After the Perez Administration successfully drove WFSB Channel 3 to build a new facility and move to Rocky Hill, the City of Hartford Economic Development people, under the guidance of of our dishonorable Mayor Eddie A. Perez, have once again proved to be a huge benefit to our suburban neighbors. As most of our neighboring towns seem to understand the concept of "economic development", Hartford continues to roll out the red carpet for many businesses leaving the City. Last time I looked, the Sunshine Laundry site on Maple Avenue was still empty.
But back to WFSB. Through a source of mine, I was informed today that Meredith Corp., the parent company of WFSB, will be moving another division of theirs to Rocky Hill. Meredith Video Solutions will be moving their operations to Rocky Hill in the near future. Unfortunately, these are jobs that could have been based in Hartford if Perez had a clue how to build a vibrant business climate, rather than drive businesses out to the suburbs, where they are met with open arms by our suburban town leaders.
As Hartford continues to build its reputation as "New England's Shooting Star", two of the latest victims of gun violence have just been confirmed dead at Hartford Hospital. The shootings,which occurred today during the evening rush hour in broad daylight, at one of Hartford's busier intersections by South Green Park at Main Street and Wethersfield Avenue.
The major question is where is the outrage on the part of residents, City leaders( if there are any) as well as suburban residents. Aside from the drug trafficking that occurs daily in South Green Park (commonly referred to as Needle Park) as well as the prostitutes walking the area, this intersection is traversed daily by thousands of people heading to Hartford Hospital, CCMC, the Learning Corridor, Trinity College and many State of Connecticut office buildings. Although one more shooting is one too many, the argument used after the Papa Pizza murder and shootings that Hartford really is safe, that it was an isolated incident not affecting the average person doesn't seem to ring true. In a crowded intersection during rush hour when bullets start flying, the miracle seems to be that no more innocent victims were hit, whether driving, walking to one of the numerous shelters in the area, or the person that may have been sitting in South Green Park.
When are the so-called leaders at Hartford City Hall going to step up and do what needs to be done to reclaim our City. And as much as I support Chief Roberts, the question has to be asked , do we really need him attending classes at Boston University or do we need him on the streets of Hartford doing what he is paid to do, lead the Hartford Police Department. I had no problem getting Matt Hennessy out of town for his stint at Harvard, but I think we need the Chief here.
Several sources are telling me that the City of Hartford has rejected over $1,000,000 in concessions that the Hartford Police Union has offered as contract givebacks to the City of Hartford as their share in balancing the Perez Administration's budget disaster. Specific details are not available at this time as to the content of the concessions, and HPD Union President Richard Rodriguez reserved comment until after the union membership meets on Tuesday. The concessions were said to take effect July 1, 2009 if they had been approved.
Although the Perez Administration has stated several times that Police layoffs were not being considered, this action seems to contradict that. It would seem that if layoffs were not being discussed, then any givebacks by the unions would gladly be accepted to help balance the budget.
During the budget process and hearings, Rodriguez had testified before the council, along with other city union leaders, that they desired to work with the City to be a part of the solution in balancing the city's budget. Although the Perez administration is not known for its openness and transparency, one needs to wonder what their intent is as far as police staffing ? It would seem to be a no brainer that when concessions on the parts of the unions are offered, especially as a good faith effort to ease the city's deficit when they aren't required to give anything back, and when the Perez Administration says layoffs aren't being considered, why would you not accept a million dollars plus?
Maybe someone under arrest for felonies and under the microscope of several law enforcement agencies for potential criminal acts, might not be the best person to decide Police issues and be willing to work objectively, just a thought.
The previous post here was about the City of Hartford's audit report that didn't seem to bolster the case of our dishonorable Mayor Eddie A Perez and his firing of Clarence Corbin as Hartford's Director of Public Works. Now on the heels of the disclosure of that report comes the decision by the State of Connecticut's Ethics Commission.
On April 3, 2009 Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose filed a complaint with the State's Ethics Commission allegeing violations a section 1-91 of the Connecticut General Statutes by Richard Moffitt, the person Clarence Corbin hired to provided services to the City. Although Rose accused Moffitt of illegal activity and accused him of providing "political lobbying", the State Ethics Commission disagreed and on June 18, 2009 dismissed Rose's complaint.
The irony of this situation and this complaint by Rose may prove to be quite interesting. Apparently, in filing this complaint and through Perez's comments to the media stating that it was being referred to the State Ethic's Commission, Perez apparently may have violated section 1-82a of the Connecticut General Statutes which requires confidentiality of any ethics complaint. Mr Moffitt waived confidentiality of the information contained in the complaint and the decision, which is the way that this information legally was made available to me by Mr. Moffitt and his attorney. According to sources at the State Ethics Commission, it would be illegal for Perez, Rose or anyone else to disclose information regarding the complaint prior to Mr. Moffitt waiving his confidentaility.
When this termination became public, I found it very odd that all of a sudden Perez was talking ethics. I guess this is a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do". Eddie Perez talking ethics, it would almost make me laugh if it didn't involve the seriousness of virtually ending Clarence Corbin's career. Although in the end I feel pretty confident Clarence will prevail.
Below is an e-mail from the State informing Moffitt of the dismissal of the compalint and Moffitt's attorney's letter to John Rose. It sure sounds to me like the lawsuits will be following closely behind this dismissal.
SECTION 1-82a of the Connecticut General Statutes:
Sec. 1-82a. Confidentiality of complaints, evaluations of possible violations and investigations. Publication of findings. (a) Unless a judge trial referee makes a finding of probable cause, a complaint alleging a violation of this part or section 1-101nn shall be confidential except upon the request of the respondent. An evaluation of a possible violation of this part or section 1-101nn by the Office of State Ethics prior to the filing of a complaint shall be confidential except upon the request of the subject of the evaluation. If the evaluation is confidential, any information supplied to or received from the Office of State Ethics shall not be disclosed to any third party by a subject of the evaluation, a person contacted for the purpose of obtaining information or by the ethics enforcement officer or staff of the Office of State Ethics. No provision of this subsection shall prevent the Office of State Ethics from reporting the possible commission of a crime to the Chief State's Attorney or other prosecutorial authority.
(b) An investigation conducted prior to a probable cause finding shall be confidential except upon the request of the respondent. If the investigation is confidential, the allegations in the complaint and any information supplied to or received from the Office of State Ethics shall not be disclosed during the investigation to any third party by a complainant, respondent, witness, designated party, or board or staff member of the Office of State Ethics.
(c) Not later than three business days after the termination of the investigation, the Office of State Ethics shall inform the complainant and the respondent of its finding and provide them a summary of its reasons for making that finding. The Office of State Ethics shall publish its finding upon the respondent's request and may also publish a summary of its reasons for making such finding.
(d) If a judge trial referee makes a finding of no probable cause, the complaint and the record of the Office of State Ethics' investigation shall remain confidential, except upon the request of the respondent and except that some or all of the record may be used in subsequent proceedings. No complainant, respondent, witness, designated party, or board or staff member of the Office of State Ethics shall disclose to any third party any information learned from the investigation, including knowledge of the existence of a complaint, which the disclosing party would not otherwise have known. If such a disclosure is made, the judge trial referee may, after consultation with the respondent if the respondent is not the source of the disclosure, publish the judge trial referee's finding and a summary of the judge trial referee's reasons therefor.
(e) The judge trial referee shall make public a finding of probable cause not later than five business days after any such finding. At such time the entire record of the investigation shall become public, except that the Office of State Ethics may postpone examination or release of such public records for a period not to exceed fourteen days for the purpose of reaching a stipulation agreement pursuant to subsection (c) of section 4-177. Any such stipulation agreement or settlement shall be approved by a majority of those members present and voting.
As most of you may recall, Hartford's Department of Public Works Director was terminated by the dishonorable Mayor Eddie A. Perez in late March after Perez accused Corbin of misusing city funds to hire a so-called "lobbyist". Typical of Perez and his mismanagement of the city, he shot first and asked questions later. The report of Hartford's City Auditor Patrick Campbell is attached below, and as you can see, the report was submitted to King Eddie on April 28, 2009, a month AFTER Corbin was terminated. Any normal, sane person would conduct the investigation first and then take action after the report was completed and laid out the facts. But, as you can see from the previous post regarding Hartford's COO Lee Erdmann, King Eddie's vindictive response is quick, and apparently not well thought out, when people cross him.
It might be time for Perez to work with the Council to increase that legal settlement account, I would say it is a safe bet that Mr. Corbin will potentially take a large chunk of it when he settles for his wrongful termination.
On Wednesday June 10, 2009 I received a tip from a very reliable source that the dishonorable Mayor Eddie A. Perez and Hartford COO Lee Erdmann had a "major falling out". Since we all know how King Eddie handles those who choose to disagree with him, it came as no surprise when the release came out late Friday that Erdmann was "retiring" from his postion. I am sure that over the next few days that the reasons behind this sudden "retirement" will come to light.
Maybe with the King's motion to dismiss being denied, Erdmann sees the seriousness of the situation and chooses to exit the building before the next "perp" walk begins. I'm sure it won't be pleasant when Boyle and Sullivan come visiting the next time. Hopefully Lee has steered clear of the criminal activity at City Hall, I'd hate to see that new house on the lake in Vermont going to waste.
According to hartford.gov, we can now follow the daily activity of our dishonorable mayor on Twitter as he advises us of his actions. You can follow King Eddie as "Hartford Mayor" if you care to waste the time.
It seems ironic that now that the Grand Jury has completed and the list of people singing like birds has finished, Eddie now begins "tweeting" his own song on line. Surprisingly though, I haven't seen any "tweets" such as "sitting in the front row at 101 Lafayette as Judge Dewey denies my motion to dismiss" or "pulling into Hubie's driveway to discuss the hiring of Leonard Boyle to oversee corruption. Could be real trouble now".
Anyone looking to view the City of Hartford's latest crime statistics can't do it on the HPD website. It seems that the last date crime stats have been updated was April 18, 2009 (http://www.hartford.gov/police/Crime_Stats_Folder/2009%20Compstats/2009_04_18.pdf). I wonder if this is the result of staff cutting measures by the administration of the dishonorable Mayor Eddie A. Perez or another effort at the "transparency" Perez keeps mentioning. Also, it seems rather odd that as violence continues to make the headlines every day, two lines that have been in the "Compstat Reports" for years have now been removed in the on-line versions posted on HPD's website. The two lines that showed the number of shooting incidents and shooting victims can no longer be viewed by the public in the on-line reports, as outdated as they are.
I can see why King Eddie wouldn't want those numbers available to the public, what with six people shot in a half hour period last weekend and another homicide last night, the citywide numbers can't be flattering to his administration.
Like everything else that is wrong in Hartford, I'm sure Perez can find a way to blame it on the State of Connecticut. Shootings? all the State's fault for not supervising released criminals. Failing schools? all the State's fault for not giving us more money than they already do for our dysfunctional school system. Out of Control spending and budget deficits? all the State's fault for not sending more money Eddie's way to mismanage than they already do (almost $100,000,000 more than our other large cities)
Some may remember one of my first postings regarding Hartford's former Tax Collector Donald LeFevere and his termination after he accused the dishonorable Mayor Eddie A. Perez of illegal activity. I'm not going to recap the whole incident here, but suffice it to say tha LeFevere was promptly suspended and shown the door at City Hall after he accused Perez of illegal activity and spelled the "illegal activity" out in an e-mail to his boss as well as several others in the Perez Administration. After Lefevere was left on a paid administrative suspension for almost a year at full salary, he eventually terminated. Apparently after his termination, the City realized that legally they may be on shaky ground and made a lump sum payment to LeFevere of almost a quarter of a million dollars, as well as lifetime health insurance for him and his wife.
In LeFevere's suspension letter and subsequent documents, Hartford's Chief Operating Officer Lee Erdmann referenced "complaint's" and an investigation leading to Lefevere's termination. Through an FOI request, I attempted to get the investigative report as well as any statements or supporting documents of any allegations of wrongdoing by LeFevere. No documentation was ever supplied to me, resulting in the FOI complaint and hearing outlined below. I thought it was odd that the Perez Administration would terminate someone and then offer him a settlement agreement in excess of $350,000 plus, and they had no documentation, statements or investigative report. It seems like the height of mismanagement,as well as extremely irresponsible, to open the City and its residents to such liability without being on solid legal ground. Apparently this is business as usual with those that disagree with King Eddie, as we have seen with Lefevere, Deputy Fire Chief Dan Nolan and most recently Public Works Director Clarence Corbin. Fortunately, LeFevere only cost the taxpayers of Hartford around $300,000 (so far) Nolan and Corbin have the potential to be in excess of six figures when they present their cases before a jury.
Back to the FOI hearing. Apparently the FOI hearing officer didn't feel as though it was plausible that you would take action against an employee without documenting the investigation and complaints, and found that the City, under the direction of Erdmann,"failed to prove that they had conducted a diligent search for all responsive requested records in this matter, and therefore failed to prove that they have provided all requested records to the complainant". The next paragraph in the decision, #15, states "It is concluded that the repondents (Erdmann and the City of Hartford) violated the FOI Act in this matter.
This is just another example of numerous violations by the Perez Administration to hide public documents from the public when they will most likely prove embarassing to the administration. Also, this adds to the dollar amount of outside counsel that have been hired to represent the City on these matters,in this case Fenton Guest, a good friend of Corporation Counsel John Rose. These matters appear to be pretty clear cut, public documents are able to be viewed by the public, end of story.
THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THIS BLOG ARE STRICTLY THAT, MY OPINIONS.After getting fed up with the lack of openness in Hartford City Hall, I decided to begin a program on Hartford Public Access Television called "WE THE PEOPLE". Through tips received we have been able to expose numerous issues that the Perez Administration would prefer to keep quiet.
Any information received is kept in strict confidence, feel free to e-mail me at krbrookman@earthlink.net or call me at 860-883-2297 with any information.
