Merry Christmas from the Zandris

“MOVING WALLINGFORD FORWARD”

So it has been suggested there should be a theme or focus for the campaign so after some input from others and some consideration we’ve come up with “MOVING WALLINGFORD FORWARD”

Nothing else seemed to fit as well.

We are not looking to change everything wholesale; for the point of the matter, there are a lot of things Wallingford already does pretty well.

What needs to happen with those things we already do well is to see if we can do them any better. After the assessment, if there is no way to do those things any better, more efficiently, or to have an even greater positive impact to Wallingford then we leave well enough alone and keep executing on those things in that manner.

With the situations where there are improvements to be had, efficiencies to make, process changes to implement and so forth we will do so.

No matter how good or even great you are there is always room for improvement to become better and there is no reason why Wallingford couldn’t stretch and grow and become more than it is today in positive ways.

That’s the goal – an even better Wallingford and we get there moving her forward.

Letter to the editor - Scrapped opportunity

As published in the Record Journal Sunday December 9, 2012

Editor: The Wallingford Law Department’s decision on whether there was any violation of the Charter or the Purchasing Ordinance with respect to the handling of ornamental streetlights indicated no violation occurred and that “neither the Town Charter nor the Purchasing Ordinance prohibits the disposal inoperable/unusable assets.”

The 39 streetlights taken down were fully working at the time, as confirmed by Public Utilities Directory George Adair at a council meeting. In the Record-Journal, Mr. Adair was quoted as saying the division wants the old poles out of circulation. “We don’t consider them suitable. We do not want to perpetuate the use of them . . . We consider them truly to be scrap . . . It’s not something we have interest in at all,” he stated (R-J, 10-24). The lights were viable and working when taken down. They had a value that could have been recovered by another town department as a reused resource or in money received at sale via the surplus list. In the future, other departments may also bypass the process and indicate a “problematic asset” to be designated: “We don’t consider (it) suitable. We do not want to perpetuate the use of (it) . . . We consider (it) truly to be scrap . . . It’s not something we have interest in at all.” Problem solved: send it directly to the scrap hauler for recycle value.

The facts are: the lights were working, no other town department was offered the use of the asset (required by ordinance) and the town didn’t offer the asset up for sale (required by ordinance). At the end of the day, Wallingford lost an opportunity to recover tens of thousands of dollars in asset sales because a process wasn’t followed and there wasn’t proper oversight to catch the error in time.

JASON ZANDRI, WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCILOR

 

A little additional from me regarding my prior comments posted here on the site and the letter to the editor itself; there is already a lot of hand-wringing and the like over this effort to try to outline where an inefficiency of use of process occurred and how it cost us money – actually, it was more of the loss of a recoverable asset but at the same time if we need to spend money on future lights it will become an expenditure.

Does the Public Utilities Commission have other things on their plate? Of course they do. Locking down the best way to secure the $60 million in electric power that Wallingford needs certainly takes center stage.

It doesn’t excuse the error. No one gives A-Rod a pass when he blows a game no matter how many home runs he hit the night before.

I have had to keep saying this because the political spin machine keeps turning it – this was never totally about the Public Utilities Commission or the Wallingford Electric Division specifically; the current situation about the departure from process was and it could have been any town department.

I was elected for a number of reasons and one of them was to be a good steward of Wallingford’s tax dollars and resources in total. I see part of that as resource recovery as well.

I will do that job until I am out of seat number eight on the Council Table.

Enjoying the political humor on a Sunday morning

As published in the Record Journal Sunday December 9, 2012

 

MY TAKE - Zandri’s lamppost probe cut short

Here is the rest of the ongoing story regarding this morning’s article in the Record Journal

This was my request to the Law Department to make a ruling on whether there was any violation of the Charter or the Ordinance:

RE: Review request of the possible violation to the Charter and / or the Purchasing Ordinance

Pursuant to the agenda item at the November 13, 2012 Regular Town Council meeting where the discussion was made regarding the Purchasing Ordinance, the Code of Wallingford and the Town Charter of Wallingford, I am formally requesting that a review be performed by the law department in order to make a determination if there was a violation to the Charter and / or the Purchasing Ordinance.

During the discussion regarding agenda item 9 “Discussion regarding Ornamental Street Lamps” it was uncovered that the working lights were taken down and cut up for recycling. At no time was there any discussion regarding following the Purchasing Ordinance procedure as outlined regarding the paperwork that should have been filled out.

Additionally, the assets never appeared on the surplus list for consideration of anyone that makes bids from that list. To the best of my knowledge neither the purchasing agent nor the Mayor signed off on these items, the Ornamental Street Lamps, to be cut up and recycled for their scrap value, which in my determination should not have occurred before they were put up on the surplus list for sale.

It is in my estimation that these assets were “removed / retired” in a manner inconsistent with the Code of Wallingford and the Wallingford Charter and opposed to the way outlined within the Purchasing Ordinance and I am seeking a determination of this formally.

If there is any additional information that is needed of me to officially make this request please advise as I would like to have an answer to this for future reference and in an effort to set a procedure to avoid problems like this in the future.

 

So it was from this that the final ruling was made:

This ruling was made based on the determination that 39 working lights were scrap not on the fact that 39 working assets were handled in a way inconsistent with current procedures of most of the other town departments.

So if this discretion is going to be given in this manner as latitude, it would not be unheard of someday for a department to indicate a troublesome pickup truck of theirs to be designated as follows:  “We don’t consider (it) suitable. We do not want to perpetuate the use of (it). ... We consider (it) truly to be scrap,”  “It’s not something we have interest in at all.”

That is all that is required to get around the rules. Make that assessment and you do not need to follow the procedure of contacting purchasing to handle the offering to other town departments for reuse or in the event no other department wants them, the sale to eligible private individuals that are qualified purchasers via the surplus list.

Just say they are scrap and you can have it handled under any open recycle contract the town uses.

The detractors can put all the spin they want on this – at the end of the day working lights were taken down and cut up for recycle material when they clearly had more value.

There are still lights of the old style left that other departments in town are responsible for; when they need parts for them and come asking the Council for money to buy them people are then going to wish the ones that were cut up and disposed of were properly put on the surplus list for consideration of other departments like the purchasing ordinance calls for.

Wallingford lost out on an opportunity to recover money against sold assets and / or the ability to leverage used parts from the removed lights for the ones that still remain.

That is a loss of recovery revenue and it will impact your taxes effectively twice over.

We did not receive proper value for these retired assets in their sale so that is an income loss. No money came in from a sale because the sale never happened.

We will need to make additional purchases to repair and / or replace the remaining original style lights and that is an outbound expenditure.

Generally speaking, Wallingford does a good job at managing expenditures / assets and for being fiscally responsible.

This entire event was neither and all the posturing has made it worse.

An admission “a mistake was made and here is how it can be avoided in the future” was all that was needed to get us right back on the rails but that was nowhere to be found and it is still being resisted today.

Let’s see what, if anything, useful comes out of the Ordinance meeting on the matter.

On the surface I am doubtful because the original ordinance was skirted in the first place – what good it is to modify an existing ordinance or create a new one when we do not enforce or follow the ones in the way they exist today?

I’ll leave it at “guess we’ll see” and go from there

I guess Craig likes to make his point (but not deal with the counter point)

Over on Facebook Craig Fishbein decided to post the Record Journal follow up story regarding the lights downtown and add his own commentary.

His Facebook wall, his prerogative.

I responded to it on his wall and he decided that he wanted to take that part of the conversation off line so he sent me a private message as part of an ongoing conversation on the topic.

I’m good with taking the discussion offline.

It is a shame that he only deleted my commentary from his wall and left his.

Again - His Facebook wall, his choice.

This is my blog and my screen capture of the original response.

Zandri vs. Dickinson: ‘Unstoppable’ taking on the ‘immovable’?

As published in the Record Journal Monday December 3, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ

WALLINGFORD — Many have tried, and a few have even come close. But since 1984, Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. has been the unbeatable man — or in Democrat Jason Zandri’s terms, “an immovable object” in the mayor’s office.

Zandri is the latest in a long line of Democrats—including his own father, Geno Zandri — in three decades to announce he would take on Dickinson, a Republican. As the 43-year-old town councilor declared his intentions at a Democratic Town Committee meeting Wednesday, he posited himself as the “unstoppable force,” referring to the classic physics paradox, to take on the 64 year-old mayor in 2013.

Local Democratic officials believe he’s the first candidate in a while to have the goods to do so, but Republicans think Zandri is banging an old drum with his focus on bringing the Internet to Town Hall. Democrats counter that his ideas go well beyond just technology, and his energy is unflagging.

“I am so excited about Jason’s campaign and candidacy for mayor that for the first time since I left the council in the 1990s the thought has occurred to me to run for that position again,” Peter Gouveia, the Democratic Town Committee vice chairman, said Friday. Gouveia is a former town councilman and was narrowly defeated in two runs for mayor against Dickinson, in 1987 and 1991.

Gouveia said he was impressed by Zandri’s dedication and drive, as did Democratic Town Chairman Vincent Avallone, using the example of Zandri’s push to raise tens of thousands of dollars each year to put on the town fireworks after Dickinson cut them from the town’s Fourth of July celebration.

“I think a perfect example is the fireworks. Nobody thought that anybody could raise $30,000 — and he did it,” Avallone said.

Avallone said that same drive is what has been pushing Zandri to question town department practices in replacing ornamental streetlights in town. Zandri has said he doesn’t believe town protocol was followed when the Electric Division sent 39 streetlights to a scrap metal contractor. The town could have refurbished and kept the lights or recouped much more from selling them, but officials didn’t check to see what all their options were, he said.

Zandri did that check and presented a PowerPoint and video presentation at Tuesday night’s Town Council meeting that juxtaposed statements utilities officials had made at a prior meeting about there not being replacement parts for the lights with those of a staff member from Penn Globe, a company in North Branford that manufactures and refurbishes lights, who said there indeed were parts available.

“It wasn’t to embarrass anybody. The reason was to show that the town could be run more efficiently,” Avallone said. “He’s not comfortable with the status quo.”

Republican Town Chairman Bob Prentice echoed other town Republicans in characterizing Zandri’s interest as micro-managing the town departments.

“I’m not sure where Jason’s coming from with this electric pole thing, whether he’s trying to be an expert with everything that happens in town. That’s why we hire people to do the job. It’d be like the governor coming to run the projects that I do,” said Prentice, who is a project manager with the state.

Though it was not his sole focus, Zandri did address technology in his announcement Wednesday, saying he’d bring the Internet, email and affiliated services to all departments in Town Hall for less than $20,000 a year and institute direct deposit for employee paychecks.

Though prior Democratic candidates, like Vincent Testa, who lost to Dickinson for the second time in 2011, have talked about bringing Internet access to Town Hall— the difference this time is that Zandri, a systems analyst at Bloomberg in New York City, is an information technology professional, Avallone said.

“What Jason’s going to concentrate on is giving specific examples of what technology’s going to do,” Avallone said Friday.

Prentice said the focus by Democrats on technology in Town Hall is old news.

“For at least 10 or 15 years everybody’s talked about new technology — and guess what, we’ve gotten by without added technology,” Prentice said.

Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau, a Republican, agreed that Dickinson is often painted as less computer friendly than he really is, and he said the mayor’s lean approach to technology is often a cost-saving measure.

“It’s not like there’s no technology. There is. Can there be more? Yes, I agree with that, but not every employee needs a screen on their desk,” said LeTourneau. “The mayor — it’s not like he just shuts it down completely, it’s where he thinks it should be.”

As for Zandri’s prospects, the fellow councilor said he thought Dickinson — though he hasn’t yet announced his own bid for the seat — would likely stay in Town Hall after the 2013 election.

“I’m just pretty confident that the mayor will be mayor again. Jason’s a nice guy, he’s a good councilor, but I think he’s more of a fit for the council,” LeTourneau said.

Avallone believes Zandri has a real shot.

“Everybody knows it’s not an easy task, quite frankly,” Avallone said. “This is not a battle against the mayor to defeat Mayor Dickinson. This is not like a personal thing. Jason feels that he’s got better ideas — and I concur — that will make this town better.”

REMINDER–LAST DAY TO WATCH Jason Zandri on ‘Citizen Mike’

Town Councilor Jason Zandri appears on the next edition of the “Citizen Mike” public access show.

Zandri, a candidate for mayor, is interviewed by host Mike Brodinsky and Record-Journal Executive Editor Ralph Tomaselli. Topics discussed include the recent flap over the disposal of light poles, and his decision to run for mayor.

The show airs Wednesday at 9 p.m. on cable channel 19.
Shows can also be viewed on demand at wpaa.tv.

This is the final airing on WPAA; after this evening the episode will be available on demand at WPAA TV.

Comments or suggestions can be sent to citizenmiketv@gmail.com.

Technology: Can it topple Dickinson?

jkurz@record-journal.com (203) 317-2213
Jeffery Kurz – Commentary

As published in the Record Journal Saturday December 1, 2012

Many have tried. Many have failed.

I’m talking about unseating Wallingford’s Republican mayor, William W. Dickinson Jr., who is the longest serving mayor in the state, if you don’t count Prospect’s mayor, Robert Chatfield.

I may have socks older than my children, who are now in their early 20s, but I’m pretty certain I haven’t had any for longer than Dickinson has been Walling-ford’s mayor, which is now 31 years.

Jason Zandri is the latest to throw his hat into the Dickinson-challenging ring. The Democrat, in his first term as a town councilor, announced Wednesday his candidacy. Dickinson has not announced whether he will run again, and said he will wait until after the town’s budget is passed in the spring, but it will come as a shock if he decides not to seek re-election.

In March, the Record-Journal ran a story about how technologically savvy town councilors were increasingly willing to challenge the mayor on issues concerning the internet and other high-tech stuff. Dickinson had departed from his typical stance on technology by allowing the town’s operating budget to be posted on its website — something you wouldn’t think would be all that earth-shattering, but this is Wallingford under Dickinson’s guidance.

Town government remains behind the times generally. Internet access is limited to a few departments at Town Hall in favor of quaint antiquities like telephones and fax machines.

Zandri, who works as a systems analyst at Bloomberg in New York, is among those tech-savvy councilors who have been challenging the mayor, and is poised now to make technology an issue in the campaign.

He’s already demonstrated a flair for campaigning. While announcing his candidacy, he presented a stack of about 60 letters, the correspondence he’d received in four months as a councilor, as an example of the waste that can ensue from avoiding the opportunities of technology. “This stuff can all be done online,” he said. Yep.

In 2005, I penned a piece in this space under the headline “The Luddite in all of us,” about Dickinson’s aversion to town office use of the internet and email. Luddites were workers in 19th century England who smashed textile machinery in response to unemployment and low wages, and the term has come to refer to any person opposed in principle to technological change. I sympathized, to a degree, with the mayor’s position, basically because there have been times when I have wanted to smash my computer.

But we are now seven years farther into a new century and people walk around with computers in their pockets that are far more powerful than what it took to get human beings to the moon. School systems are increasingly allowing students to bring their own devices into the classroom, recognizing the importance of technology in preparing young people for the future. Against this backdrop, technology aversion at Town Hall appears increasingly myopic.

So Zandri appears to have a good issue. He’s already pointing to ways in which technology can help town government operate more efficiently and is pushing for direct deposit for town employees.

He will likely need more. Dickinson may be old fashioned, but there is a powerful comfort level with his leadership — and that is hard to beat.

TECHNOLOGY – When a $20,000.00 service totals $0.00 in budget impact

As part of my announcing my platform and opening a dialog with the electorate I will be discussing my positions and of course countering all the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) that the other camp is disseminating.

In the end you the voter will have a point and counterpoint to review and that is perfectly fine with me; I want an educated voter to step “into the booth” in November to make the choices they feel are the best for Wallingford for the present and which puts us on the right pathway for the next 20 years and beyond.

So in this posting I am going to deal with the costs of paying for the service I am proposing.

In an upcoming post I will deal with all the supposed wasted time that is going to occur from all our employees when they have access to the internet (which is not unfettered, unmetered nor universally accessible).

So what do I mean when I say “When a $20,000.00 service totals $0.00 in budget impact”?

It means creative thinking, outside the box, to commit the departments to the service and not have it cause an expansion to current budget allocations.

I am a Democrat so therefore I am blanket labeled as “tax and spend”. Not much I can do about that out of mouths of the immediate dissenters except prove them wrong at as many turns as I can make.

Anyway – the intention is to make it mandatory for each department to assign email and internet access to the department head and at least one second in command. This is not to be two individuals logging in to the same account but their own accounts. They can have as many additional accounts as they want to tie to their budget.

Their budgets will not be increased for the cost of the service to their department.

If the service costs $7.00 per month per user and they have three users, that will be a charge they will have to pay ($21.00 per month) over the 12 months.

In this scenario, the demand against their budget goes up $252.00; they will not get a budget increase to offset the service cost.

The department is responsible for the difference. They can cut fuel purchases, paper, toner, envelopes, office supplies, etc. and pay for the service in that manner and that is easily done sending more email and printing less.

So now I am sure the pundits that supposedly know more than I do on technology are going to say “what about tech support that we have to hire and the servers and equipment that goes along with it”?

$0.00

We have IT people that can handle the user end of this effort; the systems that are out there in use already should be able to be easily converted to get online. We set them up with the accounts and the access and they are good to go.

The service we may use is a lot like this one from Microsoft called Office365 for Government but there are others that can be looked at as well.

As you can see, you get quite a bit for $7.00 a month (which again as a reminder from the above is ZERO budget increase to the departments).

When you look at the $17.00 per person package ($10.00 more per person) look what it includes:

--  Voicemail
--  Office Professional Plus 2010 desktop version subscription (for up to 5 devices per user)

I am willing to bet you we pay more for the Office software licensing costs alone on the PCs in use in Town Hall already over the course of the year but even if that is not the case, when coupled with something else we need in over half the departments still – VOICEMAIL – it really is simple to see the net savings by combining service offerings.

At this point let’s just stick with the original item – the $7.00 per month per user email service. At the end of the day it is no more extravagant than your GMAIL or HOTMAIL email accounts and most people have those or something from their Internet Service Provider (ISP).

You don’t have a HOTMAIL or GMAIL server in your basement that an IT person has to work on. Your email services, servers and support are all “cloud” based – they are available on demand over the internet.

The professional services for governments and corporations are just the same; they are isolated from others (we would not see North Branford’s mail systems any more than they could see ours) and they are available on demand.

The service itself it is just like your TV / internet service at home; once it is set up and configured it is up and running and it works. If the service goes down you place a call to fix the service as that is part of your service agreement with them.

You have no special contracts with the provider at your home, no employees to hire; if the service goes down you get it fixed.

If the service does go down work doesn’t stop either; people keep working on what they need to do. When service is restored they can then do whatever they needed to do online once the service is back up.

I started this blog post on the lower tracks of Grand Central where there is no service; when I got clear and could catch a data connection I uploaded the post for you to read.

Not a minute wasted and a completely efficient use of “down time.”

So in closing I feel confident that I have explained that this new service, which will generate more openness and serviceability of government to its people, will not be introduced as part of an effort to spend more money and raise people’s taxes.

In fact, with proper execution, service levels should increase and department costs should go down.

Jason Zandri on ‘Citizen Mike’

As published in the Record Journal Sunday December 2, 2012

WALLINGFORD — Town Councilor Jason Zandri appears on the next edition of the “Citizen Mike” public access show.

Zandri, a candidate for mayor, is interviewed by host Mike Brodinsky and Record-Journal Executive Editor Ralph Tomaselli. Topics discussed include the recent flap over the disposal of light poles, and his decision to run for mayor.

The show airs Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday at 9 p.m. on cable channel 19.

Shows can also be viewed on demand at wpaa.tv.

Comments or suggestions can be sent to citizenmiketv@gmail.com.

Response to a letter to the editor in Monday’s Record Journal titled “Good Service”

Here is the letter as published and written by it’s author:

Editor: As a technology coordinator, I realize that there may be some areas where improved technology may be helpful in Wallingford, such as the direct deposit of paychecks as a convenience to employees.

However, after just going through the series of options, clicking buttons and listening to messages while on hold for the Social Security office in Meriden, I can truly appreciate the ability to call into the Wallingford Town Offices and be answered by a real human being who is ready to answer my questions. Some people may call the telephone an antiquated device, but I call this good service for the residents of Wallingford. Let’s not change what isn’t broken. MARY BETH APPLEGATE, WALLINGFORD

I couldn’t agree more with “let’s not change what isn’t broken”.

I would not want to institute a menu tree system into Town Hall; everyone (generally) dials directly into the department they are looking for or they get transferred when they reach the wrong office.

What I would want to add (not really a change per se but rather an add on in the service) would be voicemail.

While some departments and offices have it, others do not.

They all should.

Moving Wallingford forward – it’s what I am all about. Keeping things working that are already working and improving those services with efficiencies and cost savings.

That and adding services where they do not exist today that improve on this.