New London’s Council Meeting Tonight May Be a Rubber-Stamp Event

UPDATE, June 6: Contrary to the expectations of the person I spoke to before the meeting, there was a 2-hour public comment period during the meeting, as reported by The New London Day (registration required after one day, paid subscription after one week):

“Do the right thing, the ethically right thing. Go beyond the law, give back the deeds,” Sandra Beachy, a city resident, said.

She was one of 18 people from around the state who spoke in favor of Rell’s proposal and in support of the former property owners at Fort Trumbull during the public comment portion of the meeting. Three said they supported the city’s Fort Trumbull redevelopment plan.

“I am here tonight to give vocal support to those councilors who have been working so hard to find a resolution,” said Margo Bernier of Ocean Avenue. “Once the Supreme Court made its decision, we considered it an accomplished fact, a done deal. The highest court in the land made its decision, and whether one agreed with it or not, it was time to move on.”

Comments from Kelo, Cristafaro, and others are addressed elsewhere.
________________________________

Reviewing the agenda (click on today’s date at the link to download the PDF file) of tonight’s New London City Council meeting, two things stick out:

On Page 2 (Item b):

I have been told by someone close to the situation that the referral of the Rell and Sabilia letters to committee may be an attempt to prevent any kind of discussion, debate, and/or public comment at the Council meeting. Though I’m not close enough to the situation to be sure, this looks to potentially be a deliberate slap in the face directed at Governor Rell.

Then on Page 10, there’s this little gem (Item 2):

This would appear to be an attempt to ensure that any discussion between and among Council members of the legal situation takes place outside of public scrutiny.

Someone more familiar with state and federal laws on parliamentary procedure and the like will have to let me know if this apparent attempt to shield Council members from the unpopularity of their positions is in violation of any kind of Open Meeting or Sunshine laws.

Regardless, it doesn’t say much for Council’s eminent domain-supporting majority (four Democrats and one alleged Republican) that they appear to be unwilling to hear the reaction of the holdouts, other city residents, or the two members of the One New London Party minority to what is undeniably a fresh and new proposal from the Governor to break the stalemate. It looks like their minds are made up, and they don’t want to risk any reasonable attempts at persuasion.

The apparent outrages never seem to stop.