If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We have been hearing this phrase by many opponents of the proposed revisions to the Brookfield Charter. But should this be a guiding principle when looking to improve our town's operations? I think not. I still have a corded princess phone just in case we have a blackout. It works fine. It is not broken. But does my family use it as our standard phone? Of course not.
How about wooden tennis rackets? You can hit the ball and play a game with them. But is wood the material of choice for modern tennis players? No. There are too many other materials that perform better than wood. Wood is not broken but there are clearly better options out there.
Businesses don't wait for things to break before they improve them. If you doubt that, just look at Apply, the company with the largest market capitalization. They must be doing something right. They are constantly making improvements to the product line. The original iPhone was released June 29, 2007. A little over five years later, they release the iPhone 5. Were the previous versions "broken?" I don't think so. Do you? But they are always striving for better, never willing to rest with good enough.
We should want the best for our town. Based upon the facts and evidence that we researched or was brought to the CRC, I cast my votes for proposals when I felt they would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our town government. The performance of our government is too important to leave to "good enough."
Dave Propper
Member of the former Charter Revision Commission
This is the battle that has been going on for 2500 years, since Plato of Ancient Greece. Plato, like the above mentioned people, in his heart thought that we should be ruled by very educated, very just and altruistic 'Philosopher-Kings' (like themselves !). Of course their would be no corruption or cronyism or unintended consequences, because their motives were so pure and they were so smart. What they didn't want was to ruled by (in their opinions) the ignorant, uneducated,unwashed masses (also called Democracy or rule by the people). I have heard it said at the Board of Finance meetings that the average citizen couldn't make a 'correct' decision about the town budget as they didn't know enough (weren't wise enough)...unlike them. IN contrast, I believe that the average citizen, if told the truth, CAN make the right decision about how they want to live their life, raise and educate their children, worship God, vote on budgets and decide which people running for public office will best represent them and their values.
The super-educated Elite, our social and educational 'betters', simply can't stand the thought of 'lesser' men and women ruling over them. Witness Pres. Obama (at a political fundraiser for the very wealthy in California) laughing at and looking down his nose at the "bitter clingers (in the heartland...who lost their jobs and feel threatened) and cling to their guns and religion".
There are degrees in Public Administration. There are nationally recognized Certificates in Public Administration. Why wouldn't we want a certified, professional managing Brookfield's day to day activities? This is not a statement about being elite. It is a statement about background and experience. Please don't imply that I meant anything more than that.
Change can be justified, but first it has to be change for the better. I for one do not believe that the positives out weigh the negatives. I would be in support of Question 4, however that same lack of attention to detail appears in the ballot stating "Appropriate" and the Charter Revision Final Report stating "adequate" in section C9-1C, which by the way, wasn't referenced on the ballot. I find it difficult to support a committee which put forth a final report with such blatant errors, and then expect the community to support those recommendations even though many of them have been rejected several times in the past. To me it seems that the majority of proposals limit or restrict community input and grant more authority to those that are elected or appointed.
However,the question should be, given the quality of the people working in Brookfield government, can the average bright, honest, hardworking First Selectwoman run our town government ? It's all about the quality of the people. We are very fortunate to have an incredible group of very qualified people working for us. Mr. Leverence has a degree in Finance & Management (and is working on a Masters in Public Administration). Mr. Tedesco is a Reg. Prof. Engineer, Dr. Sullivan has saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Ms. Hames is a CCMA II. Demi and Don of the 'Building Dept.' are very knowledgeable, honest and hardworking. Joan Locke is one of the best Certified Town Clerks in the state. Chief Montgomery is U.S. Marines, FBI, Navy Cross (how many people know that he was put in for the Congressional Medal of Honor), College professor, etc. Mr. Plummer and Mr. DePinto are excellent. So the question is, with this quality of people working for us, can Brookfield be competently managed by a smart Brookfielder or do we need to bring in an out of town, (out of state) person, and set up a whole additonal level of government/bureaucracy between the citizens and their government ?
The Town Manager would be running the operations of the Town. Of course, we have talented, smart individuals that can run the Town operations. The question is if they are the best we can get to do that job? I believe that a trained and experienced professional can run the operations in the most effeicient and professional manner (are we always looking for more effeciency???). So many of us may not agree.... fine. I don't know why some posters feel the need to demonize people that have a difference of opinion regarding what is best for the Town (and I am not directing this at anyone in particular). We all want what is best. We differ about how that should be accomplished. Let's not regress into childish non-sense about "secret agendas" and hell-bent power plays. That is just a waste of what should be good, healthy debate.
By the way, if there are any spelling/grammar errors in this post, I apologize. I grew up an engineer and nobody ever complemented me on my spelling.
Given that the people of Brookfield have repeatedly elected to preserve this representative form of democracy, this effort to once again change our charter seems like an Obamaesque attempt to force through change which is good for the minority seeking to control the majority.
I think Dah-Min Yau of I.T. is a treasure, Art Colley is worth his weight in gold (please God, could you clone him), Mr. Bivona is superb. I dont want to forget the secretaries: Ginny, Diane, Gina, Fiona, and the ladies in Joan Locke's office, Mr. Leverence's office and the ever pleasant and helpful ladies of the Assessor's office, the police, etc. etc. etc. Many of you I dont know. Your employees are your MOST important asset. My 3 nurses and support staff have been with me for over 20 years. If you treat people right and value them as your most important asset....you will be successful beyond belief. And since we all have to work, we might as well have fun doing it.
Why would we as a town and community vote to silence our voice? Our voices are important! Why would we vote to make it harder for us as residents to have a petition to advocate for ourselves when interests arise? Why would we need five Selectmen? Certainly, three has shown to be highly successful. Five is simply ludicruos. Quite frankly, these revisions don't serve us as a town. Any fool can see right through the lines. So, who do these revisions serve? It is not us. They do not serve Brookfield. They must serve somebody or someone for them to be suggested. They seem to only serve the man behind the curtain.
Disagree with the conclusions if you want. That is your right and I will defend that. But the members of the CRC after many months of careful research and deliberations (I wish you had been to one of our working meetings to have seen this bipartisan group at work) reached this recommendations, unanimously. That also says something.
They have a many years of 'on the ground' experience and I think that their opinion on these issues should be given a lot of consideration.
That time has come and gone when Brookfield was "bypassed".
Remind me to hug you at the next meeting.
How soon people forget that a cabal of bipartisans, agreeing on something - were elected to - the German government in 1933 by the people with the idea of improving the lives of the German people. That's how totalitarian governments are born. For all the right reasons.
As for the Four Corners, so much of that property is contaminated by over 300 years of heavy industry that development there will be exteremely costly or impossible. Just look at the bill to remediate the BJ's site and that was just one Dry Cleaning store. Four Corners has old hat factories, lime kilns, foundries and a multitude of similar heavy industry sites going back 300+ years. Visit the Brookfield Historical Society and learn for your self. Better still, visit the EPA web site and view the currently identified polluted/contaminated sites. Why do we keep talking about Four Corners when most Public officials are well aware of the environmental problems (or certainly should be). Bob McGarrah
Developers don't want to suffer cathestrophic loses on their holding at Four Corners so anything is something. I hope there's no conflict of interests though. Without recusal, it's back to the Ethics Commission.
Exactly we need to focus and keep it simple. Not chase problems we don't have.