Stratford Mayoral Hopeful Calls for a 'Fresh Approach'

'Residents need clear and open leadership,' says Stratford native and Democratic Town Committee member Joe Paul about his hopes to run for mayor in the fall.

The following is a press release from Paul's camp, emailed to Stratford Patch Sunday night.

Joe Paul has announced the formation of his exploratory campaign committee for mayor in Stratford, Conn.

"I was born and raised in Stratford and attended our public schools," Paul said. "This is a town that I have always loved and know it has the potential to be vibrant and successful."

Paul said Stratford is faced with the same economic struggles that challenge our state and other municipalities, and he believes his fresh perspective and vision will make a difference.

In his former role as senior vice president of one of the nation’s largest banks, he managed over 3,000 employees and guided government clients toward products and services that increased government efficiency at all levels.

"Now is the time to stop the stagnation in Stratford. We need a fresh approach in how we conduct town business and how we treat our town residents and businesses," Paul added. "Our property taxes have been going up. Nothing has been done to reverse that trend."

Paul has been married for 47 years. He and his wife Linda are happy to have their four daughters living close by in Stratford along with their six grandchildren.

He currently serves on the Planning Commission and the Board of Assessment Appeals for the town of Stratford.

Mike Reynolds March 04, 2013 at 06:36 PM
My screen is now sporting some of my lunch.
Eric Schuell March 04, 2013 at 10:47 PM
I know joe personally. I am not a Stratford resident, but know the capacity of intellect, class, and a passion to improve.
max March 04, 2013 at 10:56 PM
I totally agree, a dedicated person who cares about Stratford.
greg cann March 05, 2013 at 02:05 AM
Joe, thank you for stepping up to continue your public service. Stratford deserves leadership of the highest credibility and experience.
Kenny P March 05, 2013 at 03:19 AM
I've heard this B.S. before. A "Fresh Approach" I think I heard it from a man with the middle name "HUSSEIN"
Mike March 05, 2013 at 05:37 PM
Anything new in Stratford has got to be an improvement.
Dom March 06, 2013 at 03:28 AM
I just wonder how he feels about police corruption.
Rose March 06, 2013 at 08:36 PM
We need a fresh approach on dealing with the excessive sick time in town. One police officer averages 80 sick days a year, every year. I get 5 paid sick days a year on my job and then it's on me, so I make sure I get to work. 80 paid sick days is a lot of money that could be put to better use in town for our kids or senior citizens.
Patricia Clark Sperling March 06, 2013 at 09:37 PM
Rose, 80 sick days and still employed? That is absolutely sickening! I know that sick time can be "banked" up to a certain amount, but to allow this to happen is just not right. The worse thing about it is they probably get doctor's notes for "CYA" purposes which makes the doctor just as wrong. Yes, wonder how Joe Paul feels about corruption in general - it's been rampant in our Town for way too long!
Helene E. Logan March 07, 2013 at 08:00 PM
Agree completely.
Helene E. Logan March 07, 2013 at 08:01 PM
Everything currently missing in the Mayoral role. I'll definitely look into his platform.
Helene E. Logan March 07, 2013 at 08:02 PM
OMG grow up.
Mike Reynolds March 07, 2013 at 08:26 PM
Jeez Patti take it easy. One person makes a claim and you take it as the truth? Perhaps "Rose" has an ax to grind against the PD and made that up. Just because its on the internet doesn't mean its true.
Patricia Clark Sperling March 07, 2013 at 09:27 PM
Mike ~ wish you could email me. I'd explain why this peeves me so much!
earl March 07, 2013 at 09:48 PM
Mike I checked on Rose's claim and she is right. Officer Ramos at the PD calls out sick a lot
Baffled Resident March 07, 2013 at 10:55 PM
Is Ramos the one that has been crying discrimination for the past 25 years? Anyway, FMLA does protect someone for 12 work weeks each year. Perhaps he is caring for an ill spouse/child/parent?
Patricia Clark Sperling March 07, 2013 at 11:42 PM
Baffled ~ actually the statute says 16 weeks in a 24 month period. Not each year. In any event, FMLA is abused like any other law. People will always find a way to "work the system." Mike ~ some years ago, there was an article about the days taken by Town/BOE employees. It was sickening.
Baffled Resident March 08, 2013 at 12:31 AM
I've never heard that. Would you provide a link that states there is a 16 in 24 "statute" for FMLA.
Patricia Clark Sperling March 08, 2013 at 01:38 AM
Baffles ~ section 31-51ll, Conn. Gen. Stat., or you can just look it up on the DOL website. It's been that way as long as I can remember, since FMLA went into effect.
Baffled Resident March 08, 2013 at 01:55 AM
Huh? "Sec. 31-51l. Leave of absence for certain public and private employees elected to public office. Any person employed by a private employer which employs more than twenty-five persons, or by a municipality in which there is no ordinance or charter provision to the contrary, who leaves such employment to accept a full-time elective municipal or state office shall be granted a personal leave of absence from such employment for not more than two consecutive terms of such office. Upon reapplication for his original position at the expiration of such term or terms of office, such person shall be reinstated to his original position or a similar position with equivalent pay and accumulated seniority, retirement, fringe benefits and other service credits, unless the employer's circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so. Such person shall give notice in writing to his employer that he is a candidate for a full-time municipal or state office within thirty days after nomination for that office." I'm aware of the DOL's FMLA website, and that is where i obtain my information from. Nothing on their page correlates with your assertion.
Patricia Clark Sperling March 08, 2013 at 02:02 AM
Baffled ~ read my post again! You left something off .... The second "l"..... Think it was a typo?
Patricia Clark Sperling March 08, 2013 at 02:15 AM
I'm not going to continue with you Baffled on something you clearly don't get. The whole point is whether John Paul has the stomach to take on Stratford's cronyistic, nepotistic and just plain corrupt behavior. It is what it is, plain and simple, but who am I - just a taxpaying citizen who is sick of it.
Baffled Resident March 08, 2013 at 02:31 AM
I've found the statute that you referenced. Note what is said at the very end: " all further rights granted by federal law shall remain in effect. (P.A. 96-140, S. 2, 10.) History: P.A. 96-140 effective January 1, 1997."
Baffled Resident March 08, 2013 at 02:33 AM
I absolutely get it. I'm trying to inform the misinformed, such as yourself. And it's Joe Paul, not John Paul the builder.
Patricia Clark Sperling March 08, 2013 at 02:41 PM
Really Baffled? Come out from behind the pseudonym so we all can see why you are so "informed" and right. But you won't do that, will you? You spew what you claim to be truth, but hide behind a pseudonym..... Please! And, because I mistyped Mr. Paul's name - really? You can interpret it however you'd like, but from what I have read, it is what it is.
Patricia Clark Sperling March 08, 2013 at 02:41 PM
Since "Baffled" was kind enough to post the incorrect CGS citation, here's the correct one mentioned in my post above: Sec. 31-51ll. Family and medical leave: Length of leave; eligibility; intermittent or reduced leave schedules; substitution of accrued paid leave; notice to employer. (a)(1) Subject to section 31-51mm, an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of sixteen workweeks of leave during any twenty-four-month period, such twenty-four-month period to be determined utilizing any one of the following methods: (A) Consecutive calendar years; (B) any fixed twenty-four-month period, such as two consecutive fiscal years or a twenty-four-month period measured forward from an employee’s first date of employment; (C) a twenty-four-month period measured forward from an employee’s first day of leave taken under sections 31-51kk to 31-51qq, inclusive; or (D) a rolling twenty-four-month period measured backward from an employee’s first day of leave taken under sections 31-51kk to 31-51qq, inclusive.
Patricia Clark Sperling March 08, 2013 at 02:50 PM
And, I suppose, as with all laws, it is all based on interpretation. I refer "Baffled" also to 29 CFR 825.701, which discusses "Interaction with State Laws." I'm sure he/she will interpret it as he/she sees fit to discredit anyone else while hiding behind a fictitious name.
Baffled Resident March 09, 2013 at 09:55 AM
I won't derail the topic any further. For anyone that needs to utilize FMLA, please see the DOL website. http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
Beetle Bailey March 09, 2013 at 01:11 PM
Do you mean the "Welfare President"?
earl March 12, 2013 at 08:17 PM
This is not about FMLA - that is UNPAID leave for family care - a Federal Law. Their contract allows 3 paid days a year for "Sick in Family". Surely Rose is referring to PAID sick time from the old "Unlimited Sick Time" contract clause which a few still fall under (and use regularly). Those are fully paid sick days for up to a year and a day. An employee can return to work for a day and then go out sick again for another year with full pay - just bring a note from your favorite doctor. Yes - I know this sounds far fetched in this day and age - but sadly for taxpayers - it is true. So the taxpayers get to pay you in full - to work a couple of days a week.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something