Robo War Erupts In Morris Cove

Flames of accusation spread through Morris Cove Sunday night — over whether one mayoral candidate wants to endanger lives by closing the neighborhood firehouse, or whether his opponent concocted an election-eve smear to scare voters.

The back-and-forth took the form of dueling robocalls — those beloved automated messages candidates mass-dial to voters in the final stages of a campaign. New Haven voters have received a flood of them leading up to Tuesday’s four-way Democratic mayoral primary.

One of the four candidates in the race, Toni Harp, enlisted a Morris Cove alderman, Sal DeCola, to record one such robocall that went to Morris Cove Democrats on Sunday.

In the robocall, DeCola repeated an accusation that Toni Harp made at a press conference last Thursday: that another Democratic mayoral candidate, Justin Elicker, might shut down the Morris Cove fire station if he wins the election. Harp based the accusation on this article in the Independent. The article states that Elicker took the following position about the Morris Cove station: ​“He would not shut down the station.”

Current and past leaders of the firefighters union, who have endorsed Harp’s campaign, attended the press conference, which took place at the Morris Cove fire station. (Read about that here.)

In the original Independent article, Elicker did suggest exploring resource-sharing with East Haven to handle fire calls in both East Haven and on New Haven’s East Shore. In the interview he also said he was open to exploring ​“efficiencies” in the department like eliminating a fire engine somewhere in the city or revisiting a minimum-manning requirement instituted by the DeStefano administration in 2006 when Mayor DeStefano was running for governor with the fire union’s endorsement.

Toni Harp said Sunday night that ​“reading between the lines” of that statement, she concluded that Elicker might eliminate the one fire engine in the Morris Cove station, and therefore effectively shut it down.

Sal DeCola echoed that argument in his robocall to Morris Covers Sunday.

“Recently Justin Elicker proposed scaling back the Morris Cove fire station by eliminating our fire truck and consolidating its functions with East Haven,” DeCola alleged in the call. ​“He’s telling you, ​‘If you have an emergency call East Haven.’ That’s not acceptable. Keep East Shore safe!”

Voting for Toni Harp will therefore keep the East Shore safe, DeCola concluded.

Click here to listen to his robocall.

The Elicker camp responded with a press release that had the following headline: ​“Harp repeats lies, plays politics with public safety.”

The Elicker camp also responded by throwing together a response robocall that went to Morris Cove Democrats Sunday evening. It enlisted a politically active New Haven firefighter, Kevin Donohue, to record it.

“Toni Harp is trying to mislead voters, and she knows it,” Donohue stated in the call. Then he cited this controversy over a DeStefano administration effort to retire an engine from the Whitney Avenue firehouse: ​“Justin fought alongside us to stop the Engine 8 closure and will oppose any attempt to close the station in Morris Cove. Toni’s last-minute accusations are politics as usual in New Haven. We need an honest mayor.”

Click here to listen to Donohue’s robo-call.

Which side is right? Weigh in by voting in the ​“True Vote” poll above in this story. And feel free to post a comment at the bottom of this story.

“Reading Between The Lines”

Toni Harp defended her campaign’s accusation in an interview Sunday evening. She said both Elicker’s original statements in the Independent article as well as his subsequent statements have backed that up.

She noted that Elicker stated in the original article that he would consider exploring resource-sharing with East Haven because of the relatively low number of calls to the Morris Cove station. She noted that in the same interview he spoke of being open to potentially entertaining the notion of eliminating an engine somewhere in the city. Morris Cove has only one engine, she noted. So if that engine were to disappear, Morris Cove would in effect have no station.

“Reading between the lines, you would have to worry that the station would be closed,” she argued.

“There’s no grey area. There’s never been any grey area. It’s very unfortunate that at the 11th hour at this election this is happening,” Elicker responded in a subsequent interview Sunday evening. ​“She’s lying — I have been clear from day one in the quote that she is misleading people about.” Precisely since that fire station has only one engine, he would never consider retiring that engine, Elicker said.

Rather, he said that the East Shore and East Haven could work together to help each other out, part of a national trend toward exploring urban-suburban resource-sharing arrangements to save money through efficiencies.

Harp said that stand reflects Elicker’s lack of knowledge about how the fire service operates on the East Shore, and about the capability of East Haven’s partly-volunteer department to handle New Haven calls. Besides fighting fires, the Morris Cove station responds to water-rescue calls, she said. And it handles calls at Tweed-New Haven Airport, including the recent fatal plane crash on the East Haven side.

Elicker responded that that’s an example of how the departments can work together. Resource-sharing could mean that East Haven actually pays New Haven to help out that town with its superior resources for instance, he said.

The back-and-forth illustrates the political delicacy of fire service debates. For years some government officials have argued that the fire department is overstaffed or inefficiently staffed for a city our size, based on systems set up generations ago when cities had more fires. But any suggestion to retire an engine or close a firehouse prompts protests and arguments by some elected officials that such discussion threatens public safety. The John Daniels Administration floated the idea of closing a firehouse during a budget crisis two decades ago; a public outcry killed the idea then. A candidate for alderman in Ward 19, Michael Stratton, has raised the issue in this Democratic primary campaign; his opponent has criticized him for it and won the backing of some firefighters in her campaign. (Read about that here.)

Asked Sunday evening if she would consider scaling back the number of firefighters in New Haven, Harp responded that the city’s population has grown in recent years — and therefore may require the services of more firefighters.

Clean Money

Meanwhile, Elicker’s campaign launched a separate attack on the Harp campaign Sunday evening over another controversial issue in the late stages of this primary campaign: money in politics.

Elicker has criticized Harp for not participating in the Demoracy Fund, the city’s voluntary public-financing system for mayoral candidates. That means Harp can accept contributions of up to $1,000 from individuals and take money from political action committees (PACs), as well. Elicker, by participating in the Democracy Fund, cannot accept PAC money or individual contributions above $370. In return, he receives matching public dollars.

Sunday night Elicker’s campaign accused the Harp campaign of a conflict of interest because it receives thousands of dollars form out-of-town special interests that have business or potential business with the city: orthopedic surgeons who manage workman’s compensation programs for cities; an architectural and engineering firm with business before the City Plan Commission; Harp’s family’s real-estate company; a New Britain construction firm; a Hartford and Stamford-based law firm specializing in government work.

In a debate last week, Harp criticized the Democracy Fund as a waste of taxpayer money—$200,000 that could be better spent on children, she said. Proponents of the fund counter that the system saves taxpayers far more money in the long run by eliminating potential conflicts of interests that lead to costly contracts. The Democracy Fund came into existence in response to accusations that the DeStefano administration had a ​“pay-to-play” system of government contractors that favored campaign contributors: City Hall’s budget chief at the time wrote personalized letters on City Hall letterhead to contractors instructing them of how much money they should contribute to the mayor’s reelection campaign, along with an enclosed envelope and contribution form. The chairman of one DeStefano reelection campaign received a multi-year, six-figure legal contract with the Board of Education, a job that went in-house for less money after he no longer pursued renewals. City Hall insisted that prospective developers competing to build a mall on Long Wharf include a top DeStefano campaign contributor’s construction company as a partner in the project. Those and many other instances of money-in-politics controversies led to the so-called ​“City for Sale” scandal that dogged the DeStefano administration in the late 1990s.

The Elicker campaign’s release Sunday night argued that the list of Harp’s prominent out-of-town contributors ​“displays” the ​“importance” of public financing by raising the specter of potential pay-to-play politics.

Below is a graphic the campaign prepared detailing those contributors’ interests:

“No one that I know has ever questioned Toni’s integrity or character. I don’t think anybody believes that she will make any decisions as mayor of this city because somebody gave to her campaign,” Harp campaign manager Jason Bartlett responded Sunday evening. ​“Justin is simply reeling because he wants to take away a fire engine and consolidate services at that firehouse. He’s showing his lack of maturity and he’s striking out at the last minute.”

In the debate last week, Harp criticized Elicker for participating in the Democracy Fund in the primary — and then getting his name on the ballot for the general election as well. That means he’s willing to take public money for a primary, lose the primary, then run a second, ​“sore loser” campaign, she said. Candidates who receive public financing in a primary cannot continue to participate and receive matching funds in the general election.

Click on the video and on this article for more detail about that debate.

Elicker responded that he intends to continue abiding by the rules of the Democracy Fund in the general election — including forswearing PAC donations or individual contributions above $370 — even though he wouldn’t be bound by them.

Which side is right? Register your view by voting in the ​“True Vote” poll below. And feel free to post a comment at the bottom of this story.