You are wrong...
Sec. 9-621. (Formerly Sec. 9-333w). Political advertising. (a) No individual shall make or incur any expenditure with the cooperation of, at the request or suggestion of, or in consultation with any candidate, candidate committee or candidate's agent, and no candidate or committee shall make or incur any expenditure for any written, typed or other printed communication, or any web-based, written communication, which promotes the success or defeat of any candidate's campaign for nomination at a primary or election or solicits funds to benefit any political party or committee unless such communication bears upon its face (1) the words "paid for by" and the following: (A) In the case of such an individual, the name and address of such individual; (B) in the case of a committee other than a party committee, the name of the committee and its campaign treasurer; or (C) in the case of a party committee, the name of the committee, and (2) the words "approved by" and the following: (A) In the case of an individual making or incurring an expenditure with the cooperation of, at the request or suggestion of, or in consultation with any candidate, candidate committee or candidate's agent, the name of such individual; or (B) in the case of a candidate committee, the name of the candidate. No candidate or candidate committee or exploratory committee established by a candidate shall make or incur any expenditure for a mailing to promote the success of said candidate's campaign for nomination at a primary or election or the defeat of another candidate's campaign for nomination at a primary or election, unless the mailing contains a photograph of the candidate conducting the mailing and said candidate's name in a font that is not less than the size of the font used for the narrative of the mailing.
Maybe you could educate yourself about election law a little before you make such an ignorant statement. And if, like you say, you have spoken to the place that did the printing, why not name them? And why no Union bug after his fellow Union brothers showed him support? And how do you just ignore the witnesses that have come forward about him printing these at the school, on NL green paper, no less?! I know that Nolan is available at the HS during those hours and is not busy because he wasn't doing anything while the school violated the law by covering up the handicap parking space! The State Elections Enforcement Commission's toll free number is 866-733-2463, call them and speak with one of their attorneys and tell them about the flyer and they will confirm that YOU ARE WRONG!
To be continued...
Monday, December 24, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Football Mess Reveals A Sorry State Of Affairs
This article was printed in The Day
ByChuck Potter, Day Staff WriterPublished on 12/8/2007
BARBARA GILBERT IS THE town manager of Rocky Hill, Conn., the 35th best place to live in America, according to CNN Money Magazine, as reported by, well, Rocky Hill.
Reid Burdick is, uhh, well, he could be the Grand Poobah of the Fraternal Order of New London Guys. “The Burdick,” as he bills himself, tells it like it is, to anyone who will listen.
It's hard to tell which of them is more ticked off about tinkle-gate.
Tinkle-gate is the riff between New London and Rocky Hill officials. On Dec. 4, the New London football team played, and defeated, Cromwell's team. They played at Rocky Hill High School.
Rocky Hill Mayor Tony LaRosa told The Hartford Courant last Sunday that custodians reported that New London players had urinated and defecated on the floor of the Whalers' team room and restroom. LaRosa said there were no witnesses. The Whalers were blamed because it happened in their area.
In a public and televised Town Council meeting last Monday, LaRosa retracted the accusation of defecation.
Gilbert said the allegation went public when the Courant learned of a memo she sent out, which included that information. Consequently, she said, she heard from New London people all week, in various tones of voice, including one who “threatened to pummel the mayor” if he didn't apologize for unfairly accusing the Whalers.
It wasn't Burdick. He's a little more dignified than that. He requested a protest permit. The Rocky Hill Town Council meets on Dec. 17 and the Burdick plans to be there, to protest outside Town Hall and take the two minutes allowed to each citizen who desires to address the mayor and council.
“If enough people want to go, I'll pay for the bus,” he said. “If he exonerates New London, then there's no need to go. If he doesn't, I'm going. Anyone who did something like that should be arrested. But without the facts to prove it was our guys, those kids deserve an apology.”
Burdick called LaRosa a really nice man who commented based on hearsay information, without doing any research.
“This whole mess could have been avoided,” he said.
Gilbert shares that sentiment, but for a very different reason. She blamed the school's athletic director, Brian Fell. She said he acted outside of proper procedure, failing to register the game with the parks department, which manages the town's fields and facilities. She said the principal didn't even know about the game until the day after it was played. She said Fell pulled a similar stunt last year.
“He (Fell) acted as if it were just another home game,” Gilbert said Wednesday, referring to last week's debacle, essentially quoting the memo she disseminated earlier.
“We run large events all the time and we never have this sort of chaos,” she told me. “All he had to do was follow the procedure and we could have added bleachers, more porta-potties, fire police on hand ... things would have gone smoothly.”
She said Fell put the entire town at risk.
“We had to pull every one of our officers from their regular patrols. We even put our detectives in uniform. There was no one left to patrol the town.”
In her memo she wrote: “It is very apparent that neither of these schools had any regard for our facilities. ... The Rocky Hill High School Athletic Director's actions leave no one else to blame for this debacle. It has to be either negligence or ignorance.”
Fell said he would not comment beyond expressing faith that the real facts would come out in the investigation.
Seems despite the mayor's retraction, there's still a mess in the athletic department.
The apology line might begin with LaRosa, but needs to include Fell, and Gilbert too. Because it is not clear that New London had no regard for their facilities.
One more thing, the New London resident who made the threat needs to be in the apology line, too. His comment was an inappropriate, classless and unnecessary. Apparently, both communities have a little mess to clean up.
This is the opinion of Chuck Potter.
ByChuck Potter, Day Staff WriterPublished on 12/8/2007
BARBARA GILBERT IS THE town manager of Rocky Hill, Conn., the 35th best place to live in America, according to CNN Money Magazine, as reported by, well, Rocky Hill.
Reid Burdick is, uhh, well, he could be the Grand Poobah of the Fraternal Order of New London Guys. “The Burdick,” as he bills himself, tells it like it is, to anyone who will listen.
It's hard to tell which of them is more ticked off about tinkle-gate.
Tinkle-gate is the riff between New London and Rocky Hill officials. On Dec. 4, the New London football team played, and defeated, Cromwell's team. They played at Rocky Hill High School.
Rocky Hill Mayor Tony LaRosa told The Hartford Courant last Sunday that custodians reported that New London players had urinated and defecated on the floor of the Whalers' team room and restroom. LaRosa said there were no witnesses. The Whalers were blamed because it happened in their area.
In a public and televised Town Council meeting last Monday, LaRosa retracted the accusation of defecation.
Gilbert said the allegation went public when the Courant learned of a memo she sent out, which included that information. Consequently, she said, she heard from New London people all week, in various tones of voice, including one who “threatened to pummel the mayor” if he didn't apologize for unfairly accusing the Whalers.
It wasn't Burdick. He's a little more dignified than that. He requested a protest permit. The Rocky Hill Town Council meets on Dec. 17 and the Burdick plans to be there, to protest outside Town Hall and take the two minutes allowed to each citizen who desires to address the mayor and council.
“If enough people want to go, I'll pay for the bus,” he said. “If he exonerates New London, then there's no need to go. If he doesn't, I'm going. Anyone who did something like that should be arrested. But without the facts to prove it was our guys, those kids deserve an apology.”
Burdick called LaRosa a really nice man who commented based on hearsay information, without doing any research.
“This whole mess could have been avoided,” he said.
Gilbert shares that sentiment, but for a very different reason. She blamed the school's athletic director, Brian Fell. She said he acted outside of proper procedure, failing to register the game with the parks department, which manages the town's fields and facilities. She said the principal didn't even know about the game until the day after it was played. She said Fell pulled a similar stunt last year.
“He (Fell) acted as if it were just another home game,” Gilbert said Wednesday, referring to last week's debacle, essentially quoting the memo she disseminated earlier.
“We run large events all the time and we never have this sort of chaos,” she told me. “All he had to do was follow the procedure and we could have added bleachers, more porta-potties, fire police on hand ... things would have gone smoothly.”
She said Fell put the entire town at risk.
“We had to pull every one of our officers from their regular patrols. We even put our detectives in uniform. There was no one left to patrol the town.”
In her memo she wrote: “It is very apparent that neither of these schools had any regard for our facilities. ... The Rocky Hill High School Athletic Director's actions leave no one else to blame for this debacle. It has to be either negligence or ignorance.”
Fell said he would not comment beyond expressing faith that the real facts would come out in the investigation.
Seems despite the mayor's retraction, there's still a mess in the athletic department.
The apology line might begin with LaRosa, but needs to include Fell, and Gilbert too. Because it is not clear that New London had no regard for their facilities.
One more thing, the New London resident who made the threat needs to be in the apology line, too. His comment was an inappropriate, classless and unnecessary. Apparently, both communities have a little mess to clean up.
This is the opinion of Chuck Potter.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Printed in house?
How interesting that this is printed on New London High School green, and where exactly is "in house"? Could it be possible that these were printed "in high school"? There should be an investigation....maybe by Clouet? Or Cochran? Or maybe Nolan himself can investigate...I think it would be interesting to find out all the specifics of these flyers.....and why Nolan is a Board of Education member in violation of their own By laws and policies as well as State statute!!! Friday, November 30, 2007
HANDICAP PARKING REGULATIONS CT GENERAL STATUTES Sec. 14-253a
(g) The State Traffic Commission, on any state highway, or local traffic authority, on any highway or street under its control, shall establish parking spaces in parking areas for twenty or more cars in which parking shall be prohibited to all motor vehicles except vehicles displaying a special license plate or a removable windshield placard issued pursuant to this section. Parking spaces in which parking shall be prohibited to all motor vehicles except vehicles displaying such special plate or placard shall be established in private parking areas for two hundred or more cars according to the following schedule:All such spaces shall be designated as reserved for exclusive use by handicapped persons and identified by the use of signs in accordance with subsection (h) of this section. Such parking spaces shall be adjacent to curb cuts or other unobstructed methods permitting sidewalk access to a blind or handicapped person and shall be fifteen feet wide, including three feet of cross hatch, or be parallel to a sidewalk. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply (1) in the event the State Building Code imposes more stringent requirements as to the size of the private parking area in which special parking spaces are required or as to the number of special parking spaces required or (2) in the event a municipal ordinance imposes more stringent requirements as to the size of existing private parking areas in which special parking spaces are required or as to the number of special parking spaces required. (h) Parking spaces designated for the handicapped on or after October 1, 1979, and prior to October 1, 2004, shall be as near as possible to a building entrance or walkway and shall be fifteen feet wide including three feet of cross hatch, or parallel to a sidewalk on a public highway. On and after October 1, 2004, parking spaces for passenger motor vehicles designated for the handicapped shall be as near as possible to a building entrance or walkway and shall be fifteen feet wide including five feet of cross hatch. On and after October 1, 2004, parking spaces for passenger vans designated for the handicapped shall be as near as possible to a building entrance or walkway and shall be sixteen feet wide including eight feet of cross hatch. Such spaces shall be designated by above grade signs with white lettering against a blue background and shall bear the words "handicapped parking permit required" and "violators will be fined". Such sign shall also bear the international symbol of access. When such a sign is replaced, repaired or erected it shall indicate the minimum fine for a violation of subsection (f) of this section. Such indicator may be in the form of a notice affixed to such a sign.
(l) Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction, provided the fine for violation of the provisions of subsection (f) of this section shall be not less than eighty-five dollars.
(l) Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction, provided the fine for violation of the provisions of subsection (f) of this section shall be not less than eighty-five dollars.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Not only are rules meant for other people...
...but when we break the law, we are gonna do so for days!!!
These are from this evening around 4:00 pm! NICE!!!
Friday, November 16, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Thm.jpg)
