The Dogs Bark, but the caravan moves on

I spent a lot of electrons this time a week ago fretting about last Monday's Norwich City Council deliberations on hiring a lobbyist (in addition to the TWO State representatives and ONE State senator we currently have elected/hired plus others charged with advocating for us in Hartford).

I appreciated the members of the City Council listening as a number of us voiced our concerns at the meeting, before explaining the first step was a 'request for proposal' (their action last week) and they, in concert with the Mayor and the City Manager, would next map a plan of priority projects for this coming legislative session and evaluate potential lobbyists' abilities to assist our elected representatives as part of the selection process. I'm assuming (=hoping) that may be what they do this coming Monday (tomorrow) at 5 P.M. in Room 335 of City Hall as part of the APED (Administrative, Planning and Economic Development) Sub-Committee, of which three of the City Council are members.

Reading one of the daily newspapers this morning that covers Norwich (and usually better than the one that has "Norwich' as part of its name) I came across a column by Paul Choiniere, in Section E ("Perspective") for print fans, and on line for the rest of us, "Insult a Rep, Hire a Paid Lobbyist" which makes many of the points offered at the Council meeting (admittedly more eloquently than most of us last Monday night).

But here's what cranks me--he quotes both Representative Melissa Olsen, who has run unopposed for the 46th district since Peter Nystrom tried (and failed) to unseat Edith Prague for her State Senate seat four years ago (actually, Olsen had a four way Democratic Party primary to get the nomination to start with) as well as the State Senator, herself, as being underwhelmed at the idea of the Norwich City Council hiring a lobbyist to do, in essence, what they should and could be doing. Both of them are quoted in Mr. Choiniere's piece this morning with Senator Prague describing the hiring as "a big waste of money" while Representative Olsen offered "If there is an issue of particular importance to them (Norwich City officials), all they have to do is call me. My only constituency is the city of Norwich."

Considering Representative Olsen was in Council chambers last Monday night, with a copy of the meeting's agenda posted on the wall behind her in the hallway, and that she stayed long enough to hear ALL of Mayor Lathrop's State of the City speech (I believe she actually received a copy of the speech from the Mayor prior to his oration to the rest of the us), I wonder why she didn't choose to remain and offer her opinion of the council's desire to hire a lobbyist during the public comment period that followed the Mayor's reading of the Council's business rules (in their entirety, I might add).
She couldn't have had anything better to do. After all, she's quoted by Choiniere as saying her only constituency is Norwich. Why would you bug out, Ms. Olsen and duck the discussion?
And what, pardon the impertinence Senator Prague, were you doing Monday night that precluded you from attendance at the City Council meeting but being available later to offer your always pithy observations and insights? I've been troubled for years, Senator Prague, by many of your positions and priorities (and much of your politics) and I've NEVER felt you were representing a single one of my concerns in Hartford. It's dismaying to realize I was probably right.

Both Senator Prague and Representative Olsen had an opportunity to ask, as some of us did last Monday evening, for a better and more thoughtful examination of a primary concern for this city. You could have helped shape the discussion by raising your voices but you remained silent. Instead, you both chose sound bytes in a newspaper over a public forum intended to allow and further discussion. For you to look good, somebody else needed to look bad.
Shame on you, on both of you.
Die Hunde bellen, aber die caravan zieht weiter.
-bill kenny