Quantcast

Norwalk council votes down ‘Freedom of the Press’ resolution

Norwalk Common Council members Matt Miklave (D-District A), left, and John Igneri (D-District E) listen to a debate at about 11 p.m. Tuesday at the Common Council meeting.

Norwalk Common Council members Matt Miklave (D-District A), left, and John Igneri (D-District E) listen to a debate at about 11 p.m. Tuesday at the Common Council meeting.

 

By Nancy Guenther Chapman

NORWALK, Conn. – A “Freedom of the Press” resolution was voted down at Tuesday’s Common Council meeting, after a spirited discussion – without the mayor or corporation counsel in the room.

The resolution was authored by Common Council members David Watts (D-District A) and Anna Duleep (D-At Large) after this reporter was informed that a warrant had been written for her arrest because of a recording obtained by accident at a June council meeting.

Voting against the resolution were Council members Michelle Maggio (R-District C), Fred Bondi (R-At Large), Sarah Mann (R-At Large), Michael Geake (U-District B), Carvin Hilliard (D-District B), Nick Kydes (R-District C), David McCarthy (R-District E) and Jerry Petrini (R-District D). Voting for the resolution were Council members Warren Peña (D-At Large), Matt Miklave (D-District A), David Watts (D-District A), Anna Duleep (D-At Large) and John Igneri (D-District E).

Mayor Richard Moccia recused himself from the discussion. “Since the resolution basically is about me, I do not intend to sit and try to monitor the debate on this, and being accused of being biased one way or another,” he said. “Therefore I am going to leave the chambers and turn the chair over to the council president.”

Corporation Counsel Bob Maslan also recused himself. “I don’t believe it would be appropriate for me to sit here through this discussion,” he said.

The meeting ran past 11:30 p.m.

There is a lot to talk about over the next few days, which we will do. Many things were said, pro and con. We will bring you a balanced look at both sides. Check back later for more.

7 comments

oldtimer January 9, 2013 at 7:53 am

No surprize here. The purpose of the resolution, I believe, was to shine a bright light on outrageous behavior of the mayor, and that was accomplished. The Republicans pretty much accepted Moccia’s version of the story and opposed the resolution, Democrats supported it. Those of us that have taken the time to read all the stories and ask some questions are still wondering what moccia was possibly thinking. No part of the conversation at issue was published, in part, because moccia, through maslan, squashed it. What more does he want ? There is no criminal case and no civil case without evidence of any damage. (self-inflicted does not count)
The further he pursues this, the more foolish he looks.(self-inflicted damage) David Watts and Anna Duleep are to be commended for their part in bringing this ridiculous story to light. They both knew there would be a concerted effort to make them look like the bad guys (kill the messenger).
We will see how long it takes for national media to pick up the story and make moccia look even more like a buffoon.

Andrea Light January 9, 2013 at 8:49 am

I disagree. While the entire matter should have been disposed of last summer, Ms. Chapman’s words in her first email to the Mayor (“I forgot to turn it off”; for our protection I will record….”) came across as to me as if she knew there would be an issue with the manner of her reporting. I don’t think freedom means license , and I also believe a whole lot of other moralisms about civility, benefit of the doubt and a cooperative spirit.

oldtimer January 9, 2013 at 10:50 am

Of course she knew, Moccia had been gunning for her for a while. She had been barred from his office months before.

oldtimer January 9, 2013 at 10:56 am

Andrea:
You do understand no part of the recorded “private” conversation has been published, rebroadcast, or released in any way. What is all the fuss about ? Do you think he may have said something he shouldn’t ? Have you noticed neither of the other two people have said a word ?

Suzanne January 9, 2013 at 5:57 pm

Andrea, While I agree with you, “I don’t believe freedom means license”, perhaps you could apply the same standard to this Mayor who, instead of handling this issue with a deft hand and appropriate leadership, criminalized the journalist’s act and continuously goaded the Council to create an uproar that was completely needless. He took license, in other words, unnecessarily and instead of showing why he would be a good Mayor in such a situation, “made hay” with the politics of it all.

Frankly, I want someone to get down to the business of governing the City of Norwalk. Instead of using his freedom to do so, Mayor Moccia took “license” and wasted everyone’s time with idle threats. What a shame.

Tim T January 9, 2013 at 6:30 pm

When you are at your employer’s location you have ZERO right to privacy in regards to phone calls, emails, computers and conversations. This is the way it works in the real world as in the private sector. We the taxpayers are Moccia the Morons employer and city hall is “our” building as taxpayers. This idiot of a mayor needs to get a grip on reality and realize that he works for us and not the other way around.

Diane C2 January 9, 2013 at 8:43 pm

With this and all the bizarre events at city hall these days I can only be hopeful our voters don’t have the short memory that our politicians count on…..there is a window of opportunity every 2 years in Norwalk to vote for real change, real productivity and real vision. Let’s not blow it. I hope qualified candidates for every elected office and commission appointment start coming out in droves.

Leave a Reply

Oct. 5th, 2014 — Changes made to comment posting:

Line breaks: Users no longer have to add a seperate line with a '.' character on it to get space between paragraphs. Instead, just use a double-carriage-return (hit enter/return twice) and the paragraphs will be spaced automatically.

As always, report any issues to Eric, the website guy.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About this site

NancyOnNorwwalk.com was conceived as the place to go for Norwalk residents to get the real, unvarnished story about what is going on in and around their city. NancyOnNorwalk does not intend to be a print newspaper online; rather, it exists to pull the curtain back and shine a spotlight on how Norwalk is run and what is happening regarding issues that have an impact on taxpayers’ pocketbooks and safety. As an independent site, NancyOnNorwalk’s first and only allegiance is to the reader.

About Nancy

Nancy came to Norwalk in September 2010 and, after reporting on Norwalk for two years for another company, resigned to begin Nancy On Norwalk so she engage in journalism the way it was meant to be done. She is married to career journalist Mark Chapman, has a son, Eric (the artist and web designer who built this website), and two cats – a middle-aged lady and a young hottie who are learning how to peacefully co-exist.