Notes from the Board of Aldermen (Jan. 8, 2024)
“Elections have consequences.” That’s what Barack Obama told Republican lawmakers shortly after winning the 2008 presidential election.
Well, this past November, Republican Tony Giannattasio secured the mayor’s seat after the Democrats held it for more than a decade (by Ben Blake and Richard Smith). Unlike the former president’s mentality, in his first few months, Mayor Giannattasio has kept on many Democrat appointees — who have institutional knowledge of the city — and worked in a bipartisan fashion to rise above partisan bickering.
Now, the Board of Aldermen is an eight-seven split, favoring the Democrats; so one could argue he must work across the aisle to solve any issues for Milford residents. However, one would expect a “give and take” — or at least more challenging negotiations — during the Budget season, which will happen in late spring/early summer (though the Superintendent presented her 2024-2025 budget on Jan. 8 to the Board of Education, see the presentation here).
But this “give and take” does not generally occur when the mayor appoints and/or reappoints the city’s various boards and commissions. For those unaware, Milford’s Charter prohibits partisan supermajorities in these appointments, stating:
When two or more persons are to be appointed to any office, board or commission, if the number appointed is even, no more than half the members shall be named from any one political party; if the number to be appointed is odd, no more than a bare majority shall be named from any political party.
The intent is to remove politicking — to an extent — from these boards and commissions that are so vital to the community. After all, we are neighbors; and we are more than the political party to which we subscribe, right?
Therefore, it has been general practice that the mayor selects qualified people who he or she wants without animus from the Board of Aldermen (barring a few exceptions in the past 20-30 years over potential legal reasons). While it is the Aldermen’s due diligence to examine the resumes of the mayor’s recommended appointees, this past cycle raised no alarm bells with my Republican colleagues, whether the person was Democrat or Republican.
Neither did the Democrats express their qualms in the “Leadership Meeting” between the mayor, chair, majority and minority leaders prior to the January 8th Board of Aldermen meeting. This would have been the proper time to address any issue.
Then Monday came. In what can only be viewed as politicking, the Democrats took issue with appointees to several boards and commissions — particularly with the Fire Commission, Board of Finance, Parks & Rec, MGAT and even the Animal Shelter Commission — yet they offered no justification as to why the mayor’s recommended appointments should be disqualified. In fact, they even agreed the people were qualified.
One explanation then that one can conclude is that the Democrats wanted to keep their people in power to politically influence those boards and commissions. Now, those people whose terms have expired may have institutional knowledge, and they may have served the community well. And I thank them for devoting their time to Milford. But in a democratic republic, any seat is not “owned” or held in perpetuity by a single person (except for judicial positions to avoid political influence). One serves at the behest of the community until their term ends. By not offering a credible, disqualifying explanation for the mayor’s nominees, the Democrats, in effect, believe the boards and commissions are political arenas. This is a misguided view that will only breed more partisanship instead of fostering avenues for neighbors to cordially hash out solutions to better Milford.
More cynically, another explanation is that the majority party engineered this ensuing frenzy to embarrass the mayor: to let him know who really controls the levers of power. What it did, however, was embarrass the recommended appointees and their families; people who wanted to voluntarily serve the community. I talked with several of them last night. This chance to serve meant a lot to them. For the Democrats to use them as pawns to possibly spite the new, duly elected mayor of the opposing party is uncalled for. It is unneighborly.
And, to Alderman Win Smith Jr.’s point last night, their actions may set an ugly precedent, thereby infecting partisan hackery in these volunteer positions, which should be devoid of such things.
Ultimately, this should have been a simple “yes or no” — and an Alderman would only vote “no” to someone if a person were unqualified, which, as I mentioned, was not their expressed rationale. As to who will be nominated instead remains to be seen, but I will let you know if/when I hear.
The rest of the meeting was less hectic.
The Board of Aldermen approved the sale of a “retired” fire truck (which was replaced by a Quint); to extend the contract for the operator managing The Orchards Golf Course (which is McNeil Design Collaborative, Inc.,/The Northeast Golf Company/NGC Golf Operations Management); an easement agreement between the City of Milford and 51 Roses Mill LLC for the 51-53 Roses Mill Road property; and for the mayor — along with the Open Space Manager, Floodplain Administrator and Inlands/Wetlands Agent — to oversee projects to reduce flooding in areas around Milford.
The next meeting is February 5th.
Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Watch the full meeting here.