The Marty Heiser Show

Danbury voters should decide.

Video to Danbury City Clerk's speech is coming soon!

THE REBUTTAL

l. Her statement that she is the only city clerk in 40 years to do the job is just wrong. They all did the job as outlined in the charter. That she disparages people such as Betty Crudgington and George Massoud who have passed on and are not here to defend themselves is totally disrespectful and shows her lack of character. The problem here is that she does not understand the limited role of the City Clerk as outlined in the Charter. The civil service job of the assistant clerk is what she was talking about. They did not do that work because it was not their job. She owes the families of those good people an apology.

2. The most gross statement she made is asking the commission to find a way around publishing the city ordinances in the local media. State law requires publishing of all ordinances. For an elected official to say there is always a way around anything is reason to call for her to resign. Democracy is costly - it is the price we pay. The people have a right to know what their government officials are doing. We need to have more disclosure not less.

3. She said she has minute takers to do common council committee meetings and regular meetings. She then edits the minutes. This is against the law. Only the person taking the minutes can alter them before they are submitted to the council. They can then make additions, corrections or deletions. She has no authority to do this.

4. She said there should never be only one person working in that office. There should only be one person. There is enough work for only one person if that person is competent. Her contention that it is more efficient now having five people doing the job previously handled by one person makes no sense. One competent person should be doing this job.

5. She made a statement that she wants to stream line the minutes because there is too much information in them. NO - THE MINUTES ARE A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF OUR CITY! Again, she is trying to keep information from the public. This is wrong. The minutes should be streamlined into a report and both are to be kept on file. She never submits a report only the minutes which is wrong.

6. The statement she read to the commission was just smoke and mirrors. She made what she says she does should much more complicated than it really is. The accomplishment that she is most proud of is ridiculous. Binding of the monthly agenda is ludicrous. It is totally inefficient and costly to the taxpayers. To bind 30 expensive books every month is ridiculous. If Mark Boughton really wants to stay to say taxpayer money this is a no brainer. Stop purchasing those expensive binders.

7. She calls Mary Foley the assistant clerk. This would be in violation of the Charter. Only the Common Council as a whole, not Joe Cavo alone, can hire assistant clerks. The council has not appointed an assistant clerk since the job was made vacant over two years ago.

8. She stated that only she has posted the common council meetings on the website. This is a lie. From the minute the IT department had the site up and running, probably sometime in 2002, all city meetings were posted on the site.

9. Saying that she has the council member mail delivered to their homes so that they don't have to come to City Hall is outrageous. They should come to City Hall. It is their job to be informed of what is going on in the City. They don't come anymore because the office is never open because she comes in whenever she feels like it, and most of the time she is in City Hall she is in the Registrar of Voters office. She should be in her office from 8:30 A.M to 4:30 P.M. when City Hall is opened so that the public has access. Night hours are in addition to those hours, not in replace of. The Town Clerk is in City Hall full time and the City Clerk should be as well.

"There is always a way around anything," Jean Natale, Danbury City Clerk at the Charter Revision Board meeting on Monday, June 23, 2008.

Did Jean Natale indirectly substantiate Jane Diggs' statement?

from the Miami Herald

The normal bus fare in Miami Beach is a buck and a half.

But a massive limo bus tooling through South Beach over the weekend charged a lot more -- and offered a lot more, as well.

Undercover Miami Beach detectives Sunday busted a brothel-on-wheels, which charged $40 admission and offered sex for sale inside.

On board: prostitutes, fully stocked bars and the bus' madame -- Christine Morteh, 29, of Miramar.

from CNN

Most recently, O'Brien has reported for CNN Presents: Black in America, a sweeping CNN on-air and digital initiative breaking new ground in revealing the current state of Black America 40 years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The landmark programming features six hours of documentaries and weekly reports with a focus on fresh analysis from new voices about the real lives behind the stereotypes, statistics and identity politics that frequently frame the national dialogue about Black America.

Watch July 23 and 24

Moderator: Ed Volpintesta MD

Guests: Bill Delaney MD, Community Health Center, Danbury
Michael Taweh, MD, Kevin's Clinic, Newtown

Guests: Al Robinson from Hatcityblog
Helena Abrantes, 2007 Candidate for Mayor, Danbury
Gene Eriquez, former Mayor of Danbury

from Iceland Review-online

The Olympic torch will pass through Lhasa, the capital of Tibet on Saturday. In response. the Icelandic interest group, “The Friends of Tibet” is going to walk with a torch from the Chinese embassy on the west side of Reykjavík to the Icelandic governmental seat in the city center.

Dear Mr. Ivon Alcime,

I watched with great interest the segment dealing with the funding of the Hispanic Center on your show on Thursday, June 12.

Bravo for calling it what it is. RACIST.

I am surprised that no one else on the show had the courage to call a spade a spade!

Equally surprising is the fact that no one mentioned perhaps the most objectionable part, Cavos remarks. Among other things, he said, referring to the Hispanic Center, "We can't have an organization biting the hand that feeds them, so because of that we are suspending [ ] for the 07-08 budget ... What I want to make sure of is that when you leave here that if there is any money given back, we're going to be clear that the Hispanic Center and it's board understands that the taxpayers of this city will not stand for any further advocacy against this city, state or county enforcing it's laws. Now, now , we need to be clear on that...."

It should be clear that the denial of funding to the Hispanic Center was the result of the arrogance of the Council and was meant to teach the Center a lesson, to put it in its place, to make a lesson of it to other non-profit organizations that received funding from the City, to send a clear message to these organizations that any dissent from any of these organizations will not be tolerated. In short, to muzzle free speech.

It all started a long time back, when the immigrants decided not to report to work for one day and keep their businesses closed as a mark of protest. At that time Maria Cinta Lowe, that brave woman, urged the immigrants to not send their children to school on the appointed day. There was a hue and a cry against this suggestion. Mayor Mark Boughton issued a veiled threat to the Center about its funding!

The City went after the Hispanic Center . Ultimately, with its funding at risk, Maria Cinta Lowe, the thorn in Mark Boughton's side, was eased out of the Center and a new director was appointed. Its mission statement was modified. An audit of its finances was done. The Center thought that the City would be appeased. And all seemed set for the Center to get the 2007-08 funding unfrozen.

But then the Center took the ad in the News Times expressing a view that differed from that of the City. The City was incensed. How dare the Center do this?!! It needed to be taught a lesson. A clear message had to be sent to all the organizations that received or sought funding from the City. The funding was cut. And, so that there be no mistaking what the message of the denial of the funding was, Joe Cavo spelt it out loud and clear: "We can't have an organization biting the hand that feeds them, so because of that we are suspending [ ] for the 07-08 budget ... What I want to make sure of is that when you leave here that if there is any money given back, we're going to be clear that the Hispanic Center and it's board understands that the taxpayers of this city will not stand for any further advocacy against this city......."

Your co-host (I forget his name) mentioned that when one takes funding from the city, one should understand and accept that it comes with strings attached. He advised people to RUN from taking city funding!

All very well for him to say that. Non-profits that offer services to the community are hard pressed for funds. They rely on city funding. And the city is obligated, in the best interests of the communities it serves, and in the best interests of the city itself, to extend this funding to those non-profits that provide good and needed services. Of course there will be strings attached: good management, provision of services that benefit and are needed by the community, transparency in its accounting and proper auditing, efficient management. Those "strings" are good and understandable. The Hispanic Center complied with all that.

But Mr. Cavo had other "strings" in mind! The kind of strings he wants is unacceptable and violates freedom of speech. Especially when opposition to what the City intends to do is voiced through an advertisement in a paper paid for, not from taxpayer's money but from private donations.

It must also be emphasized that even if "advocacy" at tax payers' expense is a valid ground for withholding funds by the City, what the Common Council had before it were mere allegations of this misdeed (if it can be called that)!. And, the allegations were made by a group generally recognized to be racist. There was no proof of any misdeed having been committed.

I noted that you mentioned that this topic would be continued. I presume you meant in the next program. I do hope you will bring out these two aspects when you continue the two topics.

By the way, congratulations also to Ms.Abrantes. She was the only one, besides you, who really got angry at the show and showed it, even though she also could not bring herself to say that the decision of the Common Council is wrong, unpardonable and the result of RACISM of some of the members of the Common Council, who seem to be more concerned with doing the bidding of the racists among us than doing the right thing, doing what is good for the community and good for the city.

Gulamhusein A. Abba

We are keeping the discussion alive! Read more about it from the NewsTimes.
From The Newstimes

A Republican on the Common Council said race played a part in the council's decision not to restore about $25,000 in funding to the Hispanic Center of Greater Danbury.

"I think it was all racially motivated," Jane Diggs said during Tuesday's Common Council meeting.

Diggs, who is black, also said members of her party used "secretive" and "underhanded" tactics in its dealings with the Hispanic Center. Click Here to finish the story

Click here to read more stories on the Hispanic Center.

Part 1:


Part 2:

This is good stuff. You definitely want to read the White Papers.

Moderator:
Ed Volpintesta, MD, Primary Care Physician, Bethel

Guests:
Danbury Cardiologists Lawrence Fisher, MD and Jeffrey Schmierer, MD

Program will highlight current strategies on causes and prevention of heart disease and treatment.

VIDEO COMING SOON!

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

From The Independent.co.uk
By Patrick Cockburn
Thursday, 5 June 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.


The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.