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
1 comment:
If you google Mr Rose you can read some of his cases from his 19 years with Levy & Drowney in Farmington. He makes dumb arguments in those cases too and lost every case I read. He's not an attorney for the city. He's Eddies personal legal lackey. That's why Rose states himself in that brief that only he is handling Officer Secore's case. I wonder if Rose is personally handling Chief Nolan's case too? If he is, my congratulations to Chief Nolan for winning his case and returning to work soon.
Post a Comment