Save your money folks and don’t contribute to Bernie Sanders’ campaign. You will be throwing good money away because Bernie Sanders is destined to lose. Why? Because he has been merely grandstanding, apparently only promoting his value as a politician by his continued refusal to fight the good fight for his supporters.
Although Bernie Sanders calls his campaign a political revolution, he is not a fighter. Yes, he gives speeches on issues; and he is an excellent gadfly; however, gadflies don’t fight but merely annoy. And to defeat an opponent with the backing of Wall Street, name recognition, an establishment of professionals in one’s campaign organization with a war chest of $2.5 billion, Bernie Sanders needs to fight and fight hard. After all, isn’t he calling for a political revolution? Giving speeches to an empty Senate chamber may make for great oratory, but elections involve calling out and attacking one’s opponent on one’s political positions and history. Bernie Sanders refuses to do so.
Bernie Sanders keeps saying that he has “enormous respect” for his opponent. But his opponent represents Wall Street, not Main Street, the very evil that he wishes to overthrow, and his opponent would continue the destructive policies of the economy for the middle class, the environment, the Bill of Rights, etc. How can one continue to say that one has enormous respect for someone who would continue the destruction of America for the 99%?
Yes, Bernie Sanders is destined to lose. Next April, the primary will be over and his opponent will win. Those who think otherwise are naive, gullible idealists, if not delusional Pollyannas. Never has a revolution been won solely by cheerleading and minuets; history is full of many involving countless bloodbaths. Permitting oneself and one’s supporters to criticize one’s opponent is not only ethical, but a necessity in order to prevail. It’s not as if substantive criticism constitutes a bloodbath.
Of course, Bernie, as a Senator, has his pension with full benefits to fall back on, and will retire to his country estate and work on his $30 million book deal after his defeat. After all, he is not paying for his campaign, but rather his supporters are. Unfortunately, because of the unwillingness of him and his supporters to confront his opponent in thoughtful, substantive, and critical attacks, his supporters will be doomed to another eight years of his blue-dog Democratic opponent representing the will of Wall Street and enriching the 1%.
In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. And if the people are unwilling to fight the good fight against the tyranny of Wall Street, and the spokespeople of Wall Street, they deserve to lose.
Democrat Loses Election, Then Gets $85K State Job During Hiring Freeze
Sometimes when you lose in politics, you win.
Case in point: Emily Bjornberg, a Democratic political newcomer from Lyme, who was soundly defeated by first-term incumbent state Sen. Art Linares, R-Westbrook, in the Nov. 4 election for the 33rd District state Senate seat in the lower Connecticut River valley.
Next thing you know, Bjornberg, 34, is on the state taxpayer-funded payroll as of March — with an $85,000-a-year position as “senior executive assistant for financial literacy” in the office of Democratic state Treasurer Denise Nappier. More later on what that job title means and what her duties are.
Bjornberg didn’t go through a competitive process or take a test to get the job, because it’s a politically appointed position, not part of the classified civil service — and high-ranking officials such as Nappier and the attorney general and the governor can hire whoever they want in such budgeted positions. There were no other candidates for the job, records show.
There’s constant talk of hiring restrictions during the state’s ongoing budget crisis — including not filling vacancies — but there always seems to be room for somebody with the right connections.
Bjornberg’s work experience, as shown in documents obtained by Government Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request, isn’t typical for one seeking a position in a state agency that handles billions of dollars in state investments. Since 2006, she had worked as director of youth and family ministry at the Deep River Congregational Church, a 22½-hour-per-week, part-time position.
Other entries on the resume include: administrative assistant at an accounting firm in Norwich from February 2005 to July 2006; and a volunteer coordinator from August to December 2003 for a Christian-based organization in Johannesburg, South Africa, that offered services including free home-based care for inner-city patients with HIV and AIDS. She also was a unit leader in summer 2003 at the Hole In The Wall Gang Camp in Ashford for children suffering from cancer and chronic illnesses.
So how did Bjornberg get the job, and who helped her?
It appears to be the latest version of an old story of who you know, and who thinks you have a future in politics. People in the state’s Democratic establishment thought that Bjornberg was intelligent and impressive — with a campaign-flier-photogenic family of two kids and an Iraq war veteran for a husband — and that she did well enough in defeat to justify accommodating her desire to work in a government job in the state’s capital city.
Sources said that she liked her first real taste of politics, and that Democrats saw her as a possible candidate for local or legislative office in the future, sources said.
“I have not made a decision” about whether to run again for the 33rd District seat in 2016, Bjornberg said in an interview Friday.
Even with the expected boost that any Connecticut Democrat gets in a presidential election year such as 2016, it would still be a challenge for her to beat Linares (if he runs again that year instead of trying to win election to something bigger, as many believe he will someday). Bjornberg didn’t come all that close last year: Linares got about 56 percent of the vote, compared with Bjornberg’s 43 percent, with just over 1 percent for Green Party candidate Colin Bennett.
Anyway, the basics of what the political sources were saying about Bjornberg and her new state job was confirmed Friday by Howard Rifkin, a veteran Democratic aide who has served for decades in top-level positions for political figures ranging from Gov. William A. O’Neill to Nappier. He’s now retired from full-time service and works part-time for Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman. But Rifkin still is in close contact with Nappier, for whom he served for years as deputy treasurer.
Rifkin said of Bjornberg: “I met her several times in the campaign, and was very impressed.” After the election, Rifkin said, the state Senate’s Democratic caucus asked him “whether I could keep an eye out for potential opportunities for her in state government. … They reached out and said she’s great, and I agree, so I referred her over to Denise Nappier.” Nappier had a couple of vacant, politically appointed executive-assistant positions that she wanted to fill. “I sent her the resume … and they talked and one thing led to another and she was offered a position.”
Rifkin took about less than three minutes to give a clearer and more concise explanation than Nappier’s office has produced in the three weeks since Government Watch sent written questions about how the hiring occurred as well as the FOI request for documents involving it.
What does the “senior executive assistant for financial literacy” do? The treasurer’s office provided a long explanation involving phrases like “assist in carrying out the duties of the Treasury’s corporate governance function.”
According to Nappier’s director of communications, David Barrett, the term “financial literacy” means: “To promote an understanding of personal money management that will empower the people of Connecticut with information and training that can help them build a better future.”
That involves competency in managing finances in ways such as opening personal bank accounts and planning for a family’s financial future, starting with school-age children and ranging up through adulthood, according to treasurer’s office officials and Rifkin. Nappier’s office has worked with corporations and banks on such programs to assist the public in past years, and although “financial literacy” is part of Bjornberg’s job title, she’s not the first employee in the office who has ever worked on it, officials say.
Bjornberg also will assist in administration the Connecticut Higher Education Trust and its annual scholarship program, and will provide “administrative support services and assist in coordinating and conducting research in various areas.” One example is helping the office perform its statutory responsibilities concerning more than a dozen “quasi-public authorities,” a treasurer’s office document says.
One of the big Connecticut Democrats she was in touch with about getting a job was U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, an email from last December showed.
Asked about it Friday, Courtney said in a statement: “I got to know Emily well over the past two years, learning about her work overseas and in eastern Connecticut. On the campaign trail, I saw firsthand that she is a powerful advocate who connects with young people and cares deeply about her community. After the election, I met with her to discuss how she could exercise her passion for public service, and sent her resume to a contact in Hartford in case a suitable opportunity for her came along.”
Bjornberg was interviewed Friday by speaker phone from a room in Nappier’s office where Barrett, the communications director (who was editor of The Courant two decades ago) also was present.
She didn’t have much to say.
“We have instructed Emily to answer factual questions that amplify the responses that we sent to you,” Barrett said, referring to written answers that Nappier’s office provided Thursday night in response to questions that The Courant submitted April 16. Those responses were far less specific than Rifkin’s comments.
When Bjornberg was asked how she learned of the availability of the job in Nappier’s office and how she landed it, there was a long pause as she and Barrett consulted at their end of the line. When they came back, Bjornberg said she would not go beyond the office’s written response. She also declined to disclose her most recent salary.
Here are some of the written responses that Barrett referred to, which were prepared and sent to The Courant by the office’s general counsel, Catherine E. LaMarr:
“Before discussing the specific hire [of Bjornberg], it may be helpful to understand something of the Office’s needs in the areas of the position’s responsibilities and the Office’s tradition of leadership in corporate governance and promotion of financial education — especially under the Nappier Administration. It may also be helpful to understand the number of the Treasurer’s ex officio board seats and attendant responsibilities.”
In the category of “Corporate Governance,” LaMarr wrote: “Institutional investors have long appreciated the benefits derived from investment in companies with sound corporate governance, responsible environmental practices and appropriate treatment of employees and communities where such companies do business. … [W]ith recent enhancement of available analytical tools for assessing performance, data gathering, research and analysis is necessary as this Office prepares and files shareholder resolutions and works to advance shareholder friendly legislation and rulemaking.”
Under “Financial Education,” she wrote: “With a desire to ensure that adults and youth, particularly those among Connecticut’s under-served populations, gain access to financial education programs to help them achieve economic self-sufficiency and greater personal financial management skills, this Office has collaborated with businesses and non-profits to develop and launch more than a dozen programs to serve both general and targeted populations.”
LaMarr also wrote: “Emily Bjornberg came to the attention of the Office of the Treasurer in multiple ways. Ms. Bjornberg recalls spending time with Denise Nappier during the campaign season, affording an opportunity to learn something of this Office and build a rapport. In addition to this interface, Ms. Bjornberg was also referred to this Office by individuals with knowledge of both the needs of the Office and Ms. Bjornberg’s skills.”
“During courtesy interviews,” LaMarr wrote, “the Office of the Treasurer learned more about the depth and breadth of Ms. Bjornberg’s research skills and her experience working with people in the lower half of the income spectrum, which is undoubtedly where the rubber hits the road for financial literacy. Emily Bjornberg has spent her professional career working inside of non-profits and communities of faith all over the planet. She has run an AIDS clinic in downtown Johannesburg, founded a non-profit that provides services for children living with serious illness, and nurtured broad coalitions of community organizations that work together to make this world a better place for people living at the lower end of the income spectrum.”
“These experiences have developed a critical skill set that is transferrable from her work in the non-profit and faith-based communities to that of the Office of the Treasurer. Demonstrated cultural competency, proficiency in communication and coalition building, and a demonstrated understanding of and experience with critical resources (i.e. WIC, food pantries and soup kitchens, youth educational and enrichments programs and healthcare providers) established Ms. Bjornberg as an inspired and unique candidate to fill the position of Executive Assistant responsible for financial education and other activities of the Policy Unit.”
The latest victim of police violence is a 12 year old innocent and unarmed boy from Cleveland. It was reported that he was shot and killed for having an air pistol that a rookie police officer mistook for a real gun.
And in New York an innocent 28 year old man was killed by a rookie police officer in an unlit stairwell.
Who will protect citizens from police officers who shoot first and ask questions later?!
Isn’t it time we hold police officers and their superiors responsible for these murders, and instead of placing them on paid administrative leave with benefits, just put them in jail as is done for murderers?
Police officers are public servants, not soldiers in Kabul fighting the Taliban. Our hometowns are not battlegrounds. In the United Kingdom police officers ordinarily are not armed and behave as true public servants. It is time to disarm our police officers and transform them from soldiers to public servants so they stop killing innocent citizens.
Tom Foley refused to attend the last televised Connecticut Gubernatorial debate broadcasted by NBC Connecticut, WVIT, Channel 30, October 23, 2014. In my opinion, his refusal showed a disrespect to Connecticut voters and our democratic process.
The people of Connecticut deserve to know the specifics of Tom Foley’s plan to bring more jobs back to Connecticut and to control spending. All I have heard from Tom Foley is basically generalities about deregulating business and making Connecticut more business friendly. Gee, is that going to bring all of those millions and millions of jobs back from China, India, the Philippines, Mexico, South Korea, et al, where workers are paid as little as $0.25 per hour?! LOL! Fat chance, Tom.
Dear Mr. Foley:
You are running for Governor of Connecticut. If you want the peoples support, you have to go out and woo them, not by attack ads on Governor Malloy, but by explaining how you precisely can turn this state around. You have failed to tell me precisely on how you will do this.
In addition, debates are part of our democratic process. In spite of all of your millions of dollars, you are not entitled to be anointed and crowned as Governor of Connecticut. You have to win an election by persuading the voters that you can do better than Governor Malloy.
Not too long ago, Republican State Senator, John McKinney, was quoted as saying this of Tom Foley:
“Tom Foley appears to think he is entitled to this election…. He offers no specifics, refuses to answer questions about his positions on issues and challenges reporters and citizens who confront this lack of detail.”
And this from not only a Republican State Senator but the Minority Leader in Connecticut’s Senate!
Your absence told me everything about you. I, for one, certainly hope you are not crowned Governor of Connecticut in November. We don’t need another multimillionaire in politics whose effective marginal tax rate is lower than that of the average working Connecticut voter.
“There are some in Berlin who would have the public believe that our police force is the height of militarization. Fortunately, the facts don’t support their claims,” [Berlin Mayor Rachel] Rochette said….
In a phone interview, [Berlin] police Chief Paul Fitzgerald disputed the claim that the department is militarized…
According to Channel 3 News, “Berlin looks to build $21 million police department“, on August 25th, Berlin Police Deputy Chief “Klett said there isn’t necessarily military equipment in the department….” On the video, Klett states, “we do not have any, per se, military equipment.”
Under a Freedom of Information Act request, I obtained the following inventory of weapons of the Berlin Police Department:
Seventeen (17), and one (1) on order, of Colt AR-15, 5.56mm rifles (one to be carried in each marked cruiser)
Forty-eight (48) Smith & Wesson Model M&P45, .45 caliber handguns
(CNN) — One moment, a man reaches into his vehicle after a South Carolina trooper asked for his driver’s license.
Seconds later, the trooper shoots him, and the man asks why. Days afterward, prosecutors aren’t satisfied with the answer.
Authorities released dash-camera video Wednesday showing what they say is Sean Groubert, a decorated South Carolina Highway Patrol trooper, shooting Levar Jones, who was unarmed, in the parking lot of a gas station just outside Columbia on September 4.
Jones, 35, survived the shooting. But Groubert, who has since been fired for the incident, has been charged with aggravated assault and battery, a felony that could get him up to 20 years in prison if convicted, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division said Wednesday.
Cop shoots him as he reaches for wallet
“The force administered in this case was unwarranted, inconsistent with how our troopers are trained, and clearly in violation of department policies,” South Carolina Public Safety Director Leroy Smith said last week in announcing Groubert’s firing.
This wasn’t the first time Groubert had fired his weapon. He was lauded the previous time: His department gave him a medal of valor for an incident in which he and another trooper shot and injured a man who had shot at them in 2012, SCPSD spokeswoman Sherri Iacobelli said.
Patrol officer beats woman
‘Why did you shoot me?’
In this year’s incident, police said Groubert, 31, stopped Jones in the parking lot of a Circle K station in daylight, for what police say was an alleged seat belt violation, around 5 p.m.
Video that authorities say was recorded from Groubert’s police car shows the trooper driving up to a vehicle just as its driver — who authorities say is Jones — steps out of the vehicle.
When Groubert asks for Jones’ license, Jones pivots toward the vehicle he just exited — the driver’s door is still open — and leans inside as if to retrieve something, the video shows.
About two seconds later, the trooper that police identify as Groubert comes into view with a gun drawn and yells “Get out of the car! Get out of the car!” The gun is fired — at least four shots are heard — and Jones steps away from the vehicle, raising his hands in the air and eventually moving off camera.
“I just got my license! You said get my license!” says someone off camera, apparently Jones.
After being told to put his hands behind his back, Jones asks: “What did I do, sir?”
“Are you hit?” asks another off-camera voice, apparently Groubert’s.
“I think so,” comes the response. “I can’t feel my leg. I don’t know what happened.”
The conversation continues:
“Why did you shoot me?”
“Well, you dove head-first back into your car. Then you (unintelligible), I’m telling you get out of your car.”
Ohio man shot by police in Walmart store
Shot in the hip
Jones was shot in the hip, CNN affiliate WACH reported. He was taken to a hospital and later released, authorities said.
Jones was found not to be armed, Smith said.
“I believe this case was an isolated incident in which Mr. Groubert reacted to a perceived threat where there was none,” Smith said last week.
In a court hearing Wednesday night, a judge ordered Groubert held with bond set at $75,000, WACH reported.
CNN’s attempts to reach Groubert’s and Jones’ lawyers weren’t immediately successful.
In explaining Groubert’s firing Friday, Smith said the department’s policy on using force says that officers can use “only the level of force necessary to accomplish lawful objectives.”
“That protocol was not followed in this case. Further, this incident occurred in broad daylight. Mr. Groubert had a clear and unobstructed view of Mr. Jones,” Smith said.
The shooting, Smith said, “deviates from SCDPS standards and cannot be tolerated.”
Medal of valor
Groubert, who joined the Highway Patrol in 2005, earned kudos for the other time he’d fired his gun in the line of duty.
Police said Groubert stopped a car that had passed him at a high rate of speed in Richland County in August 2012. The driver eventually took off without permission, and Groubert pursued him, police said.
Another trooper joined the pursuit, and the driver stopped at a bank, exited his vehicle and fired shots at both troopers in the parking lot, police said.
Groubert and the other trooper returned fire, injuring the suspect, the SCDPS said. At some point, it appeared that the suspect intended to go inside the bank, Iacobelli said.
That suspect was charged with attempted murder and convicted in 2013, according to the SCDPS.
The SCDPS gave Groubert a medal of valor in 2013 for his handling of the incident, Iacobelli said.
CNN’s Carma Hassan and Vivian Kuo contributed to this report.
Ferguson police threaten to kill peaceful protestors and reporters.
In the video, a police officer appears to be heard yelling to a reporter, “Get the fuck out of here and get that light off, or you’re getting shot with this.” Later on, the reporter with KARG Argus radio quotes the police officer as having said to him, “Get the fuck out of here or I will shoot you with this.”
The second video shows a Missouri police who was caught on video raising his weapon and telling Ferguson protesters that he would kill them.
“I will fucking kill you!” Albers shouts on video, his weapon pointed at unarmed protesters. When asked his name, Albers can be heard telling the protester: “Go fuck yourself.”
Are police officers just too aggressive today? Is our nation becoming a police state?
Berlin’s local police do not need SWAT rifles. Judge for yourself.
Berlin Mayor Rachel Rochette’s argument for a new police station may be predicated on faulty facts
On Monday, August 25, 2014 in an interview with John Charlton of Fox Connecticut News, Berlin Mayor, Rachel Rochette, presented her case for a new police station by suggesting that the present Berlin police station is too small for the present number of Berlin police employees since “it was built in 1972, and it was built for a police force of fourteen officers and two support staff.”
But according to the Berlin Police Department’s own website, the main premise of her argument may rest on erroneous facts. According to the Police Department’s website, the current police station was not occupied by the Berlin Police Department in 1972. “May 15, 1975 saw the relocation of the police department from Murray Heights to the newly constructed Municipal Complex on Kensington Road.” Furthermore, if one adds up all the employees who were added to the police department, in that year there appears to be twenty-seven full-time police officers, and two clerks; not fourteen police officers and two clerks, as reported by Mayor Rachel Rochette.
Moreover, according to the information on the same website, in 1976 the department added four more full-time officers, bringing the grand total of police employees to thirty-three. It is not unreasonable to assume that these additions of police officers, or at the very least their need, were recognized, if not anticipated, in the immediately preceding year; consequently, it is not at all unlikely that the current police station was designed and constructed for an intended occupancy of at least thirty-three employees, and not merely for sixteen employees, as asserted by Mayor Rachel Rochette. That difference in design capacity represents a police station accommodating 100% more police employees than what Mayor Rachel Rochette stated on the televised evening news the other night.
Needless to say, that difference in original design capacity impacts the argument of whether Berlin’s Police Department has outgrown its present facility. If it were merely designed for sixteen employees, Mayor Rochette’s argument would be much more difficult to refute; however, if it were designed for at least thirty-three employees, if not more, then perhaps the Berlin Police Department has not outgrown the current police station but may have grown disproportionately and unnecessarily large in size as required by the growth of population of Berlin.
Consider the population growth in Berlin since 1976. It increased by ~35% since that time. If the size of the police staff now had remained in the same proportion to the population as it were in 1976, the police department would now have ~45 employees instead of the 55 officers and support staff currently employed in our police department. The fact that this number of police department employees is comparable to that in Farmington, Connecticut, even though Farmington’ population is ~20% larger than that of Berlin, lends some credence to the 45 staff size as the appropriately required number of employees in Berlin’s Police Department in relation to its population size.
If no more than 45 employee are absolutely necessary to operate Berlin’s Police Department, a more viable, less costly alternative to building a new police station in order to accommodate the lack of room at the current Police Department may be simply to lay off some police employees as well as to dispose of and/or to arrange for offsite storage of riot helmets, body armor, chemical equipment, SWAT rifles, etc. This might save many millions of dollars for Berlin’s taxpayers from not having to spend an additional $23 million plus on a new police station as well as from the significant reduction in police salaries and fringe benefits over many years resulting from the layoffs.
What may be disconcerting to some Berlin citizens is that Mayor Rachel Rochette may have predicated her argument for the need for a new police station on materially incorrect facts. And if indeed a mayor of a town does not have one’s specific facts straight, then how can the citizens of that town be expected to have confidence in the merit of that mayor’s position in support of a very expensive project, which may have significant financial ramifications for its taxpaying citizens?
It is customarily expected, especially for elected officials, to get one’s facts straight first in order to avoid misinforming and misleading those whom one governs, and, equally as important, in order to avoid making a decision leading to unnecessary costs for them.
Berlin’s Deputy Police Chief, John Klett, recently stated that the Berlin Connecticut Police Department has forty-two police officers and thirteen support-staff employees. Consequently there appear to be fifty-five employees working in the Berlin Police Department.
On the website of the nearby Town of Farmington, forty-one employees are listed as comprising its Police Department staff. One may wonder why, even though Farmington has a population 27.5% larger than that of Berlin, the number of employees in Berlin’s police department is 34% larger than that of Farmington’s Police Department.
The reason is not because the Town of Berlin has a higher crime rate than that of Farmington, Connecticut. In 2012, the most recent year of municipal statistics available on theCity-Data.comwebsite, the published crime rate of Berlin was significantly much lower than that of Farmington. In 2012 Berlin had a “low” crime rate, with no murders or rapes. In fact, Berlin’s crime rate in 2012 was one-third of the average crime rate in the US. By comparison, Farmington’s crime rate was 46% higher than that of Berlin. So why do Berlin taxpayers need to finance 34% more police employees than those in Farmington, when its population is 27.5% larger and its crime rate is 46% higher? Are the Farmington Police officers just simply smarter and better at their jobs?
In spite of the Berlin Police Department’s low crime rate, it still finds it necessary to equip themselves with riot gear, body armor, bullet proof vests, chemical equipment, swat rifles, etc, creating a lack of storage space at its present location. Perhaps if the Berlin Police Department did not have all of this military equipment, it would not require a larger facility for storage. Do you recall the Berlin Police Department ever having need for riot helmets, body armor, swat rifles, and chemical equipment in Berlin? Was there ever a riot in Berlin? Was there ever a gang shootout in Berlin? What’s next? MRAPs, humvees, machine guns, grenade launchers, camouflage, helicopters, and planes?
But storage and size of staff are not the only reasons cited for a new Police station. The Berlin Police Department also wants a new station because it believes that it needs bullet-proof windows and bullet-proof walls in its building, fearing that someone will attempt to shoot the Police Chief in his office, employees through the walls in its central storage area, which already has bullet-proof glass protecting its occupants from Berlin citizens, and other areas of the building. That certainly says a lot about how the Police view the Berlin taxpayers who pay their salaries, doesn’t it?
If some crazy nut case really wanted to shoot Berlin’s Police Chief or other police employees, even if there were bullet-proof windows and walls in the station, couldn’t they just wait and shoot them walking to their cars, or at their homes, or on the street? Does the Town of Berlin require a police station in its quiet suburb community of peaceful, friendly, respectable, and respectful citizens, or a military garrison as found in Afghanistan? Do the Berlin police regard themselves as peace officers or soldiers? Do the Berlin police regard the Town of Berlin as a battleground or as a community of taxpaying citizens whom they have been entrusted to protect and serve? Do Berlin Police officers regard the citizens of Berlin as the enemy instead of as those whom they are bound to serve and protect and who are the ultimate source of funds for their salaries?
If there is a low crime rate and there have been no recent murders, why has the Berlin Police Department been purchasing swat rifles, riot helmets, bullet-proof vests, body armor, and chemical equipment? Do the citizens of Berlin really need a Fort Bragg in their bedroom community? Can the citizens of Berlin afford a “Taj Mahal”? Or does Berlin’s Police Department simply just need to exercise some common sense, some respect for its citizens, and some concern shown to the taxpayers of Berlin for the affordability of its department?
The Town of Berlin deserves a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of all municipal services. Rather than hire additional police officers every year in a community with a low crime rate, perhaps it would be wiser to hire an internal auditor who would report directly to the Town Council to undertake some much needed cost-benefit analyses as well as efficiency and operational audits of the various municipal departments in Berlin. Perhaps a “crime” to which Berlin citizens should give some consideration and which is not being addressed by the Town of Berlin is that resulting from there being “a fox in the hen house”.
It’s unfortunate for citizens that the gouging of taxpayers is not a crime. If it were, then maybe working-class citizens could afford to live in Berlin and other communities in Connecticut.
Are Berlin police officers transforming from peace keepers to soldiers? Should Berlin taxpayers consider scaling down and demilitarizing their Police Department? Perhaps Berlin taxpayers need to consider the pictures below of what has been transpiring in many cities across the country:
John Klett, Deputy Chief of the Berlin Connecticut Police Department, recently published a video tour of the current Berlin Police Station, which is forty years old. Mr. Klett catalogues an endless number of deficiencies in the current police station, including steel bars on the cells, unpleasant odors in the cells, inadequate number of female cells in relation to male cells, lack of private showers for female inmates, lack of bullet proof windows in the Police Chief’s office, lack of bullet proof walls in the data processing room, lack of storage for bullet proof vests, chemical gear, and riot armor, lead contamination in the firing range, etc.
After watching this video, I checked my address to see where I lived? Was I truly living in Mayberry (aka Berlin) or Detroit? Do the Berlin Police know where they are located? Have they checked the crime statistics for Berlin? Well, folks, here they are:
17.24 Crimes per 1,000 People
murder rate 0.00
rape rate 0.00
robbery rate 0.26
aggravated assaults 16
assault rate 0.83
burglary rate 2.86
larceny rate 12.76
auto thefts 10
auto theft rate 0.52
arson rate 0.10
density index 43.67
As you can see, our crime rate is very, very low, with no reported violent crimes!
Consequently, my question to the Berlin Police Department is the following: do you know where you are? 19,000 Berlin citizens are peaceful, respectable law-abiding citizens. Yes, it is true, Berlin has the occasional drunken driver, domestic quarrel, petty theft, pedaphile, and hooker, but truly, do we warrant a Police Station designed for the crime-ridden streets of Detroit? Do the Berlin Police think that Berlin residents are the Taliban since they require body armor, bullet proof vests, riot gear, chemical equipment, bullet proof walls and windows, swat rifles and handguns capable of blowing one’s head off, as well as firing ranges in preparation for D-Day? Isn’t that insulting to the Berlin residents and taxpayers, who pay their salaries and who will foot the $21 million bill for their Fort Bragg?
If the Berlin Police do not think that Berlin residents are the threat to their safety, then who do they think will drive by and riddle their building with bullets, mortars, and grenades? Have there ever been reports of any bullets fired into the office of the Police Chief or the data processing room? Who do they think would be crazy enough to drive by their heavily armed garrison and shoot at it? Michael Corleone?
When was the last time the Berlin Police needed to use riot helmets, body armor, chemical gear, and swat rifles? Has there ever been a riot in Berlin necessitating the use of such weaponry and equipment? If there had been, I sure missed it!
Maybe we don’t need a bigger, newer Police Station. Maybe we don’t need forty-two police officers, thirteen support staff, and both a police chief and a deputy police chief. Maybe we don’t need a police state in Berlin, Connecticut. Maybe we just need a friendly, neighborly, and practical Sheriff, like Andy Taylor, with Gomer and Goober as stand-ins. Do we really need a gang of Barney Fifes indulging in overkill (pun intended)?
After listening to the litany of deficiences of our current police station in this virtual tour, I was surprised that Deputy Chief Klett didn’t include the following deficiencies in the current police station facility:
An indoor swimming pool to keep police officers in tip-top shape
A Dunkin’ Donuts to reduce coffee runs
Machine gun turrets to protect the department from a citizen uprising
A tiger tank for a show of force
A nuclear fallout shelter in the event of an Iranian attack
Perhaps you can add a few of your own.
Good grief, Deputy Chief Klett: don’t you think your video tour was a bit of a stretch?
Whoever said, “man cannot live on bread alone”, apparently never ate Carole Romatis Brighenti’s home-cooked, crusty French bread. Not all men are alike. And neither are all French loaves. If you want French bread tastier than that sold in any neighborhood bakery, you gotta try baking and then eating this recipe for crusty French bread. […]
Every year I compose a menu for Thanksgiving Dinner, a meal based on Thanksgiving memories from my childhood. I typically place a copy of this on the door to my refrigerator for family members, who inevitably would ask me “what’s for dinner”, thereby sparing me from repeating over and over again the litany of all […]
In Louisiana, it’s called Barbecue Shrimp even though it is not barbecued outside on a grill but cooked in a saute pan. Go figure. What I like about this recipe is that this recipe is a variant of Buffalo Wings; however, instead of chicken wings, it’s done with shrimp. Neat, huh? The only “con” about […]
Indulge yourself in the bright flavors of the beautiful resort Island of Santorini: shrimp sizzlingly sautéed in a skillet with feta cheese, kalamata olives, tomatoes and garlic. You don’t have to be Greek to prepare this feast fit for the gods; nor do you have to be Greek to enjoy Shrimp a la Santorini. You just […]
Do you like pasta but feel it’s too hot during the summer to simmer your sauce like Nonna did? Are you looking for an alternative to preprocessed pasta dinners? Here’s the perfect summer pasta dish! I call my husband “pasta boy”. I need to cook pasta not only 24 hours a day, but 365 days a […]
My brother wanted our Dad’s Texas Chili recipe for hot dogs, so instead of mailing it to him, I decided to publish it on my blog so he will visit my recipe blog. Yes, I am the older, bossy, nagging sister, but he loves me. And I love his two adorabe daughters. The youngest daughter […]
My husband hated broccoli until I served him my Italian broccoli salad. I grew up eating broccoli salad because my mother, whose parents were from Naples, Italy, would serve it to me. In case you don’t know, Italians eat what grows nearby, and typically spice it up in Mediterranean fashion with lemons, garlic, and olive […]
Here is an interesting chicken dish that was featured on Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives. Chicken is a perfect canvas for intense flavors, including lemon, garlic, oregano, and olive oil. The result is a juicy, tasty, economical dinner. 1 3 to 4 lb. chicken split in half 2 Lemons 1 T dry oregano 1 t […]
Carole Romatis, besides being the QuickBooks Guru at Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC, is also the Gourmet Accountant at our firm. It is Carole’s belief that accounting does not have to be a bland subject. Which is why we are always glad to discuss your accounting, QuickBooks, taxes, and business over a glass of wine, while […]