This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Elect or Appoint

There have been a few comments posted in past Patch stories indicating various commentators' preference to have people serving on boards & commissions be elected and not appointed.  They seem to believe this will take the politics out of the process.  News Flash folks, it won't.  Elections are just that, pure politics.

These commentators seem to feel these appointments are done for political reasons.  Yup, they are right.  This is one way the elected municipal leader gets to pay back those who helped him or her get elected.  It appears though based on language used the commentators had no issues with the appointees of the prior administration, just those of this administration.  Gee, why is that?

Those appointed serve for a designated period of time and in staggered years.  The Charter also calls for what is known as Majority Membership to all B's & C's.  It is required by Charter that the political power in-charge to have a majority of membership to the B or C.  With positions having staggered expirations dates this takes time but if there is a change in political power this process allows for the majority membership and leadership to change as well.

This mayor and mayors before have advertised in various forms looking for people to stand up and volunteer to serve.  Very few do and that is a real shame.  I guess it's easier to complain.  OH, by the way, there are still positions open on some of these commissions, four of which have to be a (D) or (U).  Anyone interested?  Anyone want to volunteer?  I doubt it.

 A search of CT municipalities found that some do have elected positions for various B's & C's, but they all seem to be land use type commisions such as a P&Z, ZBA, or a Conservation type board.  A few even have Police Commission members as elected positions.  But in each case they are in staggered years and still require a majority of membership as to the party in power.

Speaking of the Police Commissions, during the Town Council meeting held March 13th, under "Correspondence", a letter written by the President of the Police Union was summarized and entered into the record.  The union leader's letter indicated he objected to one of the Mayors appointees to the Police Commission.  Evidently the union leader somehow feels he or his union should have a say in who gets these appointments or at least have a say in the process.  Now really!  I suggest the union leader read the Charter, Chapter 2, Section 2; and Chapter 6, Section 7.  Or, maybe he should run for Mayor so he can appoint only those people he likes. 

When it comes to elect or appoint just remember one thing, "the grass isn't always greener on the other side". 

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?