HERE WE GO AGAIN... MORE NONSENSE FROM BILLIE SCRUSE

I guess some people never learn, and really don't care who is watching.

For those that follow the blog, you are well aware of the ongoing "Sasha Show" saga and the heavy handed tactics of Hartford Public Access Television Executive Director Billie Scruse. But, as I have said many times about the Perez Administration, Billie Scruse is now also becoming a "gift that keeps on giving" when it comes to blog entries.

For those that need to get up to speed about the controversy regarding Sasha Hunter and the "Sasha Show", here is the original posting, click here,"Billie Scruse puts the screws to the Sasha Show"

I would think that after arbitrarily suspending Sasha's program and the uproar over it, any sane person would tread lightly on future actions. Not Billie Scruse though, apparently with her a vendetta is a vendetta, pure and simple.

At the producers meeting held on Monday March 15, 2010, Sasha Hunter attended and completed the request for "time slots" for her upcoming season of programs. I was also in attendance and saw her filling out forms and then saw her hand them to Scruse and her assistant at the meeting, HPATV employee Joe Hilliman. I can't swear as to what was on the forms, but she did hand completed forms to Scruse.

Now, in what comes down to incompetency at the very least and insanity at the worst, Scruse has apparently "lost" the forms that Sasha Hunter turned in. The end result in Scruse's eyes is that Hunter is off the air for another season. The schedule has already been made so , sorry Sasha, you're out for another three months.

From what I have seen of Scruse's operation, both the incompetency theory and the insanity defense might apply, but to refuse to correct the situation is inexcusable. There are plenty of open time slots that the "Sasha Show" could be inserted into. But I think Scruse figures she can do whatever she wants without any repercussions.

Sorry Billie, wrong again. Section 16-331a of the Connecticut General Statutes, as well as other Federal Statutes govern the operations of Public Access Television operations. Section (g) of the state statutes should be something Scruse might want to memorize "(g) No organization or company providing community access operations shall exercise editorial control over such programming, except as to programming that is obscene and except as otherwise allowed by applicable state and federal law.

Scruse's actions might be considered obscene by some, but Sasha's show definitely is not.

Where is the Board of Director's, are they oblivious to what is happening?

I would expect more from an organization whose middle name is "PUBLIC"

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL DECISION

State Central Dispute Decision

DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL DECISION IS IN

Apparently the decision has been rendered in the dispute over the election of Hartford's Democratic Chairperson.

Although I haven't seen the written version yet, the panel apparently decided in favor of Sean Arena. Arena has been ordered to convene a meeting of the Hartford Democratic Town Committee within ten days for the purpose of holding another vote for a new Chairperson.

More on this as I get the actual decision.

IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO BE ANONYMOUS?

Recently the issue of posting "anonymous" comments here was brought up by a few people, including Thom Page who posted his thoughts:

Kevin: Time to raise all of your blog to the next editorial level.

The comments section will gain great integrity by abolishing "anonymous" entries. Being held accountable is the time-honored rule for insuring truthfulness and weeding out "trash". You live or die on the truth when publishing your articles, and should expect more from your commenters.

Bruce Rubenstein and I both strongly advocated for this with Cityline earlier this year.

Anonymous entries may be titillating, but watch comment quality skyrocket when authors are identified. Afterall, "We The People" entries have such credibility, in part, because your name is attahced to them.

Make ALL of your blog first class.

Food for thought.

For me it is a tough call because I think many posters who put their comments up here would fear for their jobs or other reasons if their names were associated with their comments. For the most part, I think the comments posted here, even if anonymously, have remained civil and pretty much respond to the topic.

Apparently Colin McEnroe of the Courant and WNPR radio is also looking at the issue. Here are his postings on his blog and a couple interesting links with more info.

Click here to read Colin McEnroe's blog

DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THE SPIN?

I received a "press release" on Friday from the Mayor's mouthpiece, I mean Director of Communication's Sarah Barr. It contained a word attributed to the Mayor that I'm sure many people have a hard time believing can be used to describe Eddie Perez... "leadership".

As jury selection begins next week for the upcoming trial of Perez, I would be hard pressed to accuse this administration of exercising "leadership".

In essence, the press release was trumpeting the fine shape that Hartford is in financially under the "leadership" of Perez.

The press release quoted Perez as stating , "Under my leadership, the City has created strategies to mitigate the impact of the current adverse economic conditions. I will work hard with the City Council and Treasurer to maintain the high standards of fiscal management we have put in place."

WHAT??????????????????????????????

Under Perez's "leadership" hundreds of City employees have been laid off while spending has not been reduced and in fact next years projected budget includes an increase in spending of over $40 million dollars.

Under Perez's "leadership" the rainy day fund that had been built up under the Peters Administration to almost $40 million dollars is , by most accounts, gone. The rainy day fund has been drained under the "leadership" of the Perez Administration.

Under Perez's "leadership", the City of Hartford is projecting a "budget gap" in excess of $30 million dollars this year alone, not including the $40 million being projected for next year

Under Perez's "leadership" his so called "high standards of fiscal management" led his attempt to raid the pension fund of over $10 million dollars. Luckily for city retirees, a strong willed City Treasurer named Kathleen Palm fought off this improper allocation and the pension fund remains intact.

Under Perez's "leadership" the annual city budget has increased over $125 million since the day he took office and the mil rate has doubled.

I could go on and on detailing the Perez "leadership" initiative, but I think one example tells the entire story. In last Friday's Hartford Courant in the real estate listings, it detailed at least twelve property owners essentially walking away from properties and giving them back to the banks holding the mortgages.

This should be an unsettling trend for any Mayor spouting his "leadership". If there is any stronger sign that people are being taxed out of their homes, I'm not sure what it would be. I understand that other factors come into play, but the majority of people telling me that they are planning on leaving Hartford, an unbearable tax burden is the number one reason.

Hopefully this Perez "leadership" will only last for another couple months until we hopefully change direction under Segarra "leadership". Maybe Mayor Segarra will deal with reality and not "spin".

Hartford Real Estate Walk-Away

COUNCILMAN MATT RITTER TO ANNOUNCE RUN FOR LEGISLATURE

Councilman Matt Ritter will be announcing his run for the State Legislature on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 5:30pm. The announcement will take place at the Noah Webster Elementary School at the corner of Cone and Whitney Street in Hartford's Westend.

Ritter will be challenging Representative Ken Green who currently represents the 1st District which covers portions of Hartford and Bloomfield

PEREZ GRAND JURY JUDGE NOMINATED TO SUPREME COURT OPENING

Judge Dennis Eveleigh, who served as the single Grand Juror hearing evidence that led to the arrest of Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, has been nominated to fill an upcoming opening on the Supreme Court bench. The opening is being created by the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille, who has announced her retirement as of June 1, 2010.

Judge Eveleigh, 62, has served in the Waterbury Judicial District since 1998 as a Superior Court judge.

In addition to Judge Eveleigh, Governor Rell nominated 10 individuals to become Superior Court judges. Those nominations may prove more difficult to fill in light of resistance from politicians concerned about budget constraints.

HERS IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE PRESS RELEASE FROM GOVERNOR RELL AND THE INFORMATION ON THE 10 SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE NOMINEES:

Governor Rell Nominates Eveleigh to Supreme Court, 10 to Superior Court


Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced she is nominating Superior Court Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh of Hamden to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille and nominating 10 new judges to fill vacancies on the Superior Court bench.

"Christine Vertefeuille has been a thoughtful and measured jurist during her decade on the Supreme Court bench," Governor Rell said. "The trust we place in justices of the Supreme Court is immense - yet it is a challenge Justice Vertefeuille has risen to meet time and again. Whether dealing with fine points of the law or sweeping issues of justice, she has long given the people of our state the benefit of her reason, her compassion and her knowledge of the statutes. I thank her for her many years of service to the State of Connecticut and wish her all the best in her future endeavors."

Justice Vertefeuille, a graduate of Trinity College, received her law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1975. She was in private practice from 1975 to 1989, when she was appointed to the Superior Court. She was appointed to the Appellate Court in 1999 and made a Justice of the Supreme Court on January 3, 2000. She served as the Administrative Judge of the Appellate System from June 1, 2000 to July 31, 2006.

Judge Eveleigh, 62, has served on the Superior Court in Waterbury since October 1998. A 1969 graduate of Wittenberg University, he obtained his law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1972 and worked as an attorney in private practice prior to being nominated to the bench.

"I have every confidence in Judge Eveleigh and I am grateful he is willing to take on the task of serving on our state's highest court," Governor Rell said. "The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of issues that touch all of our lives. Service on the court requires experience, a depth of knowledge and an understanding of the impact that the law can have on everyday life. It also requires a commitment to making the actions and operations of our courts open and transparent to average Connecticut residents. I know that Judge Eveleigh possesses these qualities and shares my commitment to openness - and I believe the Legislature will agree."

The Governor is nominating 10 people to the Superior Court, filling vacancies left by promotion, retirement or other moves. There are currently 20 vacancies on the Superior Court bench, including the opening created by the elevation of Judge Eveleigh.

"These nominees are all people who have already served their communities - and in many cases, the state - with distinction," Governor Rell said. "They have records of service that go beyond the purely professional to include work with charitable and social organizations, educational institutions and other groups. In every case, they have demonstrated the thoughtful, sensitive and informed judgment that is needed for people who we place in such a prominent position of power and decision-making.

"I am proud to nominate these 10 candidates," the Governor said. "These positions need to be filled at this time so that we can ensure the continued efficient progress of business in our court system. All of these nominees are immensely qualified and I look forward to their confirmation by the General Assembly."

The nominees submitted by Governor Rell are:

• Laura Flynn Baldini, 39, of West Hartford (Republican): Currently an attorney in private practice, Baldini is a 1992 graduate of Yale University who obtained her law degree from Seton Hall University in 1996. She worked previously as an attorney at Updike, Kelly & Spellacy from 1998 to 2003 and at Ohrenstein & Brown from 1996 to 1998.

• John L. Carbonneau, 54, of East Lyme (Independent): Carbonneau currently works as an attorney in private practice. He received his undergraduate degree from the University of Connecticut in 1977 and his law degree from the Catholic University of America in 1980. He worked previously as an attorney at Kaplan & Brennan from 1996 to 2000 and at the Connecticut Laborers' Legal Services Fund from 1984 to 1996.

• Susan Q. Cobb, 49, of West Hartford (Democrat): An Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut from 1994 to the present, Cobb received her undergraduate degree from Catholic University of America in 1983 and her law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1988. She worked previously for Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn from 1989 to 1994.

• Susan A. Connors, 44, of Old Lyme (Republican): Connors, an attorney with Krevolin, Roth & Connors since 1995, received both her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Connecticut, graduating with her law degree in 1991.

• John A. Danaher III, 59, of West Hartford (Democrat): Currently the state's Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, Danaher is a 1972 graduate of Fairfield University. He received a master's degree from the University of Hartford in 1977 and his law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1980. He served more than 20 years as an Assistant United States Attorney and interim United States Attorney; he also worked for Day, Berry & Howard from 1981 to 1986.

• Jane B. Emons, 59, of Woodbridge (Democrat): Emons has served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut since 1996 and worked previously in the New Haven State's Attorney's office from 1978 to 1988. She graduated from Kirkland College in 1971, received a master's degree from the University of North Carolina in 1972 and obtained her law degree from Suffolk University in 1977.

• Robert L. Genuario, 57, of Norwalk (Republican): Genuario has been Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), the Governor's budget agency, since 2005. He served previously as state Senator from the 25th District, representing his native Norwalk, from 1991 to 2005. He also served 10 years on the Norwalk Board of Education, from 1981 to 1991, and worked as an attorney in private practice from 1978 to 2005. He received both his undergraduate and law degrees from Villanova University.

• Brian J. Leslie, 42, of Wallingford (Republican): An Assistant State's Attorney since 2000, Leslie is a 1990 graduate of Fairfield University and received his law degree from Boston College in 1994. He worked previously as an attorney for Farrell, Leslie & Grochowski from 1994 to 2000.

• Kathleen McNamara, 56, of East Hartford (Democrat): A Senior Assistant State's Attorney, McNamara has been with the State's Attorney's office since 1990. A former East Hartford police officer, she obtained her law degree from Western New England School of Law while serving as an officer. She served in the East Hartford department from 1979 to 1990. McNamara obtained her undergraduate degree from Northeastern University in 1978.

• David M. Sheridan, 54, of Manchester (Democrat): An attorney with Levy & Droney since 1990, Sheridan graduated from the University of Arizona in 1981 with two undergraduate degrees. He received his law degree from the University of Connecticut in 1985. Before joining Levy & Droney, Sheridan worked for Cohen & Channin from 1985 to 1990.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZER AND SPANISH AMERICAN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION /MDC CLEANWATER PROJECT CONSULTANT ARRESTED FOR PATRONIZING A PROSTITUTE

Another one for the "Only in Hartford "file.

On Tuesday March 18, 2010 Hartford Police conducted a reverse prostitution sting in the South Green-Wethersfield Ave-Colt's Park area. The operation was conducted during the early afternoon in daylight hours due to complaints regarding increased prostitution activity in the Colt's Park area.

Ten men were arrested on charges including patronizing a prostitute as well as other motor vehicle and drug related charges.

To read the Hartford Courant's coverage, click here

One of the individuals arrested was Luis Colon, 62, a resident of Windsor.

Mr. Colon is also a longtime "community organizer", having previously been the director of the New Britain Avenue Merchant's Association, he has also been employed by the "CEDF" Connecticut Community Economic Development Fund.

The interesting part though is that at the time of his arrest, Colon is working for "SAMA", the Spanish American Merchants Association as a consultant. Colon's salary is apparently being paid through a grant from the "MDC", the Metropolitan District Commission as part of the Clean Water's Project. A receptionist at SAMA confirmed in a phone conversation that Colon is in fact working for SAMA as a consultant.

An MDC representative who spoke on the condition of anonymity also confirmed that Colon was employed as a consultant for the Clean Waters Project in conjunction with a grant paid to SAMA. Colon is working out of an MDC Office at 499 Franklin Avenue, only a few blocks from the location where he is accused of attempting to solicit an undercover police officer for sex.

Colon is supposed to be working with neighborhoods to reduce the potential impact of the Clean Waters Project on the quality of life of Hartford residents.

I think that most Hartford residents would feel that prostitution potentially has more of an impact on quality of life issues than the MDC ever could.

On the bright side though,even though the MDC apparently has problems providing jobs to local residents, Colon seems to have no trouble spending his money to support the local economy.....oh yeah, allegedly.

Colon's first court appearance was today. Neither Julio Mendoza, the Executive Director of SAMA nor the MDC have returned calls for comment.



HPD- Luis Colon Arrest Log

ANOTHER LOSS FOR JOHN ROSE

The Connecticut Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the appeal submitted by John Rose and the City of Hartford in opposition to the ruling issued by Judge Peck regarding the illegal altering of the petitions handled by Hartford's Democratic Registrar of Voters Olga Vazquez.

VAZQUEZ APPEAL DISMISSAL

IF I WERE TOWN CHAIR....NOT THAT IT MATTERS

Hartford is at a critical point in whether it once again begins to move forward or continues a slide backwards.

We have seen the current administration under siege for several years now under rumors of corruption. Rumors that over the last year or so went from rumors to valid criminal allegations and eventually to criminal arrests based on sufficient probable cause. We have seen businesses boarding up and moving out of Hartford due to out of control spending and some of the highest tax rates in the state.

A budget that has increased over $125 million in eight years, a mil rate that has doubled and a staff in the Mayor's Office that far exceeds the 5 individuals allowed by Hartford's City Charter. A rainy day fund that has disappeared from almost $40 million, if not more when Perez became Mayor to potentially a budget "gap" of over $70 million today.

Yet ground zero for all of this political mess, known as the Hartford Democratic Town Committee, continues to spiral out of control.

The last few weeks have proven to me that whoever is claiming to be in control, no one is control and the Town Committee is a complete and total mess. In light of the recent election for a Chairperson, I have to say I was extremely disappointed by the behavior on both sides. It is tough to write that because I have the highest respect for Jean Holloway and her commitment to Hartford and its future.

One of the first lessons I learned was that to succeed you have to realize that you are only as good as the people you surround yourself with.

If I was going to talk about change and reform, I'm not sure I would choose to select the same person chosen as the Vice Chair to be the symbol of "change and reform", someone that has been embroiled in a scandal of his own in which he has pocketed tens of thousands of dollars. I'm not sure that I would choose someone to run on a Town Committee slate that was convicted of violating the public trust by running a scam right out of a courthouse.Reform may be difficult, it might not always prove popular, but is more than just a word you throw about.

I posted earlier this week about potential repercussions from this chaos surrounding the Town Committee. One of the major problems is that we may potentially be closing the door on any influence at the State level if we do not have legitimate delegates to the State convention. Governors and other politicians usually tend to have long memories when it comes to remembering where there support came from. Not being able to commit delegates to a candidate because of local political squabbles is not only borderline insanity, it is inexcusable.

Whether I was the "losing" Chairperson candidate or the "winning" Chairperson candidate, it seems that the direction should be clear. Neither candidates position is "rock solid" clear and it could go either way. It could be a long road as it winds its way through dispute hearings and eventually court hearings and who knows what else.

It is time for the "winners" and the "losers" to put aside personalities, egos and whatever other differences are creating this chaos. It's a gamble for both sides, but the time has come to show that Hartford does actually have people capable of leadership. Both sides need to agree to call for a special meeting called for the purpose of electing a legitimate Chairperson. It needs to be called at the earliest possible date allowed by law.

Since both sides have shown their obvious lack of trust in each other and also their inability to respect differing opinions, I also think a neutral Chair for the meeting needs to assigned, and most likely a parliamentarian supplied by Democratic State Central that both sides can agree on.

It's not rocket science, but it is common sense, something this City seems to be lacking.

Please act like adults and show that Hartford does have leadership potential. And for change to happen, people have to step up and vote for what they feel is right, not what they have been told to do or repeating the way it has always been.

Like I said, if I were Chair, not that anyone cares.

TIME FOR HARTFORD CITY UNION GIVEBACKS...AGAIN

Apparently the leaders of all of Hartford's City Labor unions have been summoned to a 4:00PM meeting today at Hartford City Hall.

Due to the City of Hartford's poor budget outlook, Mayor Perez is calling on the unions to once again do their part in closing the budget "gap".

This might be a harder sell to the unions this year considering last years givebacks seemed to go right out the back door of City Hall through ESI bonuses to the Mayor's cronies and trips on the backs of laid off city employees.

These should be some interesting negotiations.

Maybe Perez can lead by example and start by cutting positions in his office.

BILLIE SCRUSE IMPLODES: THE HPATV PRODUCERS MEETING MELTDOWN

Sorry for the delay on this, but its been another busy week.

Every three months a "Producer's Meeting" is held at Hartford Public Access Television and it is required for producers wishing to have a program in the upcoming season to attend. The "spring" season meeting was held Monday night. A couple dozen producers, including myself, attended.

The agenda presented by Billie Scruse (pronounced screws) was short and she breezed through it in less than 20 minutes. The meeting was relatively civil up to the point she opened up for questions. Apparently she is not used to being held up to scrutiny, because that is where the meeting turned bad.

The threat of questioning her heavy handed tactics loomed large and I couldn't resist the chance to ask a few questions.

The handling of the "Sasha Show" has been a matter of concern for everyone and Scruse's refusal to answer any questions has also been a problem. I've been a firm believer that if you deal in good faith and truthfully, then you shouldn't have any problem explaining your actions.

I asked a generic question about signing out equipment from HPATV and the repercussions for returning equipment late. Scruse answered that anyone returning equipment late could possibly have their right to sign out equipment suspended. I asked if she meant their show suspended and she said no, their right to use HPATV equipment. I then asked how someone would know if this was a problem, and she stated a violator would receive a written warning first.

I then asked a question about the policy of producers attending the mandatory meeting in order to have a program. I think at this point the little bulb went off in her head and she realized where I was going. I tried to clarify if the meeting was actually mandatory since I knew of a few producers from the last season who did not attend the producers meeting, yet still had programs.

She started to get agitated and finally stated that it was her call if mandatory meant mandatory, and if she wanted to let someone have a program she could. She then quickly went to someone else in the room, I guess figuring that would be easier.

Wrong choice, the next questions were just as tough.

Scruse then declared the meeting was over and no one wanted to be bothered with such issues. She then seemed to cave into the pressure and made some sort of declaration that Sasha Hunter wasn't an employee and she (Scruse) wasn't bound by any privacy issues. She claimed to lay all of her facts on the table and offered up a copy of an e-mail she sent to Sasha and a copy of an e-mail that HPATV's lawyer ( yes, lawyer) wrote to Sasha.

It seemed odd that the e-mails Scruse offered up were a direct contradiction to the policies she had quoted earlier.

In her e-mail to Sasha, Scruse pointed to one reason for suspending the Sasha Show was that Sasha failed to attend the "mandatory" December 14, 2010 ( Scruse said 2010, I think she meant 2009, unless she's clairvoyant). This would apparently be the mandatory meeting that Scruse had just stated wasn't mandatory but more discretionary on her part.

Then the second reason for her suspension was that she had returned a camera tripod 18 days late. This apparently is also a contradiction to her earlier statements that returning equipment late would only result in suspension of a producers right to borrow equipment, not a suspension.

I also asked if Scruse was willing to share the copies of the written warnings issued to Hunter as per her policies. I stated that if the written warnings were shared with us, I would be prone to believe that the suspension was legitimate and not personality related as suggested.

That seemed to be the final straw and she grabbed all of her propaganda and files and quickly headed for the door. On her way out she stated that if we had a problem, "take it up with the Board". I would imagine that she meant the Board of Directors of Hartford Public Access Television, the same "Board" that has called the Police on myself and others in the past for attempting to attend Board meetings.

Scruse left the room and offered up one of her staff people as a sacrificial lamb. Unfortunately he was unable to answer any questions or commit to any solutions.

The meeting ended with more dissatisfaction with Scruse and her abilities by her actions. She probably could have gained much more credibility by spending the extra 15 minutes addressing the problem than she did storming out like a tyrant.

It seems odd behavior for an organization whose middle name is "PUBLIC".

The video has been a problem trying to capture and upload, but as soon as it is ready it will be posted here.

OOPS, ANOTHER TWIST IN THE HARTFORD DEMOCRATIC TOWN COMMITTEE ROAD TO IRRELEVANCE

Hang on Hartford Democrats, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

It seems that (FORMER?)Hartford Democratic Town Committee Chairperson Sean Arena's "Endorsement Dispute" filing may be the latest violation of State Central rules.

According to the Democratic State Central rules, Article V, section A, Arena's complaint would have to"be referred to the State Central Committee members in the applicable district for local resolution".

In this case, that would be the same person who replaced Arena by the process being disputed, Jean Holloway. The other Democratic State Central member from the District would be Hector Robles.

In essence, for Arena to have exhausted his "administrative" remedies in the required process and go through the appropriate steps, he would have to file his complaint and attempt to resolve the issue with Robles and Holloway on the local level first.

I know, it is all very confusing, but typically whether it is a union grievance or a political dispute, or pretty much any civil matter, you have to exhaust your "administrative" remedies before moving to the next level when you feel aggrieved.

Arena has not done that, and potentially his complaint could be kicked back to the local level where it needs to be dealt with first, according to party rules.

That raises another problem though. As the clock ticks on Arena's complaint, other issues come into play. Most likely the complaint should get kicked back and see what happens on the local level. That can cause a few things to happen. Robles and Holloway determine that it is a conflict for them to decide and since Robles supports Arena and Holloway supports herself they are at a deadlock. Refer the matter up the process to State Central.

Or Holloway resigns as a State Central member and her replacement and Robles attempt to resolve the matter. That scenario is highly unlikely and would potentially have a great impact on any balance of "power" on the Town Committee.

The more likely outcome is that no matter what they decide,short of Arena being named Chairperson, Arena will not accept their decision. At that point, since he had exhausted his "administrative" options on the local level, Arena could take his dispute to State Central. That would be the normal progression, and in a court of law, where this is most likely to end up, taking the proper steps up the ladder is required.

And now on to the next major problem. As the clock ticks on all of this, the Democratic State Convention is rapidly approaching and delegates need to be selected for the convention. The problem with that is there are hard and fast deadlines that need to be adhered to for that selection. There are also specific time lines that govern the dispute process.

In addition to the five day time frame to select the members of the "dispute" committee from other State Central members, there is a requirement of a seven day notice to be given before any hearing can be held.

The hearing process timeline would most likely extend beyond the delegate "deadline" resulting in the Hartford Democratic Town Committee being unable to send legitimate delegates to the convention when the whole process is in question.

With the number of candidates for Governor and other Constitutional statewide offices in the mix this year,more so than ever, every delegates vote counts. If a winning candidate should receive a nomination based on a slim vote margin, I doubt they want to risk that support on a Hartford delegation vote that might not hold up.

If a Hartford delegation to the Convention can't be chosen due to the illegitimacy questions, Hartford's local party rules once again kick in. Apparently those rules call for the same delegates to be sent to the convention that were sent 4 years ago.

Welcome back Abe Giles and company as delegates to the convention for 2010.

I know, it is still very confusing, but that's politics in Hartford. You can't make this stuff up.

HERE IS THE FULL SECTION 5 ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

Article V:

FINAL COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE ENDORSEMENT DISPUTE

A. Any dispute concerning endorsements for any office, or for delegate or for town committee member or officer, and any dispute concerning the interpretation and effect of party rules and procedures must first be referred to the State Central Committee members in the applicable district for local resolution. In order to expedite any such disputes, State Central members may seek legal opinions from Counsel for State Central. If the parties involved cannot bring about a resolution to their differences within seven business days, then the issue may be referred to the State Party Chairman in writing asking that the issue be resolved through a Dispute Resolution Committee. If the dispute is brought before a Dispute Resolution Committee, the issuing of a previous legal opinion by State Central Counsel concerning the dispute shall not prohibit said Counsel from advising the Dispute Resolution Committee.

B. A Dispute Resolution Committee shall be composed of no less than three (3) nor more than five (5) members of the State Central Committee, appointed by the chairperson
thereof, none of whom shall be represent the district or districts concerned. The decision of the committee shall be conclusive and binding upon all parties.

C. The committee shall be appointed no later than five (5) business days after the Democratic Party Chair receives a written request for the resolution of a dispute pursuant to this article. The committee shall set a time and place for a hearing of said dispute within five (5) business days of its appointment. The parties to the dispute shall receive notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing unless exigent circumstances warrant less notice. The Committee shall issue its decision within three (3) days of the close of the hearing, and a written copy of such decision shall be filed with the State Central Committee, and provided to each party to the dispute. However, when exigent circumstances arise, the State Chairman shall have the authority to modify these requirements.

I GUESS HELEN UBINAS LIKES THE T'S

Helen Ubinas found the "WANTED" t-shirts while, according to her "trolling the web" today.

I have to say they are much more popular than I thought and have been a big hit. They were especially popular at the St. Patrick's Day Parade, and even a few people from outside of Hartford wanted them once they saw them.

The only problem is that for the initial order I only ordered size large and x-large. I figured that would be the universal size for most of us and took into consideration that they would fit comfortably over a kevlar vest (Not everyone likes the message).

There are still L and XL available ($10.00), and when I reorder I will make sure to get some smalls for, as Helen referred to them, "the little people".

I'll save a small for you Helen, even though you are larger than life in my eyes :) and if Eddie wants to order one, I'll save a small for him also.

To read Helen's posting or go to her blog, click here

WHO ACTUALLY WON THE DTC CHAIRPERSON RACE ?

According to people supporting the Holloway Slate last night, Democratic State Central rules were clear and stated the following:

Section 19: Tie vote

A. For Towns of Five-Thousand (5,000) or More Population Under the Last Federal Census

In the event that a vote taken on selection of a party endorsed candidate results in a tie, such tie vote shall be dissolved by the vote of the Chair of the Town Committee, but this provision shall not affect his or her right to cast any vote as a member of the Town Committee in the first place.

The wording of that seems pretty clear. The problem arises though in where that clause is found in the State Central Party Rules. The only spot I could find that wording was in the section entitled:

ARTICLE VIII:
RULES GOVERNING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN TOWNS NOT HAVING LOCAL PARTY RULES

Read that heading again, "in towns NOT having local party rules". The problem is that Hartford does have local party rules, so the tie-breaking clause would seem to not apply. There were plenty of lawyers in that room last night, but if that is what they were relying on for the win, I'm not sure it applies.

As of this afternoon, Sean Arena has apparently filed a dispute with the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee and according to their party rules it will be handles as follows:

Article V:
FINAL COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE ENDORSEMENT DISPUTE

A. Any dispute concerning endorsements for any office, or for delegate or for town committee
member or officer, and any dispute concerning the interpretation and effect of party rules and procedures must first be referred to the State Central Committee members in the applicable district for local resolution. In order to expedite any such disputes, State Central members may seek legal opinions from Counsel for State Central. If the parties involved cannot bring about a resolution to their differences within seven business days, then the issue may be referred to the State Party Chairman in writing asking that the issue be resolved through a Dispute Resolution Committee. If the dispute is brought before a Dispute Resolution Committee, the issuing of a previous legal opinion by State Central Counsel concerning the dispute shall not prohibit said Counsel from advising the Dispute Resolution Committee.

B. A Dispute Resolution Committee shall be composed of no less than three (3) nor more than five (5) members of the State Central Committee, appointed by the chairperson thereof, none of whom shall be represent the district or districts concerned. The decision of the committee shall be conclusive and binding upon all parties.

C. The committee shall be appointed no later than five (5) business days after the Democratic Party Chair receives a written request for the resolution of a dispute pursuant to this article. The committee shall set a time and place for a hearing of said dispute within five (5) business days of its appointment. The parties to the dispute shall receive notice at least seven (7) business days prior to the hearing unless exigent circumstances warrant less notice. The Committee shall issue its decision within three (3) days of the close of the hearing, and a written copy of such decision shall be filed with the State Central Committee, and provided to each party to the dispute. However, when exigent circumstances arise, the State Chairman shall have the authority to modify these requirements.

I guess we will have to see where this ends up.

Only in Hartford.

TO READ THE ENTIRE CONNECTICUT DEMOCRATS PARTY RULES, CLICK HERE

THE T-SHIRTS ARE IN

A limited quantity of the "Wanted" t-shirts are in, if you are interested in one, e-mail me or call me.

They are available in large and x-large, white with black lettering

DEMOCRATIC TOWN COMMITTEE RESULTS ; HOLLOWAY IS IN, ARENA IS OUT

In a major blow to Mayor Eddie Perez's power, the democratic Town Committee election results are in and Sean Arena is out.

Up until the last few days, most observers considered it a tight race between current Town Chairperson Sean Arena and challenger Bruce Rubenstein. In the final hours, 5th District Town Committee person Jean Holloway threw her name into the race for consideration.

It would be easy to rehash the pro's and con's of the candidates, but it is late and it has been a long day. Suffice it to say that there were a lot of opposing viewpoints and not everyone left the function room at City Hall happy.

It might be a long stretch to ask this of the Hartford political personalities, but if you really care about Hartford, please show it. As the tide of power continues to turn, it can no longer be Eddie's fault. Eddie's days are numbered and his power continues to erode more each day.

The blame will soon be directed towards those of us that have been handed a huge opportunity for change if we choose not to do with it what the people of Hartford expect. This was not a battle that was waged over the last couple days in preparation for tonight's vote.

This has been an effort that began years ago as people began to realize that the city we care about was veering off in the wrong direction. A direction that wasn't about what was best for Hartford and its residents, but rather a direction that favored a select few.

We were going down a path where corruption and cronyism and payoffs were the first order of business, and the needs of the residents came second.

Jean Holloway and her new Executive Committee have been chosen and have been handed a huge opportunity. What they choose to do with it will be determined by history and can go either way. As a city on the brink, we can choose more business as usual and continue down the Perez path.

Knowing Jean and her passion for Hartford and its people, I expect to see a move for unity. Unity by those on the Town Committee that truly want to be part of Hartford's solution without any self serving interests. Unity by those in the neighborhoods that will be hopefully called to action to become part of the process for change. Unity by those that are willing to be mentored and nurtured to become Hartford's leaders of the future.

The choice is ours and hopefully we will step forward, forget the ego's, forget the personalities and work together to accomplish the difficult tasks in front of us as a city and as a unified team.

I saw enough nastiness in that Function Room tonight to last a lifetime. It's time for change, will we step up to the challenge?

WHAT'S GOING ON AT CAPITOL PREP?

In the previous post I raised the issue as to the delays in the opening of the newly renovated Capitol Prep school.

As I'm sure most of the regular readers here are well aware, getting information out of the Adamowski Administration or the Perez Administration usually involves a fight.

If you have any information, please feel free to post it or e-mail me.

STUDENTS STANDING UP FOR THEMSELVES

It seems that we have a generation of adults in Hartford that have a problem with doing the right thing. If the students at Hartford's Capitol Preparatory Magnet School are any indication though, there is hope for Hartford on the horizon.

Apparently students at the school are fed up with a lack of response to their questions asked regarding a move to their new school. Sources have confirmed that the school is essentially complete with the exception of landscaping and minor cosmetic details inside the building.

Many people, both adults and young people, were observed walking in and out of the newly renovated "Capitol Prep" (the former Barnard Brown School)on Main Street. No one was wearing hardhats, as would be the OSHA requirement,if the school was still a "construction zone".

There are still many questions as to the reason for the delay for the students to move into the school. I will dig into this and try to get the answers to some of the questions being raised by students and parents at Capitol Prep. In the meantime, students I spoke with feel deprived of high school memories from spending their senior year in a temporary home shared with Capitol Community College at 960 Main Street.

I'll post more on this as I get answers to questions, but in the meantime parents and students are suspicious of the reasons that the move has not taken place yet.

In the end though, it was very encouraging seeing Hartford's next generation of potential leaders standing up and speaking for themselves in an orderly and productive manner.

ANOTHER HOMICIDE IN PEREZ'S "SAFE CITY"

The City of Hartford has just recorded its latest murder.

This less than 24 hours after Mayor Eddie Perez spouted his latest rhetoric that "violent crime is down" in his "State of the City" address last night.

The latest victim was shot in broad daylight at the beginning of rush hour on one of Hartford's busiest streets, at the intersection of Albany Avenue and Oakland Terrace.

The victim was pronounced dead at Saint Francis Hospital at 4:37PM.

I've lost track as to whether this is homicide number 9 or 10 and HPD's statistics haven't been updated since February 20th. I can understand why though, I'm sure Eddie Perez doesn't want the information getting out that homicides are now up almost 300% for the year.

GOOD NEWS... IT'S NOT ONLY HARTFORD THAT IS POLITICALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL

One of my regular readers e-mailed me today with a link to another blog similar to "We the People " that covers issues in another Connecticut city.

I now feel better that we aren't the only messed up Connecticut city, if that should make anyone feel better.

If you check out the link, I could probably cut and paste the entire article and only substitute the name Hartford when the other town is mentioned.

I think the only difference is their Mayor hasn't been arrested.Oh, and they broadcast their Town Committee elections for everyone to watch, that could be fun!

Take a look at the second posting (as of today) "Did the Democratic Town Committee primary really solve anything?"

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST

IS SEAN ARENA RUNNING OR RUNNING SCARED?

According to Hartford Democratic Town Committee bylaws, The Town Chairperson is required to call for a special meeting within two days after Town Committee elections. The meeting is required to be held within 10 days for the purpose of selecting a new Town Chair.

Hartford's Town Chair Sean Arena has not issued notice for that meeting, instead relying on a clause in the State Central bylaws that allows him to postpone that meeting for 30 days.

Confused? Welcome to the club.

Most political observers are telling me that the apparent reason for the delay is due to the fact that neither Sean Arena or his apparent challenger Bruce Rubenstein have the necessary 34 votes to lock up a win. The 30 days will most likely give Arena and his supporters the extra time for lobbying and arm twisting.

On top of that is another arrival on the Town Chairman hopefuls. One name that is being floated is 5th District Town Committee member Jean Holloway. Although Holloway (apparently no relation to the other Holloway's on the 7th District "non-profit" slate) hasn't confirmed her candidacy but others are telling me she is definitely in.

Other names are also being floated and include members from the 1st district.

I think one thing is clear though, if Arena had the votes, the meeting would have already been called. Bruce Rubenstein also claims to have the votes to win, but he has been around long enough to know that funny things can happen to people who give you their word.

In the meantime the city keeps running like a ship without a rudder.

A word of advice; forget the ego's, forget the personalities and for once start doing what is right for Hartford.

HARTFORD CITY COUNCIL BLINKS, CORPORATION COUNSEL COMES OUT SMELLING LIKE A ROSE

Many people thought that the Hartford City Council was actually stepping up to one of the challenges facing them, but in the end they adjourned with their tails between their legs.

With several resolutions on the agenda intended to investigate, curtail or question the Corporation Counsel, John Rose, not one word of discussion was uttered and the items were all postponed.

In the end, Rose, and several of his staff members who were in attendance, left secure in their positions. Although Attorney Rose has a hard time winning any cases outside the building, inside City Hall he still reigns supreme.

AND NOW... A GOOD LAUGH FOR A SUNDAY AFTERNOON

Pictured above may be the forward momentum Sarah Barr speaks of as Eddie Perez leaves Hartford Superior Court after his second arrest


Here is the Press release sent out by the Mayor's mouthpiece , Sarah Barr regarding tomorrow nights "State of the City Address".

I hope maybe they can explain this "momentum" and "progress" they speak of. And who will maintain this progress when Eddie heads to the gray bar hotel?

For anyone with questions, please feel free to contact Sarah Barr on her cell, 860-550-3174. That number might work also if you have any issue and wish to contact Sarah when 311 fails you.


MILESTONES AND MOMENTUM ARE KEY THEMES AS

MAYOR PEREZ DELIVERS STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS



---NEWS AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY FOR MONDAY, MARCH 8---



WHEN: Monday, March 8, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.



WHERE: City Council Chambers

2nd floor of City Hall

550 Main Street, Downtown Hartford



Mayor Eddie A. Perez will deliver his annual State of the City Address to members of City Council, this year focusing on maintaining the momentum for Hartford's progress despite difficult economic times. He will set forth a vision for the City's future that includes investments in the core issues of education, public safety, and economic development--- including job creation.



The primary emphasis of the Mayor's speech will be building on progress--- including the Arts Stimulus and school construction--- and taking that success to the next level to encompass our parks.





Note: The Mayor's speech will be carried live on Hartford Government Cable Access Channel 96 and will stream live on www.hartford.gov. An embargoed copy of the speech will be made available to credentialed media after 4:00 p.m. on Monday in the Communication's Office, Room 210, at Hartford City Hall. Members of the media can contact Sarah Barr, Director of Communications, at (860) 550-3174 (cell) for more information.

A NO POLITICS, NO CORRUPTION POSTING...JUST SOME IRISH HOSPITALITY

As the high holiday for many, even those that aren't Irish, approaches, I wanted to pass on part of an Irish tradition.

My grandmother used to always make her Irish Soda Bread, and not just at Saint Patrick's Day. The recipe has been passed down, and I have never tasted another version that compares. I know I'm biased, but there were at least two things I always looked forward to around St. Patrick's day and Lent. My grandmother's Irish bread and hot cross buns. My mother always did a good job also with baking the Irish bread and took up the baking duties when my grandmother couldn't.

The key to her recipe was cooking it in a cast-iron skillet I think. I've tried it in glass cookware and it never seems the same. And don't forget the butter to eat it with.

HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY AND DON'T FORGET THE PARADE NEXT WEEKEND IN DOWNTOWN HARTFORD

Here's her recipe:

THE RATIGAN AND DEVINE'S IRISH SODA BREAD RECIPE

3 Cups sifted flour
1/2 Cup Sugar
1/2 Cup shortening
1 1/2 Cups Buttermilk
3 teaspoons Baking Powder
1 teaspoon Baking soda
2 tablespoons Caraway seeds
1 teaspoon Salt
1 cup Raisins

Bake for one hour at 350 degrees

MY RESPONSE TO A COUPLE OF "ANONYMOUS" COMMENTS, RESPONSE #2

And a response to another comment

Anonymous said...
OK Brookman, Here's your chance to be in two places at once. Isn't the coronation of RubInStain scheduled for the same time as the council meeting?

Just by the tone and the wording of this comment I have a good idea that I know who posted it, but I would hope that that person would have the integrity to post it under his real name, the same as I do when I refer to someone as "Rosie".

Ok, so moving on.

My phone has been ringing almost constantly since Tuesday's election, almost every call focuses on the election for the Democratic Town Committee Chairperson. I'll post a few of my thoughts here that I will say to either candidate, many of them I have said already to Bruce Rubenstein, but Sean Arena chooses not to take or return my calls, so maybe he can read it here.

First off, the selection can't be called a coronation. A coronation is usually full of pomp and circumstance and the pageantry shows hope for the future. Neither candidate can be proud of what they are inheriting, or in the case of Arena, what he has the Democratic Town Committee to have become.

A once proud powerhouse that was the Hartford Democratic Town Committee of years past, has over the last several years become a cesspool of corruption and incompetence. Strong words, yes. Untrue words, no.

In years past candidates for political positions clamored to be accepted and endorsed by the Democratic Town Committee. Now I think most candidates view the Hartford Democratic Town Committee as a necessary evil that they have to approach as part of the process. They most definitely approach keeping in mind the recent Grand Jury, the arrest of the Mayor. They keep in mind the frequent hearings at Elections Enforcement for absentee ballot fraud.

They keep in mind the Mayor's fines for misusing taxpayers funds for political purposes, also known as the "Hartford Educator". They now can keep fresh in their mind the recent Superior Court decision detailing the illegal activity by the Democratic Registrar of Voters Olga Vazquez. That ruling should help, just in case they might have forgotten the first time in 2004 when she was fined $500.00 for almost identical illegal activity.

Like I said before, a cesspool of political corruption.

Although many people seem to think we have had enough and it is time for change, what exactly is the change?

The poster of the "anonymous" comment I'm sure misspelled Mr. R-U-B-E-N-S-T-E-I-N's name out of ignorance rather than anything intentional, but some might read into that another meaning.

For anyone familiar with either candidate, ask yourself if you know where they stand and what their direction would be for the Democratic Town Committee.

Since Mr Arena refuses to return phone calls, I honestly can say I have no idea where he stands. I have never heard him make a comment regarding the arrest of the Mayor. I have never heard his thoughts on the corruption and extortion charges against the Mayor and Abe Giles. I have never heard him make a comment about our Republican Councilwoman Veronica Airey-Wilson and her arrest on corruption charges.

That's probably a cheap shot about the Republican though, how could he say anything when the Mayor is as bad, if not worse, than her. Like Airey-Wilson once said "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". That was before her arrest, so maybe she thinks differently now.

Can anyone honestly say they don't know where Mr. Rubenstein stands on political corruption? I sometimes think if he could get onto the roof of City Hall, he would be up their shouting his thoughts out loud about political corruption. He's done it everywhere else, almost to the point of making me nauseous on Cityline on courant.com, on public access programs, and even here on "we the people".

He even voiced his opinion to the entire state on WFSB's "Face the State". Although Rubenstein came out loud and clear, the two councilpeople on with him refused to take a stand against corruption.

Is that a bad thing to let people know where you stand? Absolutely not. Is it a bad thing to remain silent and say nothing, almost giving the perception that you condone corruption? Absolutely.

And while Arena refuses to return phone calls and discuss issues with those who might disagree with him or challenge his actions, Rubenstein seems to thrive on it. Maybe it's the lawyer side coming out, but Rubenstein seems to live for a good argument and having the chance to present his side.

Here's a perfect example I know first hand.

Although I wasn't around during the Carrie Perry years, I recently learned how Rubenstein operates and his potential as a leader. I had heard that some perceived Bruce as "arrogant" and somewhat "heavy handed". I had a couple concerns about Rubenstein's "style and decided to approach him with a couple of my concerns.

The first concern was that people were tired of Eddie Perez's "tyrant" style of management. Cross Perez and you were done. I was someone that really hadn't worked with Bruce before, yet I found him knowledgeable and his concern for Hartford seems sincere.

Well, I approached him and told him I was concerned about his frequent comments about when he "used to run Hartford". No matter how it was meant, I knew I was turned off by it, and others were making comments to me about it also. If he was anything like Eddie Perez, I figured that was the last conversation we would have.

In case anyone has or hasn't noticed, I haven't heard Bruce comment on how he used to run Hartford since that day. He does talk about being inclusive, committees to interview and select candidates, a public relations committee to educate voters and improve the image of politics. He seems to be open to suggestion and creative ideas.

I'm not going to get into a stump speech here, I think it is already clear where I stand. I do have to ask though what is more important in a leader. Would I prefer a Chairperson who is silent and condones the Mayor's behavior no matter what or would I prefer a Chairperson who can be arrogant and confrontational when it is needed?

Would I prefer a Chairperson who may not be liked by everyone but who's commitment to fair and honest government isn't in question? Or, would I prefer a Chairperson who has shown his commitment to Hartford by beating us out of motor vehicle taxes by registering his vehicles in New Canaan?

Bruce Rubenstein may be a lightning rod, but change doesn't come by remaining silent and accepting business as usual. I have already seen more change brought about just by Rubenstein announcing his run than by an movement by the current Democratic Town Committee over the past couple years.

Change doesn't come about by doing nothing. If it did, Sean Arena would be the unanimous choice for another two years.

And for those unsure of which way to go in the Town Committee vote, let me give you another Len Besthoff "southernism",and in the interest of full disclosure, it's a term I've heard him use, not an endorsement of any political activity

"If you stay in the middle of the road, your gonna get run over"

Make a choice, it may not be popular, but you know what you have to do if we are really going to see change in our city. Forget the personalities, forget the gossip, forget the rumors, forget the backstabbing. Do what you know you have to do if we are going to return Hartford to the proud city it once was. If there was ever a time for political enemies from the past to now come together for the public good, that time has come.

It's a matter of leadership, pure and simple.

MY RESPONSE TO A COUPLE OF "ANONYMOUS" COMMENTS, RESPONSE #1

The first comment I think is actually a fair question, any one who wasn't at the hearings would probably make the same comment.

Anonymous said...
wasn't rose representing olga as the registrar? i mean, the suit was regarding things olg did/did not do as registrar of voters. so, where is he defending the slate?


The comment is accurate, John Rose as Corporation Counsel is pretty much obligated by the City Charter to represent city officials. He did that in the case of Olga Vazquez. Sometimes it was a little difficult to keep track of who he was representing by his comments before the Judge. At one point he stood and said "the Registrar blew it" and "the City won't be harmed" if Judge Peck vacated the stay . That is all part of his job, as required by the Charter.

The question of if and when he crossed the line and began representing the Giles slate is an entirely different issue. After Rose stated that the Registrar blew it and the city won't be harmed, he seemed to begin arguing for the Giles slate.

Rose continued on and stated that if the Judge lifted the stay that the Giles slate "will be dead, they will be done" and further stated that they would be "murdered at the polls". Does that sound like he is arguing for his client, Olga Vazquez OR advocating for the Giles slate?

It seems pretty clear to me. If the Giles slate felt that their chances were dead and they would be done, that is their problem then and they needed to hire their own attorney if they felt aggrieved, the same as the Kirkley-Bey slate did when they felt Olga Vazquez stepped on their rights.

Whether your question was meant to be sincere or sarcastic, I know there aren't many that understand the issue if you weren't in court to hear it. Regardless, I hope this has offered some clarification to those trying to understand this mess. Hopefully at Monday's Council meeting it might become clearer. If there is a side I'm missing that you think can justify Mr. Rose's arguing for the Giles slate, please feel to post it here.

WFSB COVERS LATEST JOHN ROSE CONTROVERSY

Channel 3's Len Besthoff covered the latest John Rose controversy in the Friday evening broadcasts. My version was reported here yesterday also. In an interesting twist, I asked John Rose for the memo's regarding the meeting, and he turned them over to me also immediately.

To view Len's story, click here

More to come on this after Monday's Council meeting

HARTFORD POLICE SEEK HELP IN LOCATING MISSING MAN

PRESS RELEASE FROM HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT

Hartford Police Seek Public Assistance in Locating Missing Hartford Man

(Hartford) - Detectives of the Hartford Police Department's Juvenile Investigative Division are seeking public assistance in locating a missing Hartford man. Miles Douglas Wiles was last seen by his family on February 19th, 2010, at approximately 5 p.m. as he left his family's residence on foot.

Wiles, shown in the photo below, is described as a 28 year old, 6 ft, 240 lbs, light skin Hispanic male with short black hair and brown eyes. He was last seen wearing a khaki shirt and trousers. Family members indicate to police that it is unlike Wiles to not return home or not be in contact with his family.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of Miles Douglas Wiles is asked to contact Hartford Police Detective Ivys Arroyo at 860-757-4236, or Hartford Police Sergeant Matthew Eisele at 860-757-4242. Confidential tips, for cash rewards, may be made by calling Hartford Crime Stoppers at 860-522-TIPS (8477).


As a sidenote, from what sources are telling me, Miles Wiles is the grandson of Hartford politician Abe Giles.

HAS THE HARTFORD CITY COUNCIL FINALLY REACHED ITS LIMIT?

Monday nights Council agenda promises to be full of action.

The meeting starts with the obligatory State of the City address by Mayor Perez. This in and of itself could prove historic as this might be the last State of the City Address by Perez before he heads off to prison, depending how his upcoming trial goes.

Two items added to the agenda also might prove quite interesting.

The relationship between the Council members and Corporation Counsel John Rose has been contentious almost from the start. After several recent incidents, it appears that at least some Councilmembers have decided enough is enough. Councilperson Deutsch had called for a vote of "no confidence" in John Rose. This is more symbolic than anything else. According to the City Charter, the Mayor hires and fires the Corporation Counsel. The Council does have the power to remove Rose, but only after a hearing and a vote that would require seven votes.

If nothing else has been learned, councilmembers this past year realized they need to learn to count their votes. After the unsuccessful overthrow attempt of former Council President Torres, councilpeople quickly learned how to count to seven. Any attempt to remove Rose most likely wouldn't be able to get the seven votes with Councilpeople Torres and Winch almost definitely siding with Perez. Cotto and Airey-Wislon typically do not agree with the majority of the Council when it comes to an "anti" Perez move.

Another surprising twist though is an agenda item introduced by Counciperson Kennedy. Kennedy had requested the Council go into executive session to discuss the role of the Corporation Counsel.

Apparently John Rose, upon hearing of the agenda items, sent a memo to Council President Segarra demanding that any hearings be held in public and be an "open and public hearing and airing". Rose further demands that all actions be conducted with the "sunshine law's" also known as the Freedom of Information laws. I know, I know, I'm thinking the same thing also, but FOI does apply to everyone.

Numerous questions have arisen regarding the actions of the Corporation Counsel and has even forced the City Council to hire outside counsel to advise them in their performance.

The 5th District Town Committee suit over the past couple weeks has also raised issues as to whether Rose was representing the City or the Town Committee slate. The City of Hartford is his client, the Giles slate is not.

This meeting promises to unveil a couple more chapters in Hartford's Theater of the Bizarre beginning with the State of the City Address

Rose to Segarra 3-4-10

Segarra+Reply+to+Rose+4!3!10[1]

FAIR AND BALANCED

Earlier in the Giles post, I asked readers to be sure to check out Jeff Cohen's blog at WNPR. I have been reminded that Cityline is well worth checking out also by its new proprietor, Steve Goode.

In an effort to keep peace in the neighborhood, please be sure to head to cityline after you finish here. The order you visit WNPR or Cityline is up to you, as long as you start here first.

Here's the link for cityline, just click here

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY MAY BE OVER BUT THE FALLOUT ISN'T

Some days it seems like the City of Hartford is single handedly keeping both the Freedom of Information Commission and the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) in business.

Less than 2 days after the Hartford Democratic Town Committee primary, another SEEC violation complaint has been filed. This complaint, which appears to have merit compared to those filed last week by Hartford's Democratic Town Chair Sean Arena, was filed today with the Commission.

More complaints are currently being prepared according to sources, including complaints related to the use of Prudential Connecticut Realty resources for political mailings by Arena. These corporate resources used by Arena were improper according to Elections Enforcement sources. The resources were also not claimed as a monetary donation or an "in-kind" donation as required by Connecticut law.

Another complaint which has much wider repercussions potentially, is the use of Community Development Block Grant funds and various other government funds awarded to OPMAD (Organized Parents Make a Difference) a non-profit organization. As a non-profit, OPMAD is forbidden from advocating or endorsing or supporting political candidates. Hartford Democratic Town Committee Secretary Kathy Evans and Town Chair Sean Arena apparently used OPMAD's e-mail to circulate political e-mails to support Democratic Board of Education candidates.

A recount of the ballots in the 4th District, Arena's District, will be held Friday at 9:00AM in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The recount will be conducted under the supervision of the Secretary of the State's office.

SEEC Complaint 3-4-10

ABE GILES UNDER INVESTIGATION......AGAIN

Today Jeff Cohen posted a story on WNPR regarding the Public Campaign Financing and audits being conducted by the State. One of the recipients of public funds was Hartford's version of the Godfather, Abe Giles.

Here's the link to Jeff Cohen's WNPR story.


If some of the information looks familiar, the Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) filing website and some of the questions about how Giles, and others, spent money was posted here on "we the people hartford" in November of 2009.

To read that post, click here

Jeff Cohen was formerly with the Hartford Courant. Please be sure to bookmark Jeff's new blog at WNPR, and after you finish reading "We the People" each day go see what Jeff is digging up.

LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE- PEREZ CONSTITUENTS HAVE ALSO LEARNED THE FINE ART OF EXTORTION.....ALLEGEDLY

It is often said that what goes around comes around. Apparently this weekend our own Mayor Eddie A. Perez experienced that first hand.

As a Mayor that sets the example for his constituents, at least one person seems to have been paying close attention to the Perez operation. In May of this year Perez will begin his trial on extortion and other felony charges. This past Saturday, Perez had the tables turned on him for a much smaller amount though than him and his buddy Abe Giles are accused of extorting.

I received a call about an incident at the Albany Avenue McDonald's in which Perez was the victim of an "extortion" attempt. The individual had much smaller aspirations than Perez though, he only wanted $1.00. The Perez extortion attempts added several more zero's to Eddie's demands though.....oh yeah....allegedly.

Apparently the student of the Perez style, hereafter referred to as the "suspect", was never identified. The incident, confirmed by the Hartford Police Department, is outlined in the police report below.

Perez claims that he was exiting the drive-thru at the McDonald's. He observed an individual walking near the exit and as he drove off the man began yelling that Perez hit him and ran over his foot. Eventually the man stated that Perez didn't hit him, but he wanted one dollar. Perez paid the fee and the "suspect" left on foot.

Luckily for Eddie, it wasn't Abe that he "allegedly" ran over. The pay-off might have been much higher...oh yeah...allegedly.

Perez Extortion Attempt

A SEAN ARENA UPDATE - PRUDENTIAL REALTY PRESIDENT RESPONDS TO POSTCARD MAILING

It looks like this is another one from "the rules don't apply to me" category.

Last week I posted a copy of a Prudential Connecticut Realty postcard mailed by Hartford Democratic Town Chairman Sean Arena for political purposes. I posted the card in response to a State Elections Enforcement Complaint filed by Arena against Hartford Attorney Bruce Rubenstein.

You can read the full posting here.

In that posting I said that I had contacted Sean Arena for comment. He still has not responded.

I also contacted both the CEO and the President of Prudential Connecticut Realty for their response. Today, the President of Prudential Connecticut Realty, Candace Adams responded to me and answered a few questions regarding the postcard.

Ms. Adams stated that both herself and the management of Prudential Connecticut Realty were unaware of Arena's actions. She further stated that they have a strict written policy regarding the use of Prudential resources for political purposes and such activity is strictly forbidden. She also stated Arena has been put on notice for his activities and if it should happen again, he has been advised he will be terminated.

Since the first posting of the postcard, I have received calls that there were other postcards sent out on Prudential stationary and postage. If anyone has copies of those, please forward a copy to me if possible.

Here is the postcard for the Board of Education Election:

ARENA PRUDENTIAL POSTCARD

I GUESS THE ROSIE POLL CAN GO

Now that the voters have spoken, and spoken quite clearly, it would seem that the Rosie Appeal on Abe's behalf is done. 96% of you were right, he did appeal.

The Kirkley-Bey slate had a strong win in the 5th District race.

And to quote from Rosie's testimony, even without Judge Pecks involvement, the Giles slate "they are dead, they are done".

And yes John, even without Judge Pecks involvement, the Giles slate "was murdered at the polls", good prediction.

You're doing a heck of a job Rosie. I might even give you one of the first
t-shirts when they come in, what size?

FORMER OFFICER LAWLOR FILES SUIT AGAINST CITY, GO TO IT ROSIE

It's been a long day, it's late and I'll write more on this tomorrow.

But the bottom line is that Former HPD Officer Robert Lawlor has filed a lawsuit against the city.

Read the basics below.

LAWLOR Summons and Complaint