Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed.
—
Gilbert & Sullivan,
"The Mikado," 1885
nlike Ko-Ko, the lord high executioner of Titipu, Leonard Boyle, Connecticut’s lord high commissioner of public safety, insists his state police department does not have a little list of "society offenders" — but he does have a little file and who gets into his file and how it is used or abused deserve further examination. This is especially so in this post 9/11 era when security tends to trump individual rights. Witness that arrest of an errant bicyclist at the governor’s inaugural parade earlier this month.
Boyle’s denial of a list came after Hartford cops grabbed freelance photographer/political activist Kenneth Krayeske when he jumped off his bike during the parade and began shooting photos of the marching Jodi Rell. The cops identified Krayeske from a state police photo they carried of him and others who might pose a threat to the governor. To her credit, the incident prompted Rell to ask Boyle to explain why his department kept such a list and the Legislature’s Public Safety Committee will hold a hearing on the incident on Tuesday.
Gilbert & Sullivan,
"The Mikado," 1885
nlike Ko-Ko, the lord high executioner of Titipu, Leonard Boyle, Connecticut’s lord high commissioner of public safety, insists his state police department does not have a little list of "society offenders" — but he does have a little file and who gets into his file and how it is used or abused deserve further examination. This is especially so in this post 9/11 era when security tends to trump individual rights. Witness that arrest of an errant bicyclist at the governor’s inaugural parade earlier this month.
Boyle’s denial of a list came after Hartford cops grabbed freelance photographer/political activist Kenneth Krayeske when he jumped off his bike during the parade and began shooting photos of the marching Jodi Rell. The cops identified Krayeske from a state police photo they carried of him and others who might pose a threat to the governor. To her credit, the incident prompted Rell to ask Boyle to explain why his department kept such a list and the Legislature’s Public Safety Committee will hold a hearing on the incident on Tuesday.
u u u
While Boyle said there was no list, he readily admitted the department maintains "intelligence files" of people "who meet criteria set out in federal regulations," which sounds suspiciously like a list with additional details.
Boyle wouldn’t say if Krayeske, who was campaign manager for the Green Party’s candidate for governor last year, met those federal criteria or was in the department’s file. As a campaign manager for a minor candidate receiving little attention, Krayeske was loud, in your face and, some would say, obnoxious, in the interests of his man. None of this, however, constituted subversive activity.
If being obnoxious and in your face in a campaign meets federal criteria, the cops should have also been given photos of Nancy Johnson before the parade.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with intelligence organizations maintaining files of potential terrorists, assassins, spies, saboteurs and other assorted evildoers. It’s how they determine who merits being placed in a file and, more critically, how they use these files.
In his long reign of terror as head of the FBI, the late J. Edgar Hoover had his own not-so-little list of everybody who was anybody and used the information to blackmail presidents, civil rights leaders and others inimical to his way of life.
u u u
Since 9/11, Connecticut and 36 other states have established their versions of the federal Department of Homeland Security. The state agency’s intelligence arm is the Connecticut Intelligence Center, which operates out of the FBI office in New Haven and includes federal, state and local law enforcers working together "to develop leads and solve cases," according to the department’s Web site.
The Intelligence Center has a 24/7 telephone tip line and publishes weekly intelligence bulletins for police departments and other agencies concerned with security. Even if the Intelligence Center staff is as sharp as the CIA — no sarcasm intended — it unfortunately has little control over how its shared intelligence is used.
And that lack of control may explain how Hartford cops, not all of them finely honed intelligence operatives, concluded a photographer, riding up to a parade on his bicycle, posed a threat to the governor of Connecticut.
"We observed the accused suddenly ride his mountain bike at a high rate of speed to the parade route," Nancy Mulroy, police department spokeswoman, explained. "It’s unfortunate, but in today’s world, post 9/11, security is a very serious matter and we err on the side of caution. If someone is behaving in an erratic fashion, they can expect the attention of law enforcement."
Indeed, if we learned nothing else from 9/11, it is to be ever watchful lest suspected terrorists pedal their mountain bikes "at a high rate of speed" alongside a parade.
Dick Ahles is a retired television news executive. He lives in Simsbury. E-mail him at dahles@hotmail.com.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.