|
December 08, 2003
ROCKY HILL STUDENTS URGED TO APPLY FOR TULISANO SCHOLARSHIP
The Tulisano Humanitarian Award, a $1000 scholarship, will be offered again this year to a Rocky Hill student who has
been accepted for full time admission and has chosen to attend any of the Connecticut State Universities (CSU) for the Fall 2004 semester.
The criteria for eligibility in the 2004-2005 academic year is as follows:
1. Student must be a resident of Rocky Hill, Connecticut, graduating from an accredited public or private high school.
2. Student must be accepted for full time admission at any of the fur CSU school's for the Fall of 2004.
3. Student must have a record of academic progress.
4. Student must have a record of public service, community involvement, and extracurricular activities.
5. Student must possess demonstrated leadership qualities.
6. Student must demonstrate financial need.
Former State Representative Richard D. Tulisano established the scholarship with the intent to encourage young people
to become involved in their communities. A major criterion to be included in evaluating applicants will be an individual's commitment to the civic good. Christina Konrad, who worked with Alzheimer's patients, tutored Rocky Hill students and volunteered at the Rocky Hill Veterans Home and Hospital, last year received the inaugural Tulisano Humanitarian Award.
Tulisano said, "Our goal is to reward students for their commitment to public service. I would encourage all young people
to get involved in the community and apply for this scholarship."
Interested students can either contact their school guidance department or write the Tulisano Scholarship directly at P.O.
Box 159, Rocky Hill, CT 06076; or download an application from www.csusystemfoundation.org. |
|
November 13, 2002
FIRST ANNUAL TULISANO SCHOLARSHIP ANNOUNCED
The Tulisano Humanitarian Award, a $1000 scholarship, will be offered for the first time this year to a Rocky Hill student
who has been accepted for full time admission and has chosen to attend any of the Connecticut State Universities (CSU) for the Fall 2003 semester.
The criteria for eligibility in the 2003-2004 academic year is as follows:
1. Student must be a resident of Rocky Hill, Connecticut, graduating from an accredited public or private high school.
2. Student must be accepted for full time admission at any of the fur CSU school's for the Fall of 2003.
3. Student must have a record of academic progress.
4. Student must have a record of public service, community involvement, and extracurricular activities.
5. Student must possess demonstrated leadership qualities.
6. Student must demonstrate financial need.
Former State Representative Richard D. Tulisano established the scholarship with the intent to encourage young people
to become involved in their communities. A major criterion to be included in evaluating applicants will be an individual's commitment to the civic good.
Tulisano said, "It is my hope that we would be able to reward some young person for the commitment they have made to
the public."
Interested students can either contact their school guidance department or write the Tulisano Scholarship directly at P.O.
Box 159, Rocky Hill, CT 06076. |
|
May 31, 2002
MEMORIAL DAY SPEECH TOWN OF ROCKY HILL MAY 27, 2002
BY RICHARD TULISANO
I am pleased to be here today because today, perhaps even more than the Fourth of July, is the day we should truly
appreciate and reflect on our freedom.
Today we honor those who died to preserve that freedom. Today is the day we remember those who fought for that
freedom. Those - who in deed - not just word honored Patrick Henry's famous request to give him liberty, or give him death.
How, the question arises, should we honor those who died so we should enjoy liberty? The simple answer is patriotism: a
love of country and a devotion to its values. The way we express that patriotism is the crucial element.
When our nation was born 226 years ago, Thomas Paine said "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must,
like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." What he meant then - and what is still true today! - is that freedom takes work!
We will lose our freedom if we don't vote, if we don't pay attention to government's action, if we don't get involved, if we
don't pitch in, if we don't care!
But there is an even more important ingredient to freedom that, in the wake of September 11, we must underscore today.
That is our duty to ask questions. It has been said that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Questioning and demanding accountability is part of that vigilance.
I have been concerned when I read that some government officials - some of whom I have worked with and otherwise
admire - some in higher office Washington - suggest that it is wrong, even unpatriotic, to question the administration about how they have dealt with the terrorist threat or if we disagree on how to act in the future.
Some have said it was wrong to support a bipartisan commission to look into how the administration weighed and
responded to threats, or why warnings and other evidence in the weeks and months before September 11 were not connected. It is my belief that knowing what went wrong may help respond in the future. But, it is those who try to throw cold water on a spirit of inquiry, who are wrong. Our democracy will only be strong if it can withstand scrutiny.
No one suggests that our intelligence-gathering apparatus or other security secrets be disclosed to our enemies. But surely
we can question how our government serves us and still do it with national security in mind. That is a problem I continually confront in my lawmaking career - that when we face a crisis - whether it is an increase in sexual abuse of children or terrorism - we are quick to act. Action is noble and fear becomes the motivating factor.
This is often dangerous. First, we must think.
The Romans used the phrase "festina lente." It meant "make haste slowly" or, in modern-day parlance, "look before you
leap." I can tell you that, in the days after September 11, when lawmakers were quickly drafting anti-terrorism bills, the definitions of terrorism they wrote could have led to the arrest, or inappropriate penalties for thousands of people. My message is simple - that freedom requires us to keep ourselves free. We must encourage debate and discourage knee- jerk responses. We must prevent our fears from overtaking us.
Remember the words of George Bernard Shaw, who said "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
We should not dread it. We should embrace it. But with that responsibility comes the need to nurture it. On this day,
when we give thanks for the huge measure of devotion our soldiers spent on our behalf, we must remember that we will only honor them if we keep our democracy strong. That will require us to debate, to question, and to think. That is the true definition of liberty. That is the living memorial we can present to those who have died for us. |
|
July 25, 2003
GOVERNOR'S VETO "POWER" IS REACHING A DANGEROUS LEVEL
Bravo, Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, has made it clear that the governor has the power to veto, veto, and
continue to veto all budget proposals that the General Assembly may pass in the exercising of its duties, and there seems to be no requirement that the exercise of such power be done so in a responsible, thoughtful or sincere manner.
Not only does the governor have the power to veto, but the absolute limited power to rule by decree (now called an
executive order), in deciding how much, where and when to spend your tax dollars. Sure enough the Governor has been warned not to be capricious or play favorites. However, the attorney general has been unable to provide a remedy should he so believe that the governor is not exercising his power in a legitimate manner.
Can a governor keep vetoing proposals ad infinitum, when he can exercise his line item veto power? Can he rule by
decree until the next state election? Can he decimate programs enacted by the people's representatives that were designed to enhance our quality of life in the guise of limited "essential and necessary expenditures?"
A strict construction of our constitution would lead one to believe that is possible. Undoubtedly, such an exercise of
power leads to the conclusion that the power being granted by the people is being abused. The Founding Fathers always assumed that all elected officials would act in a reasonable and responsible manner. I have too. The failure to act reasonably and responsibly can only lead to chaos of unknown proportions. If a legal remedy is not available, than the only solution is a political remedy: the people should elect a legislature willing to overrule a veto, and in the worst-case scenario, resort to other political actions not constitutionally contemplated.
We should recall that our Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Particulars against George III, included:
1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
2. He has called together legislative bodies...for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
3. He has erected a multitude of new offices...
Very truly yours,
Richard D. Tulisano
Rocky Hill
Richard Tulisano represented the 29th District in the House of Representatives for many years. He is the Chief of
Staff for the House Democrats. |
|
2003
WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO SECURITY
By Richard D. Tulisano
In 1759, Benjamin Franklin said "they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither
liberty or safety." That statement remains today a great truth yet one that continues to be under constant attack by those who have not, or refuse to learn the lessons of history.
The promotion of concepts and policies traditionally rejected in this nation have recently been espoused by many well
meaning people in the pages of The Courant and in other media. In a recent article, by Amita Etzioni (The Courant December 18, 1985) the author promoted the adoption by this nation of security measures designed to strengthen state security and to protect the state from attack from both within and without.
These same proponents of security over liberty, whether it be in support of domestic roadblocks or National ID's attack,
belittle and question the integrity and intelligence of those who adhere to the traditional reluctance of Americans to rely on Constitutional safeguards to protect themselves and their fellow countrymen from governmental intrusion in their private lives.
It has been our traditional reluctance to accept limits on our freedoms and our reluctance to accept suggestions by the
Etzionis of the world which has created the essential difference between this nation and all other nations, including other Democratic nations.
This nation is great, not because of our strength of arms; not because of our wealth and not because of our natural
resources. We are great because we have allowed opportunity, initiative and freedom to flourish. The freedom of dissent; freedom to be different; freedom to experiment; freedom of movement and especially the freedom to question authority.
These freedoms have given us; each, individually and collectively, the opportunity to grow; make things better for the next
generation and to mold our society to changing needs. We have accomplished this by maintaining and expanding our individual freedoms and liberties.
As a people, we have always, and we should continue, to put checks on that power which is vested in our leaders by the
people. A power which is always susceptible to abuse.
We are always being told, "Don't be afraid, no abuse could happen here, the polls say the people support these
measures".
An objective study of American history says it can happen here. Proponents of continuing invasions of our individual
liberties tell us that if any measure will give us a little more safety then we the citizenry should accept it because it is for our own good; and after all the state knows what is good for us!
Some suggest a national ID system to protect against potential criminals, illegal immigration etc. With today's modern
society such proposals are more dangerous than ever. We are told to rely on institutional safeguards to protect against this very system being used against those who hold unpopular ideas. For the naïve let me remind you of the Black Lists that occurred during the McCarthy, or the attempt during the Nixon administration to manipulate the safeguards supposedly existing in the Internal Revenue Service to get his enemies?
We are asked to look at Israel and England as models for us to emulate. Are we, in peacetime, to adopt the same limits
that Israel uses while in a state of war? As for England, it has seen fit to limit its free press and free speech within the past year also in the name of safety and security.
Intrusive roadblocks are now viewed as acceptable when not even 10 years ago they would have been rejected - all for
safety's sake. I suppose the next thing we will have suggested is a national censorship board which will restrict the flow of information allowed to be published - all in the best interest of you the citizen, of course!
Each one of these steps is a chip out of the base of liberty. As we chip, chip, chip away liberty disappears and freedom
tumbles.
The security of the state does not, and can not rely on fear, restriction and repression. The exercises of the police power
is a necessary exercise of power; and its exercise should always be limited.
The only way the state can be secure is to place its safety in the hands of individual citizens who, because of the
commitment and love of freedom, are willing to sacrifice on behalf of that freedom.
The security of the state rests only with the will of a free people to maintain it!
In this country our people have suffered many adversities not for wealth but for freedom. The struggle between the
promoters of security against those who love liberty is a struggle that must be fought over and over, and liberty must prevail.
For, when this country becomes like other countries, what will make us different? What then will be the reason for our
people to sacrifice? And then, what does the future hold for us? |