• NEWS;
  
• THE FY12-13 BUDGET GAME:  http://www.courant.com/news/politics/budget/
  
• Representative Town Meeting "RTM" not recognized as a form of government by Courant article?  See Greenwich story here.
  
• More emphasis coming in 2011 on seeing ourselves as one state in a region (perhaps called New England)?
• About the situation in other U.S. States.
  

Fireworks in Greenwich 2012?
The Mother Nature variety, as show above, in her July 4th spectaculars in Washington, D.C. and Weston.

RTM chairmanship in state of flux
Neil Vigdor, Greenwich TIME
Published 06:51 p.m., Saturday, July 7, 2012

The status of one of the top office holders in the Representative Town Meeting, whose fellow committee members have accused him of overstepping his authority, is in limbo without a specific road map for adjudicating the rare feud because of questions over parliamentary procedure.

The RTM Finance Committee voted in May to form a special investigatory panel to look into alleged misconduct by the group's chairman, Gordon Ennis, who is said to be at odds with his colleagues over the sharing of internal documents such as emails and reports, as well as the tenor of their communications.  But the probe, which is expected to be spearheaded by Joan Caldwell, the legislative body's second in command, has yet to get under way.

"The question becomes, do they have the right to set up such a committee?" Caldwell told Greenwich Time. "And if they do, fine. And if they don't, who does?"

A recent update of "Robert's Rules of Order", which prescribes different sets of procedures for removing a governing body officer dependent on whether the person has a set term length, is further complicating the process.

"It's about the procedures," Caldwell said. "Until we're sure that the procedure is being protected and that the RTM, the committee and I are on solid ground, there's a reluctance to go forward. It could work out fine this time, become a precedent and next time be challenged."

Town Attorney John Wayne Fox rendered a legal opinion that the Finance Committee was within its power to create the special panel, but that it needs to be ratified either by RTM Moderator Thomas Byrne or a vote of the full 230-member legislative body.

"Depending upon what they find, there could be hearings down the road," Fox said.

A message seeking comment was left for Byrne, who earlier this year met with Ennis and aggrieved committee members to try to mediate the dispute.  All but two of the committee's 12 members then backed a motion to remove Ennis "for cause," but the coup attempt was thwarted after the town attorney concluded the action did not follow due process.  Additional questions linger over who will ultimately decide Ennis' fate as chairman, a position he has held for the past 2 1/2 years.

"It is my opinion it would not be appropriate for the Finance Committee to be the trier of fact when the Finance Committee has already taken a vote and made a determination as to what it feels ought to be the final outcome," Fox said.

Ennis acknowledged that the feud has taken its toll on the committee, which is charged with reviewing nine-figure town budgets, labor contracts and other fiscal policy matters.

"I'm afraid we're in for some tough sailing," Ennis said. "I don't know that the committee can be effective."

Those familiar with the rift say it stems in large part from a special report on town property leases that was compiled by several of Ennis' subordinates, who then became irked when the chairman tried to unilaterally edit the document.  Relations between Ennis and his Finance Committee colleagues became so strained that they accused him of freezing them out of electronic and written correspondence, as well as name-calling.  Among those Finance Committee members with whom Ennis is known to have clashed is Rob Perelli-Minetti, co-chairman of the group that prepared the lease report.

Perelli-Minetti declined to comment on the basis of the pending investigation or to address Ennis' statements.  Ennis expressed his frustration with what he characterized as a lack of cooperation and follow-through by committee members.

"Some of the new additions are just not of the caliber of the people we had in the last session," Ennis said. "The performance of the Finance Committee during this last budget review that was completed in May was just dismal and very disappointing. You can't just mail it in and that's what actually happened."

Along the San Andreas Fault?
Click above for the answer, but it looks to us as if this is not important to the secession talk.

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Natives here have long called this area the Inland Empire, a grand title for a stretch of cities about 50 miles east of Los Angeles. Now, a few political leaders are hoping this empire will lead a movement to break off from the State of California.

Frustrated by a state government he calls “completely dysfunctional” and “totally unresponsive,” a conservative Republican county supervisor is pushing a proposal for roughly a dozen counties in the eastern and southern parts of the nation’s third-largest state — conspicuously not including the heavily Democratic city of Los Angeles — to form a new state to be called South California.

“We have businesses leaving all the time, and we’re just driving down a cliff to become a third-world economy,” said the supervisor, Jeff Stone, who once ran for the Legislature. “Anyone you ask has a horror story. At some point we have to decide enough is enough and deal with it in a radically new way.”

He added: “I am tired of California being the laughingstock of late-night jokes. We must change course immediately or create a new state.”

Mr. Stone’s list of complaints is long — too much money spent on state prisons, too much power for public unions, too many regulations and not enough of a crackdown on illegal immigration. It seems clear that he has struck a nerve in some quarters; he said that his office has been inundated with thousands of e-mails, letters and phone calls supporting his call for secession.

“I’m 59 and have lived here all my life,” one man from Anaheim wrote. “I’m about to leave the state, but if we could break from the liberal counties I’d stay. God bless you and let me know if I can help.”

While several other county supervisors initially dismissed the notion of seceding, on Tuesday the board unanimously approved Mr. Stone’s proposal to plan a conference for California municipal leaders to discuss ways to fix state government or consider secession — although they said they would make sure that no county money or personnel were used to plan such an event.

In many respects, the rest of the state can feel worlds apart from the scenes of sandy beaches and lush wine groves that California is known for. And while the rest of the country thinks about the northern-southern divide of the state, for years the largest differences have been between the coastal and inland areas.

Outside the biggest cities, the landscape is dotted with orange groves instead of palm trees and deserts instead of coastlines, an environment that is generally more rural than urban. The population tends to be poorer and more socially and politically conservative — Republicans outnumber Democrats in all but three of the counties in Mr. Stone’s proposed new state, which includes San Diego.

Calling for secession in difficult economic times is not a new idea — more than 200 such proposals to break up California have been floated since the state was formed in 1850. In 1992, several northern counties held an advisory vote on secession, but it ultimately went nowhere.

The closest any campaign came to success was in 1941, when several counties in Northern California and southern Oregon campaigned to form the state of Jefferson. At the time, the counties said they did not have enough roads and created a “Proclamation of Independence” for the 49th state — Alaska and Hawaii had not yet joined the union.

But just as the movement was gaining traction, Pearl Harbor was attacked, and residents put aside their dreams for a new state to work on the war effort.

Calls to break from the rest the state are not unique to California. Parts of Texas, Florida and Idaho have all tried to divide from their home state in the last several decades. Although the details differ, the story line is basically the same — one part of the state believes it is getting short shrift from the capital.

“The politics of victimhood are very powerful,” said Shaun Bowler, a political science professor at the University of California, Riverside. Mr. Stone’s effort taps into an angry undercurrent among many conservatives in the eastern part of the state. “People have been mad for a long time. They seem to have a sense that if they keep shouting louder that they are right that they will convince the rest of the state that they are right.”

Under Mr. Stone’s proposal the state would have only a part-time Legislature, with lawmakers earning $600 a month. And there would be no term limits. One crucial element of California’s budget structure (and an article of faith among Republicans) would remain: a strict limit on property taxes.

Mr. Stone said he was particularly angered when the state’s budget diverted roughly $14 million from several newly incorporated cities in Riverside County. Jurupa Valley, for example, lost $6.4 million from its anticipated budget just a day before it was officially incorporated.

During the hourlong discussion of the proposal on Tuesday, the debate brought into clear focus the divide between Republicans and Democrats. Several speakers said they were angered by comments from Gov. Jerry Brown’s spokesman, who suggested that anyone who wanted to live with “very conservative right-wing laws” could simply move to neighboring Arizona.

(The spokesman, Gil Duran, did not back down Tuesday, saying that the idea of secession was a “pure joke that doesn’t merit serious attention.” He pointed out that the area Mr. Stone wants to peel off collects more money from the state than it generates. He added, “It’s an escapist fantasy of someone more interested in a political stunt than focusing on his job.”)

Bob Buster, the chairman of the Board of Supervisors, initially called Mr. Stone’s idea a “crazy distraction.” But he acknowledged that there was much to be unhappy about.