and allegations, when we all should be able to easily see that the problem is a broken democratic feedback loop. To make an HVAC analogy, if your thermostat is broken (its basic control system IS a feedback loop), you don't waste thousands of dollars installing temperature sensors all around your house just so you can scream louder at your broken thermostat for not having EVERY room precisely temperature-controlled. You replace the stupid thermostat.

  3. David Muccigrosso

    Hey Liz, you might want to ask your Republican friends from California how well their property tax freezes and moratoria on development have worked for their state.

    Hint: It’s been a DISASTER.

    My, it’s really sad how far the Republican Party has fallen. We used to pride ourselves on being the ones who knew economics and responsibly paid our taxes. We prided ourselves on being AGAINST capricious regulation of the free market.

    This is why I’m no longer a Republican.

  4. David Muccigrosso

    >> If we can’t achieve that at the ballot box, we have to find an alternate path of process

    George Washington is spinning in his grave at this.

  5. Peter Marino

    This “Citizens’ Council of Accountability” idea feels a little overdone, frankly it’s ahh…. cooked. Why/what are we electing a Common Council for if we’re just gonna build a second one with extra seasoning? No thanks

    BUT…then you look at that roundabout vote and…yeah. A ton of residents showed up, spoke out, wrote in, yelled into the void and YET somehow not a single sitting council member voted against it or even abstained. How does that happen? Really, it felt less like local government and more like a subreddit – a mindless echo chamber in groupthink mode. Roll call: aye aye aye aye, yes boss, yes boss, yes boss.

    If anything, Norwalk probably needs another grassroots group that actually organizes pressure the way the progs in Sustainable Streets Norwalk does. They send out those “questionnaires” that are… let’s say… gently pre‑tilted. Candidates who disagree get an F, candidates who ignore it get an I, and candidates who play along get a gold star. It’s basically Google reviews for politicians.

    So yeah, maybe not a whole new Charter‑level super‑council, but a more organized pushback wouldn’t hurt. Because right now it feels like the public is talking and City Hall has noise‑canceling on.

    1. Matthew Silber

      Hey Peter, I’m a member of Sustainable Streets and I helped organize and distribute the survey you’re referring to. Sustainable Streets Norwalk is a local advocacy group that aims to improve street safety, home diversity, and urban tree cover in this city.

      We believe that lots of people in Norwalk care about these issues, and the purpose of the survey was to help voters choose candidates based on these values. Many on this website complain that too few vote in local elections, but lots of people are simply too busy to research every candidate on their own. Our Election Report Card last year was meant to help people who care about the same things that we do make an informed choice at the polls.

      The grading was pretty straightforward. If respondents generally aligned with our views, we gave them A’s or B’s. If we felt their responses didn’t align with our views, we gave them C’s or D’s. If a candidate failed to respond to the survey, we gave them an “Incomplete,” because we had nothing to evaluate. For those curious, the exact questions we asked can be found here: https://norwalkcurrent.com/opinion-sustainable-streets-norwalk-grades-mayoral-candidates/

      We know that there are folks out there who disagree with us, and that’s perfectly fine – for them, getting an ‘D’ on our survey may have served as a badge of honor, the same way many liberals display their poor marks from the NRA’s own Second Amendment Report Cards.

  6. Thomas Belmont

    It’s dangerous when the governing body appears to ignore the people who question the actions of Central Planning. The Democrats have been empowered by the voters for a long, long time . They are in power, and they hold Control. They can either be magnanimous or indifferent with that power.The danger of the governing body, so strongly a majority, so without a single opposing Party member, without a single voice among them or a thumbs down on some plan is, by nature, so inclined to only offer a deaf ear ,or a glass eye, or even a soft hostility yet fear of reprisal, to an opinion “not in keeping with the agenda.” No longer a governing body ,but a ruling class, apprehensions are rising that Central Planning is losing contact without concern over the apprehensions of people who regard their own interests, their own Liberty, their own property in this life being encroached upon by that disinterested bureaucracy.

    I think the Conti Plan has merit. It’s legal. I second the motion.

    1. David Muccigrosso

      >> “It’s legal.”

      Thomas, do you truly, in your heart of hearts, think that George Washington would have endorsed handing two dominant parties some set number of seats on a “Citizens Council”?

      Seems to me like he’d be HORRIFIED at the bare thought of such a council, let alone the dominance of such parties nor handing them even MORE power by giving them set seats.

      Seems to me he’d argue that our paramount goal should be to abolish those parties posthaste, with all due prejudice, and establish a reformed system by which more parties could be viable. Methinks he would not stand on the hateful English tradition of First-Past-The-Post voting and Single Member Districts merely for tradition’s sake alone.

      1. Thomas Belmont

        Replying to your comment above, I understand that the first President emphasized Union over party; Union being Union of the People in the Preamble. That endeavor was the purest. His cabinet included many Framers. Jefferson not. He was overseas. But each had THEIR visions of Union, and then came Party. Parties have been in conflict Since the end of Washington’s 2nd term. That is the reality we live in. And since 1913 foreign political views have forced their way in and contaminated the Union even further. Central Planning, a term used by a Socialist sect, is an example of virus to the Framers structure. These things are our reality. We deal with them as we are able. Now we are faced with a solid wall of Democrat rule, city, town, state and NE. Forty percent , in all, have no voice and no representation in each city, most town, every state. These Forty Percent refuse the political, social, and commercial/ economical “progressive” actions the wall of Democrats insist. Original State Statute ,the original author mentioned ( chapter 99) requiring 10% voter signature to vote a referendum, allows for an act to express citizen soveriegnty as the Framers envisioned. Go for it!

        1. Becca Stoll

          those forty percent had a chance to have better representation, it didn’t make it out of charter revision. sounds like we’re casting blame on the wrong parties.

  7. Mike Mushak

    All this incoherent reactionary nonsense simply because the city is trying to reduce accidents and injuries at one of the most dangerous and confusing intersections in Norwalk! You can’t make this up.

    And they wonder why Republicans can never get elected in this town, with stupidity like this. The Norwalk MAGA Republican Party who this writer is an active member of has consistently opposed public safety improvements all over town. They hate bike lanes, shorter crosswalks, and reduced road widths to slow speeding traffic, which Norwalk is gratefully installing just like every other smart city in the nation. . It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen but apparently there are enough stupid people in Norwalk supporting them for Republicans to take these bizarre anti-public safety positions.

    I applaud the city’s efforts to reduce car speeds and make our streets safer for all users, which is exactly what Ms. Conti is consistently opposed to. She apparently wants the right to drive any speed and threaten the lives of pedestrians and cyclists, including elderly and children simply trying to cross the street. The absurdity is astounding, but please keep it up so Republicans will never win another elected office in Norwalk again!

    1. Thomas Belmont

      I didn’t read much of what your saying in the Conti article above. In fact I did not read any thing on constricted streets, bike roads, roundabouts,, safety and other subjects that should get reasonable presentations to taxpayers.

      1. Mike Mushak

        Reply to Thomas Belmont: You need to know the recent history, as Ms Conti recently rallied her MAGA troops against the roundabout at Gregory and 5th Street, and even got the Norwalk Republican Town Committee to voice opposition to a plan to reduce accidents and injuries. Ms Conti did the same thing on the safer plan to reduce speeds on Cemetery St and Gregory, framing it as an assault on her personally. At that location the Norwalk Republican Party also came out in support of keeping higher speeds and a dangerous obsolete layout from the 1950’s with 37 feet of asphalt and few crosswalks. It is sick that these folks opposes public safety improvements, and only reveals their complete lack of empathy to help anyone and to protect their right to drive fast and endanger lives on residential streets. Of course they are MAGA and support Trump, so nothing is surprising anymore.

        1. Thomas Belmont

          Road construction, safety engineering, utility requirements are all a function of city government. Those things said I agree with you. I understand all these kinds of improvements were made around the site of that massive living complex constructed in the millpond area. The complex dwarfs the surrounding community and that was the problem and concern of the ,as you call them, “Norwalk Republican MAGA Party”. Their interest, the MAGA Republicans, was the compactness of that project and the consequential provisions surrounding it. Those people living in that area might have a say in what encroaches their homes. The project has followed thru But I never knew an opposition to City projects are a political party endeavor until you made mention of it. What if a “Norwalk Democrat Anti-ICE party” group argued their points? Would that make a difference? No. It’s matter of concerned citizens living in Peace and Tranquility as a guarantee provided in the Preamble.

  8. Kenneth Werner

    Yes, David. Here’s one of Washington’s many statements on the subject: “If we mean to support the Liberty and Independence which it has cost us so much blood & treasure to establish we must drive far away the demon of party spirit.”

Leave a Reply

Secret Link