[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by Quietude

Well, except in those places where generic civic/management/operations offices aren't filled on a party basis. The point has been made that it's pretty stupid to make "functional" offices party-based.

But except that is not how Ridgefield operates (nor Stamford, nor my town, nor countless other municipalities across the State of CT — even in Hartford, where I don’t think it’s an elected position, it would most certainly be an appointed position by the mayor’s office)

It is what it is, but I suppose if someone is truly offended, they can lobby each town government to urge them to amend their Charters ?

[MrGompers]

Most likely the only legal alternative to this situation is to hold another election. Running an election is not free even if all the people involved are volunteers. There will still be administrative, equipment, printing, and over sight costs. Additionally, these costs would rise if the election is close and requires a recount. At that point state election committee would probably be involved too.


If this was really a legal problem it would be challenged in court. If someone really wants the job, there's nothing that would stop them from changing their party affiliation any way.

[Quietude]

Originally Posted by JayCT

This is an elected position not an office job. By law you can’t ask a person their political affiliation for a regular job but for an elected position replacement you can. Jay

You're arguing an unrelated point, here. Yes, some towns make this a party-based, elected position, and in those cases, limiting replacements to same-party candidates is the right thing to do... but my point is that only policy-making positions should be elected on a party basis. Routine function positions like Town Clerk, Assessor, etc. should probably be elected positions, but without party affiliation. (Frankly, they should be routine job postings, not elected, and made somewhat immune to political-issue replacement, as they are in many cities. Continuity and experience count more than "voter control" of these positions.)

Originally Posted by Lalalally

But except that is not how Ridgefield operates (nor Stamford, nor my town, nor countless other municipalities across the State of CT — even in Hartford, where I don’t think it’s an elected position, it would most certainly be an appointed position by the mayor’s office)

Which is another point against having 168 or so different forms of government in a state you can drive through in an hour.

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by Quietude

You're arguing an unrelated point, here. Yes, some towns make this a party-based, elected position, and in those cases, limiting replacements to same-party candidates is the right thing to do... but my point is that only policy-making positions should be elected on a party basis. Routine function positions like Town Clerk, Assessor, etc. should probably be elected positions, but without party affiliation. (Frankly, they should be routine job postings, not elected, and made somewhat immune to political-issue replacement, as they are in many cities. Continuity and experience count more than "voter control" of these positions.)


Which is another point against having 168 or so different forms of government in a state you can drive through in an hour.

I actually prefer the local accountability our system affords to us, and I would never be in favor of changing it. Every single person who serves my town is a local resident and has a vested interest in our town succeeding.

Edit: as to your point re: continuity, the Ridgefield Town Clerk who just resigned does so after 39 years on the job. Both Ridgefield Rs and Ds must really have approved of the job she has been doing. She was elected/re-elected 20 Times and served nearly 4 decades. Jimmy Carter was President when she was first elected

[Quietude]

Originally Posted by Lalalally

I actually prefer the local accountability our system affords to us, and I would never be in favor of changing it. Every single person who serves my town is a local resident and has a vested interest in our town succeeding.

That's the argument for it. However, having seen too many towns that were too small to maintain good candidates for all offices or raise enough taxes to pay for all the services, I think there's a lot of downside as well. It's 2018, not 1810, and there are certain levels of population, civic cost and tax base for viability. Many CT towns fall below it.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Quietude

That's the argument for it. However, having seen too many towns that were too small to maintain good candidates for all offices or raise enough taxes to pay for all the services, I think there's a lot of downside as well. It's 2018, not 1810, and there are certain levels of population, civic cost and tax base for viability. Many CT towns fall below it.

So you are in favor of abolishing our Constitution and starting over? It dates back to 1787 so it makes a form of government adopted in 1810 look positively contemporary. Or do you favor big government? Bigger always works so much better Jay

[Quietude]

Originally Posted by JayCT

So you are in favor of abolishing our Constitution and starting over? It dates back to 1787 so it makes a form of government adopted in 1810 look positively contemporary.

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm saying that duplicating all government functions town by town when some "towns" would disappear into a Hartford block is absurd. In an isolated town of 3-5,000, which far too many are, you can't get enough qualified candidates to fill all positions - not after the qualified people are tired of doing the almost wholly unpaid jobs for a few terms - and it's rare they have a tax base large enough to support modern-level fire, police, schools and other civic infrastructure. A large town? Sure. A wide spot in a country road? No. It's way past time CT brings back some kind of union or county or township government for the scatterings of tiny towns that struggle continually to pay for quality services and put even marginally qualified people in office.

But let me guess: you've never lived anywhere but CT, have you?

Or do you favor big government? Bigger always works so much better Jay

Combining three or four towns you can walk through in fifteen minutes is hardly "larger government"... because towns of that size hardly have a government at all.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Quietude

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm saying that duplicating all government functions town by town when some "towns" would disappear into a Hartford block is absurd. In an isolated town of 3-5,000, which far too many are, you can't get enough qualified candidates to fill all positions - not after the qualified people are tired of doing the almost wholly unpaid jobs for a few terms - and it's rare they have a tax base large enough to support modern-level fire, police, schools and other civic infrastructure. A large town? Sure. A wide spot in a country road? No. It's way past time CT brings back some kind of union or county or township government for the scatterings of tiny towns that struggle continually to pay for quality services and put even marginally qualified people in office.

But let me guess: you've never lived anywhere but CT, have you?



Combining three or four towns you can walk through in fifteen minutes is hardly "larger government"... because towns of that size hardly have a government at all.

Sorry if I misunderstood you but even a community of 5,000 has the right to govern themselves. I am against regionalizing government because they rarely are better. Removing local rule is wrong and is questionable how much it really saves. Let face it, whether we like it or not, you get what you pay for. Adding another layer of government is never cheaper.

As for your question, I have lived outside of Connecticut and in a state that has a county level of government. From what I saw it was a horror story. I also have family that lives in one of those so called cheaper places to live and see the lack of responsiveness from the county. They live on a road off of a county maintained roadway. Five years ago (longer actually now), that road began to wash out. It became impassable and them and their neighbors contacted the county to fix the problem. They haven't and it gets worse and worse with each storm. The county seat is miles away and there just is not any sense of accountability on the part of the government there. If this road completely washes out, it will cost a lot of money to fix. If they had addressed the problem when first reported, it would have cost a lot less but the county does not care nor do they have to. Again no accountability. Jay

[Quietude]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Sorry if I misunderstood you but even a community of 5,000 has the right to govern themselves. I am against regionalizing government because they rarely are better. Removing local rule is wrong and is questionable how much it really saves. Let face it, whether we like it or not, you get what you pay for. Adding another layer of government is never cheaper.

It's not another layer of government to combine two or three small adjacent towns into one civic body. They can keep their historical signs and everything.

Government may not have had a minimum scale in Jefferson's day, but it does now. Duplicating an entire government structure every five miles is wasteful and oppressive in exactly the way you are arguing a union government with better economy of scale automatically is. Fine, fine, rant about big gummint, but there are too many towns mired in deep revenue and governance trouble for exactly this reason, and without being able to scale government function back to 1821 levels, it's not going to magically fix itself.

But, Connecticut. It was just terrible how all the independent liquor stores closed when Sunday sales were forced on them, right?

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Quietude

It's not another layer of government to combine two or three small adjacent towns into one civic body. They can keep their historical signs and everything.

Government may not have had a minimum scale in Jefferson's day, but it does now. Duplicating an entire government structure every five miles is wasteful and oppressive in exactly the way you are arguing a union government with better economy of scale automatically is. Fine, fine, rant about big gummint, but there are too many towns mired in deep revenue and governance trouble for exactly this reason, and without being able to scale government function back to 1821 levels, it's not going to magically fix itself.

But, Connecticut. It was just terrible how all the independent liquor stores closed when Sunday sales were forced on them, right?

This is all 100% true.