BILLIE SCRUSE PUTS THE SCREWS TO THE SASHA SHOW ON HARTFORD PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION

PICTURED ABOVE,HARTFORD PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BILLY SCRUSE


In 2007 after Stan McCauley was removed as the Executive Director of Hartford Public Access Television, the only explanation given by the HPATV Board of Directors was that they wanted to move in a "new direction".

In 2009 the Board of Directors hired former Perez spokesperson Billie Scruse as the new Executive Director. As of now, after several months with Billie Scruse at the helm steering HPATV, many producers and others familiar with HPATV would probably say the new direction the board wanted is apparently reverse.

Although several producers and former employees have complained to me about the lack of respect they claim Scruse shows to those involved with the station, that seems to only be the tip of the iceberg in what is being called incompetence by some.

Operating the station is a highly technical operation and does require a working knowledge of numerous electronic equipment to keep the programming on the air. From what sources have told me, Scruse has refused numerous offers to be trained to better understand what it takes to keep the operation functioning.

This was evidenced last year when HPATV channel 5 was broadcasting a blank image over channel 5 for almost 20 hours. Scruse apparently had no clue how to rectify the situation until a long time former Executive Director of the station, who wishes to remain nameless, corrected the minor problem within minutes and HPATV was back on the air immediately. Although he wishes to remain nameless, this is the same Executive Director who was terminated to make way for the Board's "new direction".

The Hartford Public Access Television web site appears to not have been updated in a year, mentions a producers meeting which was held almost a year ago as an upcoming event, and even lists names of employees who left months ago. A new website called "hartfordtv.org was reserved by Scruse in October of 2009. No content appears on the site, other than numerous pop-up ads when you go to the site.

According to information found on-line in a search for "billie scruse", her area of expertise is branding and marketing. I would think that would include an active updated website. Although one of Scruse's first official acts as the new executive director was to paint the lobby of the station, she also introduced a new "logo" for Hartford Public Access Television and unveiled it at an open house. Most people have never even seen the logo and apparently is has never even appeared or been used on the station. So much for branding.

In addition, apparently several pieces of computer equipment, including laptop computers have "disappeared" from the station recently. Police sources have advised me that the thefts or "disappearances" have not been reported to them for investigation.

Just as a little history, Public Access Television was implemented by the FCC in 1972 and required all cable systems in the top 100 markets to provide three access channels. These three channels are often referred to as "PEG", standing for Public, Education and Government channels.

In 1972 the US Supreme Court upheld the requirement for Public Access Television, which had been challenged by cable operators. In 1976 the requirement was expanded to all communities with 3500 or more subscribers.

Public Access Television is open to anyone wishing to produce a program, regardless of content or quality, Both Federal and Connecticut law are very clear on confirming the publics free speech rights and prohibit any censorship or editorial control over programming with one exception. No commercial programming may be aired on public access channels, including fundraisers or "infomercial" type content.

In numerous court decisions, the public access channel has been compared to the modern day town square and these decisions continuously reaffirm an individuals free speech rights to say what they want on public access channels.

Now the connection to the Sasha Show. Sasha Hunter, a longtime producer at HPATV has experienced numerous technical problems with failing and poorly maintained equipment while producing her programs at the station. Sasha Hunter as well as other producers readily admit to a contentious relationship with Scruse, beginning shortly after her arrival as Executive Director. Producers I have spoke with described Scruse as "condescending" and "disrespectful" in her dealing with them.

Apparently during a recent "Sasha Show", Sasha reached her boiling point and apologized to her viewers for all of the technical difficulties during the program. She then went on to say that the management and staff needed to get their acts together and fix the problems at the station.

Sasha was well within her 1st Amendment right to free speech in her comments. Free speech rights are the basic premise that Public Access Television was born out of.

Apparently though, in the eyes of Scruse, Sasha crossed some imaginary line in Scruse's mind for publicly calling her out on her incompetence. The following week when Sasha Hunter arrived at HPATV to begin preparing for her program she was told by staffers that Scruse had suspended her show for at least three months.

Although I made numerous attempts to contact Scruse , she has not returned any of my calls. I understand there are two sides to every story, but so far the only version available is that of Sasha Hunter and other sources I have spoke with since Billie Scruse does not have the courtesy to return my calls.

Scruse apparently made the comment that it was the Board of Directors who made the decision to suspend the Sasha Show. Not surprisingly, two Board Members I have spoke with had no idea that the program was suspended and never were contacted to make a decision and claim it has not been brought up at any board meetings.

Furthermore, Sasha Hunter has not received anything in writing to detail any infractions or received any warnings from Scuse or any others regarding her behavior.

The clip of her comments on the air have been obtained and are available for your consideration below. Prior to seeing the clip , I was expecting much worse than what the clip shows. Sasha's comments begin at about 1 minute into the clip.

As of today, no explanation has been provided to her, her show is still off the air and Billie Scruse still hasn't had the decency to call me back. This issue is definitely not going away as Sasha Hunter promises to follow through with court action if necessary.

As Scruse was a staffer in the Mayor Perez administration before she lost her job, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by her lack of regard for courtesy, transparency and the public's free speech rights.

If you would like to voice your opinion to Ms. Scruse, please feel free to e-mail her at billiescruse@hartfordpublicaccess.org

This issue is also discussed in detail on our "1 Hartford" program tonight. The link to the program is on the post below.

THE MIRACLE ON MAIN STREET

I have to say I think I witnessed a miracle on Main Street today, that's 550 Main Street, Hartford City Hall to be exact. As if that wasn't enough, I was lucky enough to witness this miracle in the presence of my newly adopted grandmother Prenzina Holloway. Gramma was ranting about something and kept saying "no one intimidates me, I don't care what color they are". I'm not really sure what she meant, but she kept looking at me as she said it.

Gramma, weren't the Christmas presents enough?

Anyway, back to the miracle. As the previous blog entry said, on January 27, 2010 at 4:00PM the deadline had expired for the submission of petitions to qualify for the March 2, 2010 Democratic Town Committee elections. Unfortunately for team "Arena" and team "Giles" discrepancies were noted, essentially clerical errors that none the less would invalidate those petition sheets that were incomplete.

Now I've always wondered how miracles are actually validated and after today it is all much clearer to me. Apparently on Wednesday just before the 4:00PM deadline for any changes or submissions, someone had photocopied the petitions clerical errors and missing signatures and everything else. Well, for some reason after the mistake was realized the documents in question left the City Clerks vault and made their way back to the Democratic Registrar's Office. Apparently the documents arrived in the Registrar's hands with mere minutes to spare.

Now here is where the miracle begins. Even though the circulators who had failed to sign the petitions were not in the Registrar's Office, she apparently laid her hands on the stack of forms and by some miraculous power, within seconds all of the missing signatures appeared on every single document in question. I know it happened within seconds, because if the documents were changed after 4:00PM it would have been illegal.

And as anyone who follows City Hall knows, nothing illegal would ever happen in that building.

Myself and Grandma were there when the petitions were turned back over to City Clerk John Bazzano, and lo and behold, as I turned over page after page, the documents that just 2 days before were verified incomplete, were now 100% complete. I knew it had to be a miracle, things like this just don't happen on their own.

I guess I'm an optimist because I prefer to see the glass as half full and I want to believe that a miracle has happened. If it was closer to Christmas I could almost be convinced that it was a gift to team "Arena" and team "Giles" from Santa Claus, but we all know he is back at the North Pole now. And after what the Arena's have done with their taxes, Santa might just be giving them a bag of coal next year.

But you'll always get the pessimists who see the glass as half empty. They might claim that the signatures that suddenly appeared are the result of fraudulent activity on the part of certain individuals wanting to win an election at all costs with no regard for the law, integrity or honesty. Did they even consider that the copies showing the missing sections that would invalidate them could also be part of the same miracle and the copy machine deleted those sections?

Well, it's time for a nap, it's not easy witnessing miracles, not to mention spending time with Grandma. Besides, Easter is fast approaching and I need to get ready for the Easter Bunny, not to mention St. Patrick's Day and the leprechauns.

I believe, I believe, I believe.

THIS WEEK ON "1 HARTFORD"

This week on the "1 Hartford" program we discussed the recent actions by the Executive Director of Hartford Access Public Television Billy Scruse. The program airs weekly on Hartford Public Access Channel 5 Saturday's at 10:PM and Monday's at 11:00PM

After HPATV producer Sasha Hunter made comments that were less than flattering regarding Scruse and her operation at Hartford Public Access Television, Hunter's programs were immediately removed from the air for at least the next three months. We discussed Hunter's right to say what she did and Scruse's retaliation.

We also talked about Hartford's impending budget disaster and the way it is being handled, or some would say ignored, by the Perez Administration.

If Sasha Hunter's comments got her show taken off the air, let me be the first to say good-bye and thanks for watching "1 Hartford". This program is hard hitting and lays it all out about the mis-management of Hartford Public Access Television.

If Billie Scruse disliked Sasha exercising her free speech rights, she'll go ballistic over this.



TO VIEW THE PROGRAM ON ACCESSTV.ORG CLICK HERE

OH WHAT A WEB THEY WEAVE

For a couple weeks now, Democratic Town Committee members have been circulating petitions to qualify for the Democratic Town Committee elections scheduled for March 2, 2010.

Many people that I spoke with were concerned about one of the candidates running for a position on the Democratic Town Committee in the 5th House District. Hartford's Democratic Registrar of Voters Olga Vasquez apparently was on the "Giles" slate and was in the running for a Town Committee seat.

Those that I spoke with, as well as myself, were concerned about a conflict of interest between running as a candidate for town committee as well as being the person charged with administering and overseeing the same election.

The "Giles" slate consists of Olga Vazquez's mother-in-law Juanita Giles, Vazquez's husband Radames Vazquez, Olga Vazquez herself as well as nine other individuals.

Although one would hope that any official that would put themselves in such a questionable position, would have the common sense to remain as "hands off" as possible. The issue of a conflict of interest seems to have become the reality as serious questions are now being raised.

Apparently Registrar Vazquez was responsible for overseeing the petition forms and her office was required to validate the signatures of Democratic voters who had signed the forms. Once the forms were delivered to Vazquez's office, each petition was checked and the signatures were verified and then turned over to the City Clerk to be kept and filed as official documents.

All seemed to go well until a member of the 5th District challenge slate, the "Kirkley-Bey" slate noticed an irregularity in the "Giles" slate's submitted petitions. I have used the names of Kirkley-Bey and Giles to identify the two 5th district slates, only to make it easier to follow.

Apparently Mark DiBella was checking petitions that were already filed with the City Clerk's office and noticed that "section C" on the majority of the Giles' slates petitions were incomplete or not filled out at all. Although a small percentage of the petitions were filled out properly, the majority were not.

That seems to raise the question why Registrar Vazquez would sign some, but fail to sign the rest. Although sources had told me Vazquez said the section wasn't required and had apparently instructed circulators not to complete it, I would think the question has to be asked why you would sign any of them at all if you thought it wasn't required.

After DiBella noticed the error, he requested photo copies of the documents. At approximately 3:50PM yesterday, January 27, 2010, Vazquez and her Deputy Registrar Garry Coleman retrieved the documents from the City Clerk's vault and took them back to Registrar Vazquez's office.

After the documents were received by City Clerk John Bazzano, the petitions, according to an FOI representative, then became public documents. The question then arises as to what right Vazquez had to take the documents from Bazzano's care and control take them back to her office. To most people discussing this today, it is the general consensus that Registrar Vazquez should not even be able to touch the documents in question, especially since she is a candidate, and in light of the allegations of potential irregularities or the perception of a conflict of interest.

Apparently City Clerk Bazzano felt less than comfortable with the direction this was going, and by e-mail requested a clarification from the Secretary of the States Office. One of the staff attorney's that the Secretary of State apparently supervises in her "active practice" of law responded through e-mail to Bazzano's request. That e-mail is posted below.

Theodore Bromley, a staff attorney in the Legislation and Elections Administration Division of the Secretary of the State's office stated that, essentially, if Registrar Vazquez had noticed the problem before the petition deadline, 1/27/10 at 4:00PM, the circulators could have come into the office and signed the forms.

Obviously, since DiBella had copies of the documents and Vazquez did not retrieve them until 3:50PM. ten minutes before the deadline, they were not corrected in time.

In Attorney Bromley's response to John Bazzano, he summarizes that "if this does not happen, however, the petition pages would have to be rejected pursuant to the state statute".

SECRETARY OF STATE STAFF ATTORNEY'S CLARIFICATION
DTC Petition SOTS E-mail

Although Registar Vazquez refused to let anyone review the petitions today, even though they are public documents, other sources provided more information. Apparently the "Gile's" slate petitions may not be the only ones in jeopardy of being disqualified.

The 4th District slate, the "Arena" slate, led by Hartford's Democratic Town Chairperson Sean Arena apparently also has submitted petitions without section "c" completed.

In both cases, any petition forms disqualified would most likely result in the slates not meeting the minimum number of signatures required to qualify for a position on the March 2nd ballot. This would result in the challenge slates in both districts winning by default and promising a major shakeup in the make-up of Hartford's Democratic Town Committee.

This shakeup would have wide ranging repercussions for the Hartford political scene, including whether or not Eddie Perez would be able to garner the party's nomination if he were to choose to run again. With the upcoming trial for Perez on his corruption charges, that is a big if as to whether he will be capable of running.

Again it is a big if as to whether Perez can or will run, but the shakeup would, according to most observers, benefit Town Committee Chairperson challenger Bruce Rubenstein. Rubenstein is running on an anti-corruption agenda and vowing to return integrity to Hartford City Hall.

As of this time no decision has been made by Registrar Vazquez as to whether she will obey the law, or follow in the footsteps of her political mentors, father-in-law
Abe Giles and Mayor Eddie Perez.

It is safe to say though that if Mark DiBella and others have their way, the matter will be on a fast track to be decided by a Superior Court Judge. From what sources are telling me, DiBella and the others have contracted the services of Hartford Attorney Bob Ludgin. For those who don't recall Bob Ludgin, he is a former City Councilperson and comes from the City Hall era when Councilpeople were bulldogs, not lapdogs. The days of council people like John O'Connell and Bob Ludgin.

Although I attempted to contact Registrar Vazquez for comment, she was sequestered in the bunker known as the Registrar's Office in the basement of Hartford City Hall and didn't return my calls. At the same time, her husband was in the Political Strategy Command Center on the 2nd floor, also known as the Mayor's Office, presumably trying to figure out their next move.

As I said in the title, oh what a web they weave. Luckily though for DiBella and the "Kirkley-Bey" slate, Mark DiBella has one thing on his side that the "Giles" slate and the "Arena" slate don't.....the truth. Superior Court judges tend to prefer dealing with the truth and the facts.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO STAN McCAULEY

Happy 50th birthday to J. Stan McCauley. Stan hits 50 today, January 22nd.

Hopefully on his 52nd birthday he'll be serving the people of Hartford as their new Mayor

ANOTHER IRONIC TWIST

The Connecticut Post is reporting tonight that former Bridgeport Mayor Joseph Ganim has been released early from a Federal Prison and will be living in Hartford at a half-way house to serve the final six months of his sentence. Ganim began serving his sentence in 2003. He will be residing at the Watkinson House on Collins Street.(FYI Prenzina, I think that's your district, he might need an absentee ballot to vote in the upcoming Democratic Town Committee election)

Once again Hartford can be proud that we now have not one, but two corrupt Mayor's calling Hartford home, oh yeah, allegedly corrupt for Perez, confirmed corrupt for Ganim.

Due to pending court actions, both of their claims to residency in Hartford are most likely temporary.

In the mean time, might I suggest a "Mayoral" lunch to compare notes on prison life

CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION AND MORE CORRUPTION... WHERE IS THE OUTCRY?

Over this past weekend I had posted and raised the issue that if some of the things that happen in Hartford were to occur in almost any other town, the outcome would be much different.

That posting was in regards to Hartford Democratic Town Chairperson Sean Arena and his 4th District Town Committee delegate brother Ralph Arena and their efforts to avoid Hartford's burdensome mill rate on motor vehicles. The Arena's have been registering their vehicles in New Canaan to avoid Hartford's 73 mill tax rate. New Canaan is 13 mill's, sixty mills less than Hartford.

In that post I had mentioned such behavior would be unacceptable in any other town, except maybe Waterbury and Bridgeport. But I doubt even those two towns would turn a blind eye to such behavior.

And now to my point, where is Council President Segarra? Where is Councilperson Kennedy? Where is Councilman Ritter? And just for the sake of argument, where is Councilman Boucher? So as to still appear serious in my thoughts, I'm not even going to mention Councilpersons Torres or Winch, we know where they stand in the land of "see no evil" "hear no evil" "speak no evil".

How is change supposed to begin if no one takes a stand on the corruption seething in Hartford.

And it's not just the Arena's. The only real voice speaking out against corruption at city hall has been Councilperson Deutsch. Dr Deutsch had publicly called for the resignation of Perez after his arrests.

With the revelations yesterday regarding threats being made against individuals running for the Democratic Town Committee in the 4th District, the cloud over Hartford continues to grow. Yet, not a peep publicly from any of our Councilpeople. And now today I've received calls that it is not only the 4th District where the threats are being made. Hopefully some of those people will be fed up enough to speak out and submit affadavitts to elections enforcement along with those already in.

The most disturbing part of this though is that in private conversations, many of our elected officials admit that they are fed up. There are good people on the Council who do know the difference between right and wrong. There are also others that don't, as evidenced by recent City Hall arrests.

I won't name names here, but two years ago when Bill DiBella was being re-appointed to the MDC I spoke with at least four councilmembers who admitted that they knew he didn't live in Hartford and didn't deserve to be on the MDC. One councilperson even went so far as saying they were afraid of losing their "clout" on the MDC if DiBella wasn't the MDC Chairman.

Clout? what clout?. I think "clout" for Hartford might be measured by the number of jobs delivered to Hartford residents by the MDC's "Clean Waters Project". If jobs are the yardstick, then Bill DiBella should be sent to pasture because he has obviously been neutered and can't produce anything by the looks of it.

Let me go back to the Democratic Town Chairman. Has anyone heard any of the Democratic Councilpeople calling for his resignation. The fact that the Arena's vehicle taxes have been put on Hartford's Grandlist retroactive for three years, the maximum allowed by state law, shows that the claims were factual, not just mere allegations.

Any Councilperson who struggles almost daily with how to make Hartford's budget work should be upset by anyone trying to beat Hartford's taxes. Add into the mix that this person beating Hartford's taxes is the so-called "leader" of the Democratic Party in Hartford and they should be furious. Yet, have you heard anyone of them call for Arena's resignation? Nope, not a peep.

One councilperson I spoke with last week said that if they spoke up then the Democratic Town Committee might not re-nominate them for their council position. I guess I have to ask at what price are you willing to sell your integrity? Is a nomination really worth your silence? And do those forty or fifty delegates from the Democratic Town Committee really seal your fate. Give the voters some credit here, they might just rise up to support the underdog who does the right thing. No one saw it coming in Massachusetts, but I think the message is that people are getting tired of machine politics.

And the outrage shouldn't just be from the Democratic Town Committee. Ralph Arena serves on the board of directors for the Maple Avenue NRZ and the last I knew Sean Arena chaired the South Green NRZ. I'm not certain if he still does because I never hear anything about them. Both groups should be calling for their resignations.

Excuse my english, but how do you say you are advocating for the neighborhoods while you are screwing them at the same time while beating the city out of tax revenue. I looked at many of the people at the Maple Avenue NRZ (MARG) meeting last week and wondered how many of the people in the room, myself included, struggle to meet tax obligations to Hartford. But, at least we are trying, we aren't defrauding the city out of much needed revenue.

I guess if we are going to change the way Hartford politics work, we need to know that there are good people in Hartford willing to take a stand against corruption. Leadership begins at the top, and we can pretty much say that there is no shot of that leadership coming out of the Mayor's Office. The Council can emerge as the ones willing to take a stand against corruption in Hartford.

To quote Council President Segarra and his eloquent speech last week before the Council " ... the fact that so many have come to expect so little from elected officials does not relieve us of our obligation to work hard to improve the circumstances of our people. The apathy of many should not be a reason for inaction but rather a motivating force to send a message that we will take our responsibilities seriously."

President Segarra and members of the Hartford City Council, please send a message that you are taking your responsibilites seriously and that corruption in any form will not be acceptable.

The time to say enough is enough is now. It is time to call for resignations.

THE DOCUMENTS JOHN ROSE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE: THE OFFICER MATTHEW SECORE CASE

On May 6, 2007 Ruben Perez apparently parked his car illegally behind 17 East Elliott Street in Hartford. According to the initial police report, Perez was not a resident of 17 East Elliott Street and lacked the proper parking permit. Whitey's Towing had a contract with the property owner to tow illegally parked cars. The Whitey's Towing driver, Slade Secore was in the process of towing Perez's car. After a verbal dispute with Perez, Slade Secore was assaulted by several people that were with Perez.

Another Whitey's Towing driver, Richard Hoegeman, had gone to East Elliott Street to assist Slade Secore when he was being assaulted. Hoegeman positively identified Ruben Perez as one of Secore's attackers.

As it turned out, Slade Secore is the brother of Hartford Police Officer Matthew Secore. One of the police officer's involved in the initial assault complaint called Officer Secore to tell him that his brother had been seriously assaulted and was being transported to Hartford Hospital by ambulance.

Officer Matthew Secore went to the Trauma Unit at Hartford Hospital and observed his brother severely beaten and his face bloodied. At one point while waiting for x-rays and cat scans, Matthew Secore spent the time washing dried blood off his brothers face. I have seen a few pictures of Slade Secore taken a couple days after the beating, and they were bad. I can only imagine how I would have reacted if that were a family member of mine, and Officer Secore's actions seem tame compared to what I would want to do to the attacker of any family member of mine.

After viewing his brother at Hartford Hospital and facing information that Slade potentially could lose sight in one eye, Officer Secore went to Hartford Police Headquarters to find out more info. Probably not the wisest decision in his current mindset, but again totally understandable by anyone that cares about their family members.

And as much as Matthew Secore was honest right from the start about his actions, the truth is that the entire system broke down and failed both Ruben Perez and Matthew Secore that night. Upon arriving at the booking area, a secure area at HPD seperated from the common areas of the building by heavy steel secure doors that require being "buzzed" in. Officer Secore was admitted into the secure area.

Even though, according to the IAD report, Secore was described as being "upset", "agitated" and "not happy", he was nonetheless "buzzed" into the secure area and allowed to confront Ruben Perez. The sergeant in charge of the area at the time was suspended and eventually retired.

Secore didn't lie about or dispute his actions that night. He admitted to exchanging words with Perez and at one point Perez made a derogatory comment about Slade Secore, saying to Officer Secore "F**k your brother" . Officer Secore grabbed Ruben Perez by the collar of his shirt and punched him once. Realizing he made a real mistake, he backed away and left the area.

Although Officer Secore told the truth from the start, other police officers apparently did not. According to the IAD report, officers gave contradictory information and seemed to only tell the truth after being confronted with the facts.

On June 9, 2007 Officer Secore was terminated from the Hartford Police Department.

One of the facts that complicated this matter is the fact that Ruben Perez is the nephew of Hartford Mayor Eddie A. Perez.

One of the first questions that arose was how the panel for Officer Secore's disciplinary hearing was selected. Typically, 3 Captain's are selected to conduct a disciplinary hearing with one of the three chosen by the officer involved, in Secore's case 3 Assistant Chiefs were used to make up the panel. Apparently this was the first time Assistant Chiefs were used to decide an officer's fate. And according to testimony before the state Labor Board no one had ever heard of the Chiefs conducting a disciplinary hearing in the history of the department.

Another issue I find interesting is the statement of Ruben Perez in the IAD report. It is posted below with the entire IAD report. Although statements are supposed to be made freely and in the words of the person making the statement. Read the statement and make your own decision as to whether or not Perez was coached in what to say.

The first sentence alone, what 23 year old talks like this? "I was on East Elliott Street Hartford Connecticut attending a party with friends and family members. I parked my car in the rear parking lot of the property. I'm uncertain of the exact address" hmmmm, just makes me wonder.

Not that the wording changes the facts, but it just raises red flags in my mind as to how legitimate the investigation was or who might have influenced its final outcome.

In addition, according to the Union brief filed with the Labor Board in support of Secore's position, more questions than answers are raised as to how decisions were made and was the punishment appropriate.

Two similar incidents were brought up during Secore's hearing. One was the case of Officer James Jenkins. Officer Jenkins apparently pulled an individual out of his vehicle on a city street. Jenkins apparently threw the individual down in the middle of Walnut Street and according to at least two seperate witnesses who stated they saw Officer Jenkins punch the individual at least three or four times, and one witness stated that Jenkins punched the man with both fists four or five times and then witnessed Officer Jenkins spit in the man's face.

Jenkin's received only a 90 day suspension for his actions, which on their face value appear much more severe than Secore's actions.

The second incident occurred in 1999 and involved an Officer Peterson, who was initially charged with use of excessive force. Officer Peterson shot a fleeing "misdemeanant", an individaul who had committed a misdemeanor, which is "clearly excessive use of force" according to the Labor Board decision. Officer Peterson received a "short" suspension. As a side note, according to sources, Peterson's version of the occurences changed a couple times during questioning. Officer Peterson has since been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant.

At the time of the Secore incident , there were no video recordings in place. Since then 32 cameras have been installed and are recorded constantly. The only truthful record of what happened that night is the version provided by Secore himself since he chose to be honest from the start.

That truthfulness that led to his termination, also figured heavily in the Labor Boards decision to re-instate him. Secore's honesty and integrity figured strongly in the Board's decision. Also, in light of the Jenkins incident and the Peterson incident, the Labor Board decided that Secore's punishment was too severe in comparison to past Department practices.

The Labor Board ruled that Secore was to be re-instated, with all back pay and benefits, less a 90 day suspension. As of today, that has not happened and the City, under John Rose, is appealing the decision in court.

According to several lawyers I have spoke with, that may be another effort in futility by Mr. Rose, and a further waste of the taxpayers money. According to the attorneys, both sides agree going in to arbitration to abide by the boards eventual decision. In this case, Hartford isn't living up to their portion of the agreement and is now choosing to fight the decision since it didn't come out in their favor.

Also, from what I've been told, the only way to overturn an arbitration decision is if "wrongdoing" can be proven on the part of the hearing officers. Just disagreeing with their decision is not grounds to overturn. But typical with John Rose, it's not his money so fight on for the inevitable loss.

And I agree with the Labor Board's ruling that this is a difficult decision, but the Board made the right call. This incident was not a pattern of abusive behavior by a rogue cop, unlike the videotaped beating recenetly by two other officer's in booking.

Secore did not have numerous IAD complaints against him, unlike Officer Lee and Officer Campbell. By reading previous postings here on this blog, you can see that Officer Secore was respected and interacted well with the community

Officer Secore responded poorly to an incident that involved a family member of his who was severely beaten. Poor decision, poor timing and a very poor choice of location. But after seeing the pictures of Slade Secore after his beating, I envisioned a family member of mine beaten and left like that. I have to honestly say that Officer Secore only punching him once and backing off is a lot better than what I would have done if I saw a relative like that and had the opportunity to confront the assailant.

I just wouldn't have done it in the police lock-up.

VIEW THE SECORE DOCUMENTS BELOW, OR AT LEAST THOSE I COULD GET WITHOUT JOHN ROSE'S HELP

Secore Arbitration Award

Secore Union Brief for Labor Board

Secore IAD Part 1
Secore IAD Part 2

Secore IAD Part 3

Secore IAD Part 4

MAYOR PEREZ TO OPPOSITION SLATE LEADER , DROP OUT BECAUSE "HE DIDN'T WANT HER HURT"

Once again, Hartford seems to be rising to new levels of political corruption.

In a complaint filed yesterday with the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement, Attorney Bruce Rubenstein details the complaints of his clients. In the complaint, Rubenstein provides details of a meeting between Mayor Eddie A. Perez and 4th District Democratic Town Committee opposition slate leader Luz Torres-Sullivan.

Torres-Sullivan claims that on January 10, 2010 at approximately 8:15pm, Perez came to her residence. According to her, Perez voiced his disappointment with her challenge slate and said that "he didn't want her hurt" and that if she dropped her challenge slate "she would be taken care of".

Other allegations of abuse of power by the Mayor are outlined in the attached affadavitts. Allegations of police harassment are also detailed, with one officer apparently claiming that he was told directly by Chief Roberts that Torres-Sullivan and those working with her were not to be allowed in certain buildings to collect petitions.

In fairness to Chief Roberts, there is no testimony in the affadavitts claiming a direct conversation with the Chief, rather only a comment from a "Hartford Police Officer Perez" that "he received direct orders from Chief Roberts" to not allow Torres-Sullivan or any of her workers on the premises. I would be somewhat surprised to find the Chief involved in political matters or any form of intimidation.

The letter from Attorney Rubenstein to Elections Enforcement is below as well as copies of the sworn affadavitts

4th District Affadavits

AND NOW.... MORE ON THE ARENA TAX SCHEME

Two weeks ago this blog uncovered documents showing that Hartford's Democratic Town Chairperson Sean Arena and his brother Ralph Arena, an elected member of the 4th District Democratic Town Committee, had been registering their vehicles in New Canaan. This appears to have been done to avoid Hartford's 74 mill tax rate on vehicles as opposed to New Canaan's rate of 13 mills.

Today the Hartford Courant reported on this scheme in their print version of the Courant. For those who didn't see it in the print version, here's a link to courant.com to read the story on-line.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE STORY

Be sure to read the comments after the story posted by the Courant's readers. Although no one is calling for Arena's resignation publicly yet, it seems that tyhe Courant's readers get it and find Arena's behavior just plain wrong.

In just about every other city or town the chief executive would have made a call to the Town Chairperson the same day calling for him to step aside.The call probably would have gone something like this... "We appreciate your service, but your actions question the credibility of our city and this administration and it is time for you to step down, please submit your resignation immediately". But since Hartford is now outpacing Waterbury and Bridgeport as the example for corrupt government, we know our Mayor Eddie Perez won't make that call any time soon.

And as a sidenote, can anyone explain the relationship between Sean Arena and Eddie Perez. I have never been able to figure that one out. And now,as the Town Committee races are heating up, it seems as though the Mayor is going for broke to ensure Arena's re-election for Town Chairperson. If anyone can explain to me the missing parts of the puzzle, please feel free to e-mail me or call me in complete confidence. None of it makes sense to me.

AND ANOTHER "JOHN ROSE CLASSIC MOMENT"

I totally forgot about this one, but one of the blog readers reminded me about this.

Another wise decision by Mr. Rose that cost the taxpayers of Hartford 13 times the original claim because he chose to fight the decision.

Keep it up John, great legal work representing us.

click here to view the story on WFSB.com

MATTHEW SECORE SPEAKS OUT

Some might wonder why the City of Hartford and Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose are fighting so hard to keep from releasing documents related to the case of Hartford Police Officer Matthew Secore.

Over the next few days I will be posting some of the documents I have obtained in regards to this case. None of the documents, not even one piece of paper have come from the City of Hartford though.

On the face value the case seems pretty simple, Secore was terminated after an Internal Affairs Investigation was completed in which Secore was accused of punching Ruben Perez. Ruben Perez is the nephew of Hartford Mayor Eddie A. Perez. Ruben Perez had been arrested after a brutal beating of Officer Secore's younger brother, Slade Secore.

After reading the Labor Board decision, you might think differently about the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. The IAD report also raises some questions about Ruben Perez and his statement. Was it coached? Are the words really those of Ruben Perez? Is Secore totally responsible or was it a breakdown of an entire system?

Matthew Secore commented yesterday here on "We the People". For those who didn't read his comments, they are posted below. I have confirmed that the comments are in fact posted by Matthew Secore.

Matthew Secore's comments:
Greetings Mr Brookman,

It comes as no surprise to me that the city of Hartford would not want you to know the details of my case. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to try and answer your questions.

Yes I was reinstated through the process of legal arbitration, agreed upon through the City of Hartford and the Hartford Police Union. However, the city has appealed my award to the superior court. They have every right to appeal but based on what my lawyers are telling me an arbitration award is legally binding and can only be successfully appealed on the grounds of fowl play or a violation of public trust laws. Since my award was not won through any illegal means and I was not found to be a thief or dishonest, the city is fighting a case they are not likely to win. In fact, based on multiple conversations with various lawyers, I'm very comfortable in saying they will not win. So the question becomes, why would the city spend money and resources on a case they are not likely to win? Maybe I can shed some light on that.

Recently I've been issued a civil lawsuit from Ruben Perez, Eddie Perez's nephew. What's interesting is Ruben Perez is suing me on an individual capacity and is NOT suing the City of Hartford. All civil lawsuits are about money, so why sue an individual with limited funds over a government? I guess money isn't his goal in this. Regardless, the case will most likely be settled out of court by the City of Hartford anyway.

I'm not looking for sympathy for I take full responsibility for my actions. My concern comes from one of being a public servant to the tax payers of Hartford. As of this month the city of Hartford owes me over $100,000 in back pay, this does not include vacation time, paid holidays and such. This amount just keeps climbing each week. Also, in about one year my police certification will expire. Per CT state law if it expires and I do not receive a waiver the city of Hartford will have to send me through the police academy again. It's estimated the police academy cost the city $50,000 for each recruit, but mine will cost more because I will be getting paid at the top of my pay scale during that time. I can only speculate on the man hours Hartford has spent on my case but as you can see by how they are fighting your FOI request, your money is no object to them.

Mr. Brookman, I can't answer your second two questions about why the city has not reinstated me yet or what role Eddie Perez played in my discipline. At least not to the level of proof you are accustomed to. What I can give you is my opinion based on the unusual choices and small nuances of how my case was and is being handled by the City of Hartford. I feel the reason the city has not reinstated me and has elected to continue it's losing battle is because Mayor Perez cares more about his personal agenda then he does the tax payers who elected him to be their Mayor.

I look forward to serving the City of Hartford again in the near future,

- Matthew Secore

THIS WEEK ON "1 HARTFORD"

Last week I put up the link for those who wanted to watch our "1 Hartford" program.

For those that don't have cable in Hartford or if you missed the program Saturday nights at 10:00PM on Channel 5, click below and take a look

When I put the link up last Friday night, within a couple hours over 150 people clicked the link and went to Stan McCauley's accesstv.org website and watched.

This week we discuss Hartford issues including economic development and the loss of more small businesses and more jobs lost, including the Cityplace McDonald's. We talk about the recently released crime stats and the upcoming Town Committee races.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH "1 HARTFORD"

A QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE ASKED: IS JOHN ROSE COMPETENT TO PRACTICE LAW FOR THE CITY OF HARTFORD ?

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am no fan of John Rose. Ask almost any Councilperson what they think of Mr. Rose(with the exception of Councilpersons Winch or Torres, they are blind to most issues non-Perez).

If Mr. Rose was in private practice, I'd say let him do whatever he wants. Repeated losses would eventually drain him of his client base and he might be smart enough to change his style.

The problem arises when his repeated losses have cost the people of Hartford millions of dollars. His inefficiency has resulted in hiring outside attorney's to represent the City, also costing the people of Hartford millions of dollars. And many of his "outside" attorneys hired are his former partners firms or part of the John Rose "good ol'boy" network.

Under the Rose style of "Corporation Counsel Office" some of the most basic forms of legal work, such as real-estate closings, are "farmed" out to some of his buddies. Is it maybe time to consider hiring an outside firm for all legal work for the City?

Although I made light of a few of his classic decisions this week on here, the poor decisions by Mr. Rose seem to be far more numerous than any lucid thoughts or behavior.

Charging a Councilperson for copies of documents he requested? Just the legal hours spent on this had to be several thousand dollars. Denying an inmate documents and fighting an FOI decision over the $27.50 copying fee that most likely should have never been charged in the first place if the requestor could prove that they were indigent. Again, thousands of dollars.

Pushing the termination and labor board decision of an employee branded a thief, even though no evidence was ever presented to indicate that she had stolen anything, only that she was a poor supervisor at the worst and most likely being used as a scapegoat at best.

And his legal opiniions issued with out any basis in law, but more likely based on meteorology. Which way is the wind blowing today? On several occasions his "opinions" have been rebuked by others that have reviewed them.

And let's not forget his behavior that has caused many to question his suitability to hold his current position. For me, it started when he mistakenly sent me an e-mail referring to me as an "asshole". I know some people that would terminate anyone under their supervision for such behavior. Not here though, it's Hartford. But apparently that e-mail is still used in FOI training classes on how NOT to reply to requests for public documents, so Mr. Rose's unacceptable manner has had a positive use.

And then we can all watch the WFSB video where we can witness a John Rose meltdown moment. As WFSB reporter Len Besthoff was reviewing an FOI request, Rose appeared in the lobby of his office and lost it with the camera's rolling. While Rose appeared to be totally wrong and out of line, most people with an ounce of common sense would realize that it was a no win situation, especially with the video rolling. Did Rose think the video would be hidden away in some archive? As if a reminder is needed, the John Rose "THIS IS MY OFFICE" tirade can be viewed below in a segment from WFSB's "Face the State" program.

And as Dennis House says in his promos for each weeks program, "Face the State" is the most widely watched political program in Connecticut. Not only does Mr. Rose make us proud in Hartford, this time he showed his style statewide. The segment also mentions his infamous "asshole" e-mail to me.



Several other situations that Mr. Rose has been involved with first hand seem to be opening the door on future million dollar settlements. The Dan Nolan termination case, the Matthew Secore termination case, the Vilma Rivera-Saez termination case. Both Secore's and Rivera-Saez's cases have been decided by the State Labor Board, and both decisions went against the City and Rose's actions.

The Secore case has raised many questions, above and beyond those already raised by other FOI actions by Rose.

In a recent request to Mr. Rose in his capacity as Corporation Counsel for the City, I had asked for documents pertaining to the handling of Officer Secore's case. I had been told that the Labor Board had ruled that Secore's termination was too severe a punishment for his actions. The Labor Board ordered that Secore be re-instated less a 90 day suspension.

In today's mail, I received Mr. Rose's response to the FOI Commission for not providing me any documents pertinent to my request.

I'm not sure if Mr. Rose and I attended the same FOI hearing, because his version of the hearing officers comments doesn't seem to be the same version I recall.

At one point, on page 3 of his brief, he writes "The hearing officer, after having heard Mr. Brookman on direct and cross, and appreciating the claim of Attorney Rose, cconcerning the documents in his file, directed the respondent to "... submit recordes being claimed exempt from disclosure for an in camera inspection".

The fact of the matter is that the hearing officer, after seeing documents that I was presenting that were already in the public domain, she commented seemed surprised, at least from my read of the situation that Rose's claim of an exemption wasn't valid and advised Mr. Rose " the fact that this is already out there, you know what I'm saying without having to say it?"

Later in the hearing, after ordering Rose to present the documents for an "in camera" review, the hearing officer stated to Rose "Frankly, on the basis of what I've seen so far, I'd agree with the complainant" that Rose had apparently withheld public documents. She further advised Mr. Rose, on the record, that it might be wise for him to submit a sworn affadavit to explain any grounds he had to withhold the documents.

Rose's complete brief can be seen below.

I am not an attorney, but Mr. Rose's legal mumbo-jumbo in his brief is essentially meant to deflect attention away from the fact that he withheld the public documents and sites numerous case law. If his "cites" are similar to his usual opinions, they probaly have very little similarities to the facts in this case, other than they mention "FOI".

In the last paragraph of his opinion he states " Mr. Brookman has made no showing that he cannot obtain the documents elsewhere; he has in fact obtained substantial numbers of them"

This has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the complaint. Because I can obtain documents outside of Mr. Rose's efforts does not release him form fulfilling the FOI request. All that statement proves is that I have some relaible sources that can help me keep Rose and others honest. If I didn't have the documents to throw on the table at an FOI hearing, would Rose have even acknowledged their existence? My gut feeling, having dealt with Rose repeatedly, is most likely no.

Rose repeatedly refers to the requested documents as "his file". That's the part where Mr. Rose just doesn't have a clue, these are not his documents, they are PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.

Mr. Rose, you are not in private practice, you are a public servant. Start acting like it please.

JOHN ROSE BRIEF TO FOI COMMISSION

Rose Brief to Foi for Secore Complaint

HOPEFULLY A NEW DIRECTION FOR HARTFORD CITY COUNCIL

This past Monday, Hartford City Councilperson Pedro Segarra chaired his first Council meeting as the Council President.

Several promising signals came from the meeting. One of the first signs was the public comment session of the meeting. Former Council President Torres had established a way of silencing those that took the time to speak at council meetings. Torres had established the use of a "traffic light" type device that limited speakers to three minutes, and when the light turned red, your time was up.

Under President Segarra, the stop light was gone and speakers were allowed to speak. On a night like Monday, when residents took the time to go out in 25 degree temperatures to speak, it was a welcome sign. Myself and others that spoke uninterrupted actually felt as though we were being welcomed and respected by the Council.

Another positive step in this age of technology, was the Council's agenda being displayed on a large screen to those in the Council Chambers and also displayed on public access television for those viewing at home. Brendan Mahoney, Executive Assistant to Councilman Cotto appeared to be responsible for the display, although I'm not sure who else might have been involved.

It was also good to see an orderly meeting being conducted and President Segarra kept the meeting moving, despite a prolonged debate over nonsense orchestrated by former Council President Torres.

Another positive sign not directly related to the Council, was the return of former Concilman John O'Connell. John had been recovering from medical issues and it was great to see him out and about, just in time for budget time.

After the public session, when the actual meeting commenced, President Segarra addressed the Council and the community. The text of his speech is below.

Council President Segarra Speech

A NOTE TO JOHN ROSE: YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT THIS ON YOUR CALENDAR, OLGA TAKE NOTE ALSO

CCM, CONNECTICUT CONFERENCE OF MUNICIPALITIES TO OFFER FOI TRAINING SEMINARS
FOIA:
What Board, Commission & Committee Members Must Know


Saturday, February 6, 2010 Thursday, March 18, 2010
9:30am - 12:30pm or 6:00pm- 9:00pm
Russell Library, Middletown Senior Center, Farmington, CT


FREE to CCM Member Municipalities
$120 Fee to Non-members


FOIA:
Are You Aware of the Requirements?


Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA ) details requirements for notice and access to public meetings, recordkeeping, and requests for information. It applies to all local government agencies, departments, institutions, boards, commissions, and authorities and their committees.

This workshop is designed specifically for board, committee, and commission members. Attendees will learn about:
· Three kinds of meetings recognized under FOIA
· Requirements for public access, recordkeeping, and release of information
· When can the public be excluded?
· How to handle complaints

A Freedom of Information Commission report concluded that the FOIA is widely misunderstood and ignored by municipal officials. All board, committee and commission members need to understand the requirements of FOIA to avoid costly and embarrassing complaints.
Learning Objectives:
Overview of the FOIA
· FOIA - CGS Sections 12001241
Legal requirements for meetings
· Identify the difference between a meeting and caucus
Public records
· Maintaining records
· Handling requests
· What must be disclosed
· What need not be disclosed
FOI Commission Complaints
· Top reasons for complaints
· How to handle
Penalties & Costs of Noncompliance
· Criminal charges


Who Should Attend?
Board, Commission, and Committee Chairs and members
Staffs to Boards and Commissions
Mayors/First Selectmen
Town/City Managers
Town Clerks
Department Heads
3 Ways to Register:

Online:
February 6th
or
March 18th

Email: CCM Training

Phone: CCM Training Hotline
203-498-3018

Please Register Early!


Cancellation Policy:
Please notify us within 24 hours prior to the workshop if you cannot attend, or a cancellation fee of $10 will be incurred. No Shows will also be billed at $10 per person. Substitutions are always acceptable.

E-MAILS LIKE THIS MAKE PEOPLE LIKE JOHN ROSE WORTH THE FIGHT

Some days I wonder why I stay in Hartford. Some days I wonder if all the aggravation is worth it. Then, I think about Hartford's people, its neighborhoods, its strengths and its potential.

And on those days when I'm re-thinking my commitment to be a part of change in this potentially great city, I get an e-mail like the one below.

This e-mail shows the potential of Hartford's people, but also shows the desperation. It shows that people care about the city, but are also scared by its lack of leadership and vision.

I have edited out certain details that potentially might identify the sender, but you'll get the message. In the meantime, I hope that they might see some positive change and re-consider their exit from our potentially great city.

The e-mail is from someone that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never met.

To: krbrookman@earthlink.net
Subject: Thanks for your work
Date: Jan 12, 2010 1:27 PM

Hey Kevin,
\
I'm glad someone is on our side.

I'm a relatively new resident in Hartford My wife and I moved here in Early 200* from *********. We haven't lived here long enough to know much about local Hartford politics but I've seen enough already. It scares me! The vehicle tax is infuriating! The property tax on our home went from $7,300 in 200* when we signed on it to $8900 in 2009....with more increases to come.

It is clear that the local tax rates deters young hard-working middle class couples like us from living here. I've written letters to the mayor and council members but no one seems to understand or care. I've only had one response which was a call from ***************. I guess they don't want people like us here.

It all scares me. I invested too much into my home to watch my property-value decline because of rapidly increasing taxes. My wife and I have decided to put the house on the market next spring and get out of here if/while we can. Hopefully it will sell at a decent price and we'll move back to ***********...ironically, in search of lower property taxes. It's disappointing because we like the people we've met here and love our home.

Looking forward to reading your updates. Let us know if we can get involved.

Best Regards,

I COULDN'T RESIST, ANOTHER "JOHN ROSE CLASSIC MOMENT"

The following editorial was published in the Hartford Business Journal on
October 19, 2009.

It speaks for itself.

Futile FOI Fights
10/19/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The city of Hartford is engaged in a silly Freedom of Information beef over a copying fee of $27.50. It’s a fight that will likely cost the city much more in time and money.

According to the Hartford Advocate newspaper, the flap began in September 2008 when Prison Legal News, a national monthly publication focusing on prisoners’ rights, submitted an FOI request to the city for electronic records from the case of a man who was arrested.

The city told the publication that it would cost $27.50 to get the documents. State law does allow the city to charge 50 cents per page for the 54 pages. But Prison Legal News requested a fee waiver, which is allowed when the information is for the public benefit.

Hartford’s Corporation Counsel, John Rose, denied the request for the fee waiver and Prison Legal News filed a complaint with the FOI Commission, which ruled in the publication’s favor on Sept. 23, ordering the city to turn over the documents free of charge.

But the city refused again to hand over the records, with Attorney Nathalie Feola-Guerrieri from the corporation counsel’s office, telling the publication’s editor that Hartford might appeal.

For the city to even consider an appeal is absurd. The time, energy and money being dedicated to this case would be better used to deal with important issues facing Hartford.

According to the Advocate, the city has spent tens of thousands of dollars in unsuccessful appeals of FOI rulings over the past several years, blowing in excess of $50,000 recently in an attempt to reverse $400 worth of fines against Deputy Corporation Counsel Carl Nasto after he refused to release documents related to the criminal grand jury probe of Mayor Eddie Perez.

This pattern of blowing taxpayer money to deny requests for public information has got to stop.

AND ANOTHER "JOHN ROSE CLASSIC MOMENT" TO END THE NIGHT

As if the previous couple posts aren't enough to convince you that Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose has a real problem with transparency, this decision should help.

In 2005, Hartford City Councilperson Ken Kennedy requested documents from Mr. Rose. Councilperson Kennedy's claim was that he was acting in his official capacity as a duly elected member of the Hartford City Council and was requesting public documents. Mr. Rose apparently disagreed and attempted to charge Kennedy fifty cents a page for copying the documents.

The FOI Commission decided in Kennedy's favor and ordered the documents released to Kennedy, at no charge.

Only in Hartford, a "John Rose Classic Moment"

The FOI Commission's decision is below:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Kenneth H. Kennedy, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 2005-135
Corporation Counsel, City of

Hartford,

Respondent February 22, 2006




The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 14, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied for the reasons stated herein.



After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:



1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.



2. By letter dated and filed on March 22, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by requiring him, a councilman of the City of Hartford (hereinafter “city”), to pay fifty cents per page for copies of records, and thereby denying him copies of such records.



3. The respondent contends that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complainant’s appeal because “there is no present allegation that the Respondent violated any provision of the Freedom of Information Act …rather, the …[complainant] seeks the determination of his rights under the FOIA".[1]



4. Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides, in relevant part:



Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.



5. It is found that the complaint in this matter alleges a denial of the right to obtain copies of public records without charge pursuant to §1-212(d)(4), G.S.



6. It is concluded that the complainant has alleged a denial of a right conferred by the FOI Act, within the meaning of §1-206(b)(1), G.S., and therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.



7. It is found that the complainant is a councilmember of the city who was elected to such office on November 4, 2003, for a term commencing January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2008.



8. It is found that, commencing in August 2004, the complainant made a series of requests to the respondent to be provided with numerous records.



9. It is found that the complainant renewed the August 2004 request by e-mail dated February 15, 2005, and directed such request to the attention of the city’s Deputy Corporation Counsel.



10. It is found that the respondent maintains records that are responsive to the complainant’s records requests at issue.

11. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to …(3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

12. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides that: “[A]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record”.

13. Section 1-212(d)(4), G.S., further provides that: “[T]he public agency shall waive any fee provided for in this section when:



The person requesting the record is an elected official of a political subdivision of the state and the official (A) obtains the record from an agency of the political subdivision in which the official serves, and (B) certifies that the record pertains to the official’s duties.

14. It is found that the complainant is an elected official, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S. It is also found that the records at issue are records of the city in which the complainant serves, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S.

15. The respondent concedes, and it is concluded, that the records at issue are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

16. The respondent also does not claim that any of the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to any federal law or state statute. In fact, it is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with access to inspect many of the requested records, as well as copies of some of the requested records without cost to the complainant. However, it is found that the respondent is now requiring payment from the complainant for copies of records that were produced, and for records to be produced in connection with the complainant’s records requests at issue.

17. At the crux of the complaint in this matter is the disagreement between the complainant and the respondent as to what “certifies that the record pertains to the official’s duties” means, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S.

18. It is found that the complainant informed the respondent orally and by e-mail that the records requested pertain to his official duties as an elected official.

19. It is found that the respondent has declined to accept the complainant’s representation as indicated in paragraph 18, above, and contends that certification, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S., requires that the complainant submit to the respondent a sworn written statement, signed by a notary public or a Commissioner of the Superior Court, stating that the requested records will be used in the complainant’s official duties. In this regard, the respondent upon receipt of such sworn statement intends to confirm with the city council or council committee, as appropriate, that the requested records do in fact pertain directly to business before the council or committee.

20. It is found that on or about August 2, 2004, the complainant received a letter from the President of Diggs Construction, LLC, the Program Manager for Phase 1 of the renovations of the Hartford Public Schools, along with a two-page unsigned document. It is found that the August 2, 2004 letter and the unsigned document appear to suggest possible irregularities surrounding the award of contracts by the Hartford School Building Committee.

21. It is found that the complainant’s records requests at issue directly pertain to his concern and inquiry into possible irregularities surrounding the award of contracts, and therefore, pertain to his duty as an elected official to respond to concerns and possible improprieties occurring within the city.

22. It is concluded that nothing in §1-212(d)(4), G.S., limits the “official’s duties” to include only business that is formally before the city council or business that has been formally assigned to a city council committee.

23. Consequently, it is concluded that the complainant has met the criteria set forth in §1-212(d)(4), G.S., and therefore, the respondent violated the FOI Act by requiring that the complainant pay fifty cents per page for copies of the requested records.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. In the interest of ensuring clarity and greater understanding between the parties, and also to avoid the duplication of records being produced, the complainant shall forthwith, provide the respondent with a list of the records/ information contained in records, that he has not yet received from the respondent in response to his February 15, 2005 request.

2. The respondent shall forthwith, upon receipt of the list, described in paragraph 1 of the Order above, provide the complainant with copies of all records, responsive to the complainant’s February 15, 2005 request, at no charge.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 2006.



________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission



PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.



THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:



Kenneth H. Kennedy, Jr.

Councilman, City of Hartford

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103



Corporation Counsel,

City of Hartford

c/o John Rose, Jr., Esq.
Corporation Counsel
City of Hartford
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103






___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission







FIC/2005-135FD/paj/2/27/2006

ANOTHER "JOHN ROSE CLASSIC MOMENT" , AS IF WE NEED ANY REMINDERS

It's not just me I guess, heres another "John Rose Classic Moment" as he tries to throw WFSB's Len Besthoff out of his office while Besthoff was reviewing public documents.

In this clip is also a brief reference to the e-mail Rose sent to me in error.

HARTFORD CORPORATION COUNSEL JOHN ROSE, THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING

Here we go again.

For anyone that has dealt with, or observed the actions of, Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose, it is quite obvious that he has a total disregard for the Freedom of Information Act and public documents.

I have had my run-ins with Mr. Rose immediately since the first time I submitted an FOIrequest for documents. After receiving that first request, Attorney Rose sent an e-mail to his Deputy Corporation Counsel Carl Nasto asking "Carl, who lit a fire under this asshole?...how can I shut him down?"

Unfortunately for Mr. Rose, he also copied me on the e-mail and then hit the send button. Yes, this is the competency level of Mr. Rose.

After several FOI complaints against the City for not releasing documents, most of which I have won, myself and Mr. Rose are once again in the middle of an FOI hearing.

The current complaint is regarding the case of Hartford Police Officer Matthew Secore. Officer Secore was charged after he allegedly punched the nephew of Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez once while Perez was in Hartford Police custody (That's Ruben Perez, Eddie Perez has only been in the custody of the State's Attorney, so far).

The incident happened after Ruben Perez and others allegedly viciously beat the brother of Officer Secore, leaving him seriously injured.

The charges against Officer Secore were eventually dismissed and the Connecticut Labor board ruled that "The Chief of Police did not have just cause to terminate the employment of Officer Matthew Secore. The termination shall be replaced by a ninety (90) day suspension. The grievant is further required to attend and successfully complete an appropriate anger management course. He is to be made whole for any lost wages and benefits beyond the ninety (90)day suspension period until he is reinstated."

The Labor Boards decision was issued on January 16, 2009.

When I heard about the decision from the Labor Board, I was curious about three issues. First was as to what influenced the Labor Board to decide that Officer Secore should be reinstated. Second was why, if the Labor Board had ruled on the matter, hadn't Officer Secore been re-instated. And third, what role did the fact that Ruben Perez was the Mayor's nephew play into the discipline and the eventual punishment of termination.

I submitted a request for documents to Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose specific to the Secore case. The request included any appeals or court filings, e-mails or correspondence relating to the case as well as the internal police investigation into the matter.

All of these documents are clearly public documents as defined by Connecticut law with very little room for any exemptions to disclosure.

Regardless, Mr. Rose in his typical disdain for the publics right to review public documents, denied my request for ALL of the requested documents. Not one single piece of paper was released by Mr. Rose. Not one letter, not one e-mail , nothing , nada, denied denied denied.

I'm not sure what Mr.Rose knows about FOI statutes, if anything at all if his actions are any indication. When I have a question about documents and their release, I call the FOI Commission office and they are probably the most accommodating state agency I have ever encountered. FOI laws are not complex and essentially involve more common sense than legal knowledge, apparently something that Mr. Rose's actions indicate are both lacking.

So on we move. The documents were never released, not one single piece of paper, so I made a complaint to the FOI Commission. At the first hearing in December, Mr. Rose attempted to make a few baseless arguments and he started off by claiming "Attorney-Client" privilege. Apparently that argument wouldn't hold up because once documents are in the public domain, such as court filings and Labor Board decisions, they become public documents.

As the hearing continued, I produced numerous documents provided to me by a source that were pertinent to my FOI request, yet never released by Attorney Rose. The hearing officer from FOI made a comment to Mr. Rose that the documents I introduced seemed to clearly be public documents.

As a result, the hearing officer ordered Mr. Rose to itemize all of the documents that he was claiming an exemption for and produce them at an "in camera" inspection. For those, like me, who have not attended law school, an "in camera" inspection is essentially a review conducted in private by FOI attorneys who based on their review of the documents decide whether or not they are "public" documents or based on the City's argument they should be excluded from release.

As I mentioned before, John Rose is the gift that keeps on giving. The documents for the "in-camera" review order were scheduled to be delivered to the FOI Commission "on or before January 13". Today, apparently at 12:53PM John Rose sent an e-mail to the FOI Commission requesting a continuance. At 1:00PM he sent an e-mail to me stating " Mr. Brookman, I mis-sent this earlier, John Rose".

I was not sure what his intention was in the e-mail. Did he mean that he mis-sent it because he didn't need the continuance? There was no explanation from him other than "mis-sent" so I e-mailed him back as to what he meant. Was he looking for the continuance or delivering the documents? I thought it was a fair question.

The attached e-mail is what I received back from Mr. Rose:

From: "Rose, John " [Edit Address Book]
To: Kevin Brookman
Subject: RE: FW: Brookman v Rose Docket #FIC 2009-551
Date: Jan 13, 2010 4:01 PM

Brookman, you are a piece of work…if you look at the emails you will see that the first time I sent it to you I left out the “r” in your email address…that is to say I “mis-sent” it…Duh!! I asked for and got the extension. I will live up to its terms and conditions. Have a nice day…JohnRose

Yes folks, this is Hartford's "top" attorney. Obviously he takes his job as a public servant seriously as you can see.

Not once have I treated Mr. Rose with disrespect or sent him any e-mails such as those he has sent to me.

Is it any wonder Hartford is the mess it is with people like Mr. Rose in positions of "authority"?

FOI ORDER TO JOHN ROSE FOR "IN-CAMERA" INSPECTION

Secore Hearing in Camera Order