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 "
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
I know I don't agree with you all the time, but Attorny Rose's e-mail to you is completely inappropriate and unprofessional. I don't want to get into any gratuitous City Hall bashing, but comments like Attorney Rose's demonstrate to me the contempt many in City government have for the people. I have a pretty low bar, but I still find myself astounded by the hubris and lack of shame that exists at 550 Main Street.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you, obviously you set the bar pretty high if you are taking the time to read this blog.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though, I have a hard time trusting anyone that would agree with me all the time, and definitely appreciate the comments posted. Even the posts that disagree with me are left here unless they are so far out of line and in poor taste.
The "yes men" are what has proven to be the downfall of this administration. Sometimes you appreciate that other view point that says "whoa, slow down, put the brakes on and rethink this"
If our Mayor had done that he might not be headed to trial in May.
Thanks for your comment
Anyone else see the irony in how Mr. Rose is lecturing Kevin on how to use email when this all started because Rose accidentally sent Kevin an email obviously not meant for his eyes?
ReplyDeleteGreetings Mr Brookman,
ReplyDeleteIt 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