GOING, GOING, ALMOST GONE

I guess it is now official, the Perez Administration's attempts at historic "preservation" are a failure.

In what was supposed to be the stately new entrance to Hartford's Public Safety Complex now lies a pile of bricks and debris. Due to what many have called an act of incompetence, the attempts to preserve the 1800"s era school building have resulted in the collapse and eventual demolition of the buildings shell.

You can read my previous posting "The Perez Legacy of Incompetence Continues" by clicking here.



The picture above serves as a testament to the acts of the Perez Administration

Only two parts of the wall from the southwest corner of the building now remain.

There are no estimates available at this time as to what additional costs are now added to the project for demolition and re-design of the building, a project that was never fully funded to begin with.

SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT HARTFORD BROUGHT TO YOU BY SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT HARTFORD

Hartford 2000, which is the parent organization of Hartford's Neighborhood Revitalization Zones, or NRZ's, provides a great service which they call "e-lerts". The e-lerts provide great information about Council meetings, community meetings, Library sponsored events and a multitude of worthwhile information.

Today I received one listing the locations and times of Farmer's Markets across the city. The information is below. I left Linda Bayer's contact information at the bottom in case you would like to sign up for Hartford 2000's e-lerts.

H2K Elert – A service of Hartford 2000, the coalition of Hartford’s 13 NRZs and the City of Hartford, with support from the Hartford Public Library.

Yearning for fresh produce direct from the farm? On any weekday, you will be able to shop at a farmers market in Hartford. Choose a location, day and time that is convenient for you from the list below. Markets are listed in order of the date they open. The Billings Forge market is already open on Thursdays and other farmers market open in June and early July. Eat fresh!

Billings Forge Farmers Market

Broad Street between Capitol and Russ

Open now!

Thursdays, 11 AM to 2 PM

West End Farmers Market

Corner of Farmington and South Whitney

Opens June 8, 2010

Tuesdays and Fridays, 4 to 7 PM

Old State House Farmers Market

800 Main Street

Opens June 21, 2010

Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, 10 AM to 2 PM

First Presbyterian Church Farmers Market

136 Capitol Avenue

Opens July 5, 2010

Mondays, 10 AM to 1 PM

Northend Farmers Market

Northend Senior Center

80 Coventry Street

Opens July 7, 2010

Wednesdays, 10 AM to 1 PM

Linda A. Bayer
Staff Consultant
Hartford 2000, Inc.
c/o CREC
111 Charter Oak Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: 860-547-1663 Ext.21
Fax: 860-547-1831
www.Hartford2000.org

PEREZ TRIAL: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR MAYOR

The Perez corruption trial finished off another week today. Tomorrow is a furlough day and the court is closed and Judge Dewey gave jurors Tuesday off so trial resumes on Wednesday at 9:30am.

Today's main witness was developer Joseph Citino who was stonewalled in his attempts to demolish and then develop the property that was part of the area surrounding the "Butt Ugly" building. Citino claims to have been in a meeting regarding his plans in which Mayor Perez was present.

I had anticipated a character out of the "Soprano's" to take the witness stand, but instead a professional gentleman was sworn in. Joseph Citino had to repeatedly be asked to speak up as the jury and the defense table could not hear his soft spoken voice.

It was during that meeting apparently when Perez insisted on a $100,000 "payment" to Abe Giles if Citino was going to be able to purchase of land abutting the "Butt Ugly" building, a property that Citino claims was key to the success of his plan.

Citino testified that during that meeting Perez told him if he wanted to move forward that he would have to "take care of Abe". When Citino asked Mayor Perez what the next step was Perez replied "First we have to take care of Abe Giles, or there is no next step".

It seemed that one of the main issues regarding Citino's testimony was his criminal past. With the jury out of the room both sides argued over how much of Citino's criminal history could be disclosed to the jurors. The whole issue seemed to become a minor issue when Prosecutor Gailor began his questioning and quickly went into Citino's past.

Citino seemed to be one of the better witnesses so far as to how he connected with the jury. Citino made it a point to speak directly to the jury making eye contact with them rather than the lawyers. He did have a tendency to answer more than the question that he was asked, but my impression is that the jurors were listening.

Citino's past arrests were from the late 80's and early 90's and involved drug, weapon and counterfeiting charges, for which he served prison time. He testified that he had made mistakes, but since then he told the jurors he had worked steadily to avoid ever going back to prison. Although in and of itself his past seemed damaging, Gailor did a masterful job of diverting attention away from the past and focusing the jurors attention on the hundreds of properties Citino claims to have developed since he started his company.

I think Hubie Santos realized that any hope he had of making Citino out to be a gun toting thug and drug dealer was lost when the jury heard about Citino's million dollar plus construction deals. He only touched briefly on Citino's past during his cross examination and moved past it quickly to focus on the Courant's treatment of Citino.

From day one of jury selection, the courtroom has buzzed over the constant mention of Courant reporter Jeff Cohen. Many people were wondering why Hubie Santos has insisted on mentioning Cohen and why would he be a potential witness?

Apparently, according to Santos, Citino had been called repeatedly by Cohen for a comment on a story regarding the alleged payoff to Giles. Citino remained steadfast and repeatedly told Cohen "no comment". Citino testified that Cohen had probably called him 100 times looking for a comment.

During the time Cohen was working on the story, Citino sent an e-mail to Perez outlining his understanding of where the deal stood. In that e-mail Citino referenced the "$100,000" payment to Giles. Citino testified that on the day the e-mail was sent at 10:54am, Perez began calling him almost immediately and he claimed (verified by phone records) that Perez called him 18 to 20 times trying to reach him.

They had a short conversation, most of which Citino "didn't recall". Several days later Perez called him upset because he had put the $100,000 payoff to Giles in writing. According to Citino, Perez was not happy because the e-mail and the payoff could be "trouble" if it got into the "wrong hands".

Then in the "be careful what you ask for" column, Perez reacted to a Courant story by Cohen. After the issue with "taking care of Abe" was published in the Courant, Perez turned around and sent a letter to States Attorney Kevin Kane requesting a full investigation into the payoff and any corrupt activity. Eddie must have thought that the attention would be focused on the convicted felon Citino and the spotlight would never be on him.

Well, as Inspector Sullivan testified, that plan didn't work for Perez and almost immediately after they first interviewed Eddie, he became a suspect.

One of the more peculiar pieces of information was brought out during Santos's cross examination when he tried to paint a picture of Cohen "threatening" Citino to get Citino to comment for his story. Citino seemed to not consider Cohen's actions a "threat", but Santos kept asking about Cohen "threatening" him. Apparently Cohen asked for comment and Citino kept saying "no comment" and Cohen related to him that he probably wouldn't be portrayed in a positive light if he chose not to comment. Cohen apparently advised Citino that his criminal past would be brought out in the article.

For some reason Santos also pressed Citino regarding a phone call from Cohen after the article was published. Santos claimed that Cohen called Citino from New Orleans where Cohen was visiting his parents after Hurricane Katrina. I wanted to stand up and object, "Relevance your honor?". But the Judge seemed upset enough already after spectator Jan Appelloff's cell phone went off followed by Hubie Santos's phone going off for the second time of the day. "Sorry your honor, its my son" was Hubie's response, Appelloff quickly exited the courtroom to silence hers.

A quick admonishment by Judge Dewey for everyone to turn their phones off. An early recess for the long weekend was called and testimony resumes next Wednesday.

And for those in attendance wondering about my being summoned to the "backroom" during the afternoon recess, I will remain silent on that one until the time is right.

SHAME, SHAME, SHAME

In a disturbing story on WFSB tonight, Hartford Bureau Chief Len Besthoff presented a story about what should be one of the most hallowed pieces of land in Hartford.

In a city run by a City Council that is quick to address issues in Arizona, it seems as though they are falling flat when it comes to addressing issues right here in Hartford.

As I said before, Hartford's "Soldiers Field", which was established as the final resting place for many of Hartford's veterans and their spouses, should be revered and maintained as one of the most hallowed parcels of land on the City's inventory.

According to Besthoff's story and the accompanying video proof, the graves are almost totally ignored when it comes to maintenance. Soldier's headstones toppled, graves overgrown and obscured by tall grass and weeds, remains of flower arrangements from funeral's left on graves for months, all deplorable conditions.

You can view the WFSB story by clicking here..

And I think it would be safe to say that there very well may be members on the City Council and on the Council's Parks Committee who don't believe in war. None the less, many of these graves are the final resting place of brave men and women who have died during actual combat and paid the ultimate price for us as a society, as well as those who served in active duty and were fortunate enough to make it back home to Hartford.

We owe them and their families, at the very least, proper maintenance of their final resting places.

In my opinion, that should be a priority for the Council before any other nonsense resolutions against Arizona are passed. As I said before, it is time to get our own house in order before we try to run the entire country, and this is a perfect example.

HARTFORD'S FORCES FOR EVIL UNITED AGAIN, A DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION RE-CAP

The Democratic State Party Convention started off with a break from tradition Friday night when it was called to order at the Connecticut Expo Center. From what State Central leaders told me, it was the first time in recent history, that they could recall, that the opening address was not given by the Mayor of the host city.

Apparently that was a conscious decision by the party leaders not to invite Hartford's Mayor Eddie A. Perez to speak. Apparently they felt that it didn't bode well for the party to be addressed by a Mayor on trial and currently under arrest on felony charges related to a corruption investigation.

That didn't stop Perez or his wife from attending the opening night as they wandered around the convention floor. Unlike his popularity from earlier in his term, Perez was not surrounded by many people as he walked through the Expo Center. His fellow Democrats were probably trying to avoid any photo-ops involving the Mayor.

One of the most interesting observations, other than the Saturday morning love fest which I'll go into shortly, was another delegate crossing paths with Perez on the convention floor. I'm sure Eddie's heartbeat sped up when he saw the Prosecutor from his court case also wandering the Expo Center floor.

Yup, Assistant State's Attorney Christopher Alexy was also a delegate from his hometown, where he is the town's Vice-Chair. Poor Eddie, he can't even catch a break in a building full of Democrats. Alexy was also in attendance Saturday when the Hartford Team of Evil was working the floor.

Apparently there have been a few closed door meetings between Perez and Ned Lamont leading up to the convention. That is a stark contrast to the Malloy campaign's approach from what I was told by a Malloy insider. Malloy's campaign made a decision to stay at least arms length from Perez considering the ongoing trial.

Apparently Ned Lamont wasn't concerned about wheeling and dealing with a Mayor on trial for corruption and courted Perez right up until the time the final vote for the Governor-nominee was cast.

In an unusual situation that could be filed in the "politics makes strange bedfellows" category, the love fest that took place among some of the Hartford delegation on Saturday morning was an eye opener to many. I didn't get to the convention until about noon on Saturday, but a little after 10:00AM my phone started ringing and the text messages were flying.

State Representative Minnie Gonzalez and Eddie Perez, who have been bitter adversaries, were hugging on the convention floor and cutting deals. Completing the love fest were the supporting cast of Matt Hennessey, Susan McMullen and Nick Carbone. Yes , you read those names right. I heard that they were all singing "Kumbaya" by the front doors of the Expo Center as they held hands later in the day.

The cast of characters were twisting arms hard in the Hartford Delegation trying to swing votes to the Lamont campaign. If they haven't realized yet, corruption trials have a way of reducing one's political clout, and alas, Dan Malloy carried the Hartford delegations votes. Maybe Perez needs to get a picture of "Air Force 1" like Hennessey uses on his website to make it seem like he still has power.

I am pretty sure that the pesky Prosecutor, who was only one section away from the Hartford delegation and Perez, didn't make anyone in the "Circle of Evil" comfortable.

MORE "BAD DICK" QUOTES, BLUMENTHAL "MISSPOKE" AGAIN

I attended the Hartford Democratic Town Committee/Nominating Convention tonight only to once again be schooled in the fine art of total chaos, DTC style. For anyone who wants to see how democracy should not be conducted, you missed it.

I'm too tired to go into all the fine details right now, but a couple of the most prominent events were involving the candidates for US Senate. The first was the loud applause upon the entrance of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal as he entered the function room to address the DTC members present. The warm welcome and applause reminded me of the reception for a war hero returning home from Vietnam or Iraq. Oh, wait, I misspoke, I meant a war hero that served during the Vietnam war.

Blumenthal was allowed special consideration since he was unable to attend the previous candidates forum when it was scheduled. Another Senate candidate, Merrick Alpert was also in attendance and requested to address the meeting, but he wasn't allowed the opportunity to speak. And then a change of plans, yes he can speak. Oh wait, maybe we misspoke, you cant speak, you had your turn last week. Ok, sorry, we misspoke again, you can speak, but it will be at the end of the meeting, just hang around.

Oh, sorry again, another mistake, we misspoke. We are adjourning and as you know we misspoke so you can't speak.

And then, like a scene from "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", Merrick Alpert parts the crowd, goes to the center of the room and suddenly over a loud and obnoxious crowd, you hear a clear and concise announcement. "MY NAME IS MERRICK ALPERT AND I'M RUNNING FOR US SENATE". The room suddenly became quiet, and Merrick Alpert began a speech outlining why he was running, introduced his wife and then detailed a factual military career.

Alpert explained his military service and described how he actually served on a peace keeping force in Bosnia. Not that he was in the Guard during operations in Bosnia, he was actually there on the ground, bombs, bullets and all the rest.

I have never heard Alpert speak before, but I have to say, I was impressed. He made the perfect example of why we need new blood in the political process, rather than the recycling bin of career politicians the system has become.

And for those that believe that Blumenthal's tale of "returning from Vietnam" was a one time mistake when he "misspoke", check out Kevin Rennie's blog "Daily Ructions" where he reports on an article in the Stamford Advocate where another instance of Blumenthal "misspeaking" is detailed. According to Rennie "The Advocate reported Wednesday that on November 2, 2008, Blumenthal declared at the Stamford Veterans Day parade, “I wore the uniform in Vietnam and many came back to all kinds of disrespect. Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support.”

To view the full blog entry, click here

ANOTHER PEREZ UPDATE: NO MISTRIAL, BUT HUBIE MUST KNOW IT IS NOT GOING WELL

I made sure I was in the courtroom early today because I didn't want to miss a word of the arguments by Perez attorney Hubie Santos for a mistrial. If Tuesday's arguments before the daily recess were any indication, Wednesday morning promised to be great.

As it turns out, I could have slept late on a rainy morning. Before the first witness was called, only a quick statement was uttered by Santos..."we worked it out". Apparently this was a reference to his blustering from the previous day threatening to withdraw as Perez's attorney, potentially forcing a mistrial. This was due to what Santos called a "secret recording"by State's Attorney Inspector Micheal Sullivan.

Now that that was out of the way, bring on the first in the parade of witnesses for the day. The stone dealer, the cabinetmaker, the Home Depot Asset protection person, the City Treasurer and the Mayor's personal secretary.

The stone dealer was nothing earth shattering, precise and to the point. He sold Carlos Costa the "Dark Emperor" granite, it was delivered and paid for. Then the cabinetmaker ( still waiting for the butcher, baker and candlestickmaker, maybe tomorrow) not real damaging, but not real good for Eddie either.

He testified that he, and his company( which has since gone out of business) built the custom vanity for the permit-less bathroom. He detailed the materials and the cost involved which should have been somewhere around $1300.00. He never billed Costa for the vanity because they "bartered" or traded services back and forth. But then about two years after the vanity was installed, Costa called him and said he needed an invoice for $350.oo to show for the vanity. This is about the time Inspector Sullivan began nosing around and Costa needed to fabricate an invoice for Perez.

Could that maybe account for the "fabricating" evidence charge? I guess a jury will have to decide.

And that jury took a noticeable change this afternoon also. One of the jurors had a tendency to "drop" her head down and I had noticed what looked like "cat-naps" on several occasions. Apparently she realized it also, and today sent a note to Judge Dewey that she was having trouble staying awake. She's not the only one though, occasional snoring can be heard from the gallery in the courtroom, but I guess she is one of the people in there that needs to remain awake. She was excused as a juror and a new juror was sworn in.

Also during the afternoons testimony was City Treasurer Kathleen Palm-Devine and Perez's personal secretary Barbara Crockett. Nothing earth shattering here either. Palm-Devine testified that she expedited payments for Costa at the Mayor's request, and that this was not the standard practice. (Maybe if Costa did more renovations he could have gotten Eddie to slip him cash).

Barbara Crockett testified about Costa's access to the Mayor, nothing much there other than he did have access.

Tomorrow is another day, Inspector Sullivan bright and early. I doubt any jurors will be napping once he starts laying it all out.

OK rJo, YOU AREN'T AS BAD AS I THOUGHT, OR AT LEAST NOT UNIQUE

The title of this post are words I never thought I would say, but fair is fair.

After last weeks "spelling bee" for the word r-e-p-r-e-s-e-n-t-a-t-i-v-e, it seems as though the Democrats don't have a lock on poor spelling. After reading the unique spelling used by the "Winch for Reprasentative" campaign, it seems like Hartford Republican's have devised another new spelling of their own, along with many others by the looks of the Hartford RTC website.

And unfortunately, as if we had to give politicians statewide any more reasons to mock Hartford, the RTC website bills itself as "the official website for the 2010 Republican State Convention". The mis-spelling for Republican Town Chairperson Michael McGarry in the listing for State Central "Represenatives" is only the beginning. The information below is "cut and pasted" direct from their website.

Hopefully now that it has been pointed out the website will be corrected before the weekend to avoid further embarrassment as the "official website".

STATE CENTRAL REPRESENATIVES

1ST SEN DISTRICT

Michael T. McGarry

Maybe if we knew what was in the cup it might explain some of the spelling.

And then another listing in the "know how to spell your elected office" column, is the incorrect spelling for "C-o-u-n-c-i-l" person Veronica Airey-Wilson, but at least "representative" was spelled correctly. Again the text below was "cut and pasted" from their website.

Court of Common Councel Republican Representative

Veronica Airey-Wilson

860-757-9575

Welcome the City of Hartford Republican Party. This site is going to give you all the information that you will need to be able to make an educated vote when you elect Republican officials running for office's in the City of Hartford and across the State of Connecticut. Also this site will tell you about your current Republican officials working in the City of Hartford and Republican Town Committee members and how to reach out to them if you have a concern in the city. THIS IS ALSO THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR THE 2010 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION AND SOURCE FOR THE 2010 STATE ELECTIONS INCLUDING THE HOTLY CONTESTED SENATE RACE AND THE GOVERNOR'S RACE. MORE INFORMATION ON THE SENATE RACE ON CURRENT CANDIDATES.

Regular Delegates- Hartford City Counsel woman Veronica Airey-Wilson, HRTC Treasurer Walter Butler, National Car Rental and Alamo Rent a Car Rental Sales Agent and HRTC Head of Tech and Media Antonio Reyes, Jr., Travelers employee and HRTC Secretary Anna Bramante, Former Board of Education Candidate and HRTC member Michael Fryar, and HRTC Member Dan Lilly. The 2010 State of Connecticut Republican Convention will be held on May 21-22, 2010 at the Hartford Convention Center. More infomation will be found on the Events page on this website.

Need a Car to the Conventions?

Attention all Candidates, Cadidate staff, Delegates, and CT official for both the Connecticut Republican and Democratic Conventions. The is a special going on right now if you need Rental Cars for the Convention and beyond. Please call National Car Rental, Alamo Rent a Car, or Enterprise Rent a Car for the special rates that are available for renting a car for the Conventions. Why drive your own vehicle and waist miles on your personal car.

Rent a car for the conventions today.

National Car Rental and Alamo Rent a Car- 860-627-3470

Enterprise Rent a Car BDL- 860-292-7061 x 5

or call your local Enterprise in your area of the state for reservations.

The above information was all from the RTC website. The listing of the delegates is copied as is and nothing was added for "comedy" reasons. Yes, it does actually list the delegate and his rental car employer and then goes on to urge you to rent a car from him. Someone could probably make a small fortune if they opened some type of "boot-camp" training on ethics and conflicts of interest for Hartford's aspiring "politicians".

But then again, leadership starts at the top and it's understandable by the example set by their "Court of Common Councel Republican Representative". I chose to leave the picture of her from the RTC website rather than insert her mugshot from her felony arrest as part of the Perez corruption investigation.

And one final observation from the page listing the candidates links to their web pages and bios, the correct use of the word would be "their" as in the possessive for them. "There" as used in the RTC website indicates a location, as in over "there". And the correct spelling is "political".

Below this will be there polictical ads or video

The above text was copied from the RTC website. Just a suggestion to the RTC, maybe you can find someone that works for a newspaper that can help you edit and correct the spelling. If not, give me a call, as with rJo, my observations know no party lines.

OH NO, THIS MAKES rJo'S SPELLING SEEM INSIGNIFICANT NOW

In light of tonight's revelations by the New York Times regarding Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's Vietnam service (or lack thereof) mis-spelling the title of the office you are running for seems small potatoes (or is it potato's).

I usually don't venture outside of Hartford's issues, but this one bothers me. I had a conversation with a Hartford political leader last week as we discussed what makes politicians "tick". He suggested that politicians that get into trouble should be forced to get a "cat scan" to see what part of their brain is glowing red to try to determine a pattern for deception.

I'm starting to think that might not be a bad idea. If these allegations are true, what would drive one of this generations most popular statewide "politicians" to stretch the truth to the extreme. This isn't 1950 when digging for information was nearly impossible. This is the age of the internet when nothing "disappears" even cheap, poorly shot video claiming service in Vietnam.

To read the New York Times story, click here. The WWE doesn't look so bad after all, at least we knew all along that was a sham.

And now I'm done for the night, Court starts at 9:30am tomorrow.

THE "ANONYMOUS" DEBATE CONTINUES, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

At the start of this Blog, I made the decision to allow anonymous comments. In the beginning comments were very rare, and for the most part pretty civil. In all the time and at over 80,000 hits, I have deleted only one posting. That was deleted because I had a concern for someone mentioned in the comment and their safety since it listed the persons address.

Since then, I've never felt the need to delete another comment. None have been that severe that I felt they needed to be removed. Some are spineless , yes. Some are understandably "anonymous" because even though they are factual, the writer could have problems putting their name to it, especially those that refer to City Hall or the Administration.

Then tonight I received the attached e-mail that got me thinking again. Is it time to start moderating comments? Read the e-mail and let me know what you think, and hopefully not anonymously, but I'll understand if it is "anonymous".The other issue with moderating comments is the timeliness. Comments won't appear or be posted until I'm near a computer to approve them. The other point to consider is that even if I moderate, with gmail, and other services like that, it is a matter of seconds to make up a phony name. I could be e-mailing as Eddie Perez or Willie Nunes in a matter of minutes.

A couple of names have been "*******" out in the e-mail, just because I don't think it served any purpose leaving them in.

The e-mail read as follows:

Kevin: The first two postings on the “More trouble for Olga” post are merely more examples of baseless character assassination via anonymous posters.

Our society long ago determined that anyone convicted of a crime who satisfies the sentence imposed on him/her has paid their debt to society. Whatever happened to the principle of giving people a second chance? What is the intent of the reference to ********** conviction other than to slam him, and in the process also Jean, the Dem Town Committee, etc.? Hasn’t ********* beat this like a dead horse already? How does your blog benefit by allowing this to continue?

And how useful/truthful can unsubstantiated claims be, when put forth by people unwilling to take responsibility for them? (where is the substantiation that Lou Watkins is truly being investigated?) This debases the journalistic integrity of your product.

You have done plenty of fine reporting and garnered a superb following. Despite the justifications you previously made to me, you no longer need the flexibility of allowing anonymous posting so that your blog draws readership and followers. People read you every day because of what YOU are producing, not because of the titillating value of a bunch of mean spirited anonymous posts. Another way of saying this, is that there are a lot more readers than anonymous bloggers going to your site.

Don't sell yourself short any longer, raise it to the next level and go play with the literary big boys, where putting your money where your mouth is separates the men from the boys. You will still get plenty of posters I am sure, and the quality of your product will rise substantially. You are doing a great job, and really have the ability to create an even more respected journalistic vehicle, but I think it would stand out so much more as such if it was not populated with petty and not-so-hidden agendas by mystery writers hiding behind cheap anonymity.

If you tried the other avenue of requiring and confirming a writer’s true identity, your blog would instantly stand out from the rest of the blogosphere, which is filled with blowhards getting their kicks by anonymously backstabbing anyone and anything they can think of. Where does that get us? Is that really fulfilling the goals you set out when you started this blog? I think not.

If someone truly needs to remain anonymous, have them email you and you can then confirm the facts, etc. just like you do before you put something out there under your own name. This is what mainstream media journalists do every day, and so can you. Also, by doing so, you get the credit (and should) for the stories you develop. You are, in effect, giving away the credit when anonymous bloggers actually say things on your blog that are newsworthy (and if it’s not newsworthy what’s it doing there?). Put the info into your own writings just like other respected journalists do, and you will be on your way to having Colin, Helen, Kevin Rennie, Jon Lender and the rest of the Capitol City turning to you about Hartford.

I am deeply grateful for your efforts at trying to get this city back on track.

Food for thought. Hope you are well.

THE PEREZ TRIAL REVIEW: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER BAD DAY FOR EDDIE

I got to court late today, I really do have to work a real job occasionally. This blog is interesting, but it doesn't pay the bills.

So last week I had posted how frustrating it was to watch Hubie Santos, Perez's lawyer, manipulate the system with sleazy tactics. Well, today the playing field was leveled, I think, with one well placed smack to the defense by Judge Dewey.

On Friday during cross examination of a key witness, Carlos Costa, Santos asked him a question, and I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially "have you ever bribed a politician or government official to get a contract or to benefit yourself". After one of Costa's prolonged contemplation sessions, he answered in his "Brandoesque" voice....."no". Uh-oh, could be a problem.

Now I'm not an attorney, so I'm sure the term is wrong, but after Santos finished his cross examination Prosecutor Michael Gailor began his "cross-cross-examination". Rethinking this now on "Law and Order" I think they call it re-direct. I wish I could insert the "dumm-dumm" sound effect here.

So anyway, as soon as Gailor began his whatever you want to call it, he asked about Costa's claim that he never bribed any official or paid anyone for special consideration. When Costa once again answered no, Gailor asked if he recognized the name "Veronica Airey-Wilson". Now keep in mind, that since the start of the trial, Attorney Santos has shuffled from the defense table to the witness stand and back in a manner that reminds me of an elderly man shuffling down the hall of a nursing home.

After watching Santos and the way he operates, I'm more convinced that it might be theatrics more than an actual malady. I'm kind of convinced of the theatrics part after watching Santos shoot out of his chair and to his feet before Gailor could finish the name Airey-Wilson to shout out the word "OBJECTION".

In that old phrase I used last week, "what goes around, comes around" it was coming around quick to bite Hubie in the a........ . Once again I digress.

It seems that prior to the start of the trial, both the State and Santos had an agreement that Perez's "alleged" co-conspirators would not be mentioned. Veronica Airey-Wilson and Edward Lazu were off limits during the Perez trial.

But here is where Hubie's "slickness" came back to bite him. Apparently by Hubie asking Costa if he had ever bribed anyone before and Costa answering no, Hubie did something we see TV lawyers get chastised for all the time. According to Judge Dewey "Mr. Santos, you opened the door". slap, slap, slap, and finally one more slap for good measure.

Judge Dewey admonished Santos that even though a deal had been reached prior to the start of the trial for not mentioning Airey-Wilson and Lazu or their cases, the deal worked both ways. Santos couldn't expect the benefit of the deal while tying the states hands with the same deal. When he opened the door in questioning Costa, the State could now walk through that door also.

And walk they did. The jurors seemed to really perk up and pay attention and the note books were all open and perched on the jurors laps as they scribbled notes, even the Bondsman was scribbling quickly.

They really seemed to start when Gailor asked Costa what the name Veronica Airey-Wilson meant to him and Costa responded "she's a Hartford City Councilwoman". How do you know her? "I did work in her house, I put granite counter tops in her "butler" pantry". Did she pay you? "no, I didn't expect to get paid". Here we go, more of the quid pro quo, Costa expected her to help him out when he had problems, oh yeah, allegedly.

And then Gailor asked Costa, how about the name Ed Lazu? Costa:" I put in sidewalks and a driveway for him at his house". Gailor: did you expect to get paid? Costa: "No, I expected him to help me out if I had problems with the Human Relations Department". Gailor: "Did you have problems with Human Relations?" Costa: "yes, I was behind on my MBE and DBE filings and someone in the HR department was starting to come down hard on me".

I think you get the point, and at that late in the day when most people would be ready for a nap, the jury seemed wide awake and scribbling notes fast and furious.

Eddie on the other hand was spinning the Brazilian prayer bracelet he's wearing now frantically around his wrist.

Tomorrow is another day Eddie, but it seems like each day keeps getting worse. I can't wait to hear from the State Inspectors.

JUST A LITTLE FLASH BACK REMINDER

Colin McEnroe had a recent entry on his blog asking the question " Why the Eddie Perez case matters".

The last paragraph of his posting was :

"There's a lot of trial to go, but I do not consider facts 1 through 4 to be in dispute. You wouldn't put up with it where you live, so don't say it's OK for low-expectations Hartford. It's our state capital. It has to be better than this.

To read his full posting click here

Some of the points he makes are points that readers of this blog have read probably since the beginning of my posts. Why do we settle and accept poor leadership in Hartford? It's not only the Mayor that is responsible for the mess that Hartford has become. There is more than enough blame to go around for everyone. Those that inhabit Hartford City Hall, our so called leaders on the State and Federal level, the media and most importantly Hartford's residents.

As Colin points out, Perez was elected with a margin of less than 6,500 votes. Council people in West Hartford had more votes for their winning margins. And yes, you read that right, 6,500 votes in a city of roughly 125,000 residents, and if you believe the numbers, close to 54,000 registered voters.

Apathy is a major factor, but like I said, there is plenty of blame to be spread around. Does anyone recall the Courant's editorial endorsing Perez for re-election? An editorial most likely written by Perez's buddy, David Medina who at the time was on the Courant's editorial board. Shortly after Perez's re-election Medina landed a job with the City of Hartford's Board of Education with a salary in the $120,000 price range. More of good old Hartford "quid-pro-quo"?

Just to be safe, Perez bought, I mean hired, a couple of others from the Courant to continue pushing the "Gospel of Perez". Most notably is Stan Simpson, who prior to leaving the Courant was a respected columnist addressing issues in Hartford. Simpson has also landed at the Board of Education in another one of those $100,000 plus a year jobs.

In the previous post about Jeff Cohen and his "ethical" considerations, it seems like night and day between Cohen's previous employer and his current employer WNPR radio.Where as WNPR quoted ethical considerations as to why Cohen was stepping aside, the Courant and its "sister" operation FOX 61 TV seem to interpret the rules quite differently.

I was somewhat surprised last Sunday when I watched the Sunday morning political shows, Stan Simpson at 10:00am, Laurie Perez "the Real Story" at 10:30am, and Dennis House 's "Face the State" at 11:00am. I know, I lead a boring life but they are better than Budget Hearings on Public Access.

So back to last Sunday. Stan Simpson was going to discuss the Perez trial. I wanted to see how that was handled, and right off the bat I had a problem with it. I would think that a journalist discussing such an issue would right off the bat make some sort of comment like "in the interest of full disclosure, I want to say that upfront in addition to being the host of this program I am also an employee of the Hartford Board of Education and Eddie Perez is technically my boss".

Then it got worse, I think. Stan's guest who was supposed to add "perspective" to the segment also should have made some sort of disclosure. The guest, attorney Andrew Crumbie, laid out that the Prosecution had an "uphill" battle to convict Perez. That may very well be true, but did he arrive at that conclusion before or after the City of Hartford has paid him over $100,000 in the last year or so as an "outside" attorney working for Corporation Counsel John Rose. (some of his payments are listed on the City's check registers posted on the blog to the right).

It just seems that if Jeff Cohen understands ethics and they apply to him, they should apply to anyone who wishes to maintain their credibility. But then again this is Hartford. I would fully expect someone like Dennis House to disclose before an interview that the guest was a relative or maybe someone he had a former business relationship with before he would begin if that was the case. But then again, if he was like Jeff Cohen, he probably wouldn't put himself in that position in the first place.

I still want to write my recap of today's court activity, so let me end with a posting of the Courant's 2007 editorial endorsing Eddie A. Perez for Mayor:

Mr. Perez For Mayor

Editorial By Courant

October 28, 2007

Despite a close-to-the-vest management style and a sometimes self-destructive stubbornness, Eddie A. Perez has been a good mayor of Hartford. He has appointed top people to key city posts, engaged the major issues of crime, education and economic development, and kindled momentum in the capital city.

He would be The Hartford Courant's unequivocal choice for another term if not for his recent ethical lapses. A criminal investigation into renovations done on his home by a city contractor is clouding his administration. Nevertheless, he has owned up to mistakes, and we trust he will make no more.

The chastened mayor is still the strongest candidate in the field. His leadership has put Hartford on a more promising path than it's followed in decades. He should be re-elected.

His Accomplishments

Mr. Perez, 50, is the city's first strong mayor in decades. Under the old council-manager system, it was often difficult to tell who was in charge. That's no longer the case: Mr. Perez is the boss.

And he has not been shy about flexing his new muscle. For example, he took control of the city's schools by putting himself on the Board of Education (another first), getting himself elected chairman and heading the school building committee - a comfortable spot for the man who led the construction of Trinity's Learning Corridor in the late 1990s.

His eye for talent drew in the visionary Superintendent of Schools Steven J. Adamowski and the popular Police Chief Daryl Roberts, among others who are transforming and re-energizing their departments. New schools are going up; crime in many categories is going down. Though there are still a few weak areas, city government is working better than it has in decades. Mr. Perez's constant interest in the city's children is laudable.

Though he can't claim credit for all the new development around town, he demanded a seat at the table when the state was dispensing hundreds of millions of dollars in Six Pillars investments. He's resurfaced many streets, removing once-ubiquitous potholes, though he needs to pay more attention to other quality-of-life complaints - the noise, litter and speeding that drive city residents out.

Mr. Perez is to be commended for resisting pressure for more homeless shelters in Hartford. The region must share the burden rather than making Hartford a dumping ground for the needy.

He also deserves credit for setting up a wireless network to get neighborhoods onto the information highway. Some question such projects when so many other needs go begging, but 21st-century technology is critical in cities.

Mr. Perez inspires fierce loyalty in his many fans - but he also has a considerable foe club because of his insular, autocratic, occasionally antagonistic governing style. He needs to broaden his inner circle to include more department heads and state leaders.

His Obstacles

The same pugnacity Mr. Perez puts to good use fighting for his city can also alienate allies. He must master the art of diplomacy for the city's sake and stop public displays of political bravado.

His antics may play well to his base, but they earn him no capital at the Capitol or in corporate boardrooms.

He provoked the governor and legislature, for example, by breaking ground for a magnet school on Asylum Hill without clear title to the land. He had to abandon the site, at considerable cost to the city.

He didn't endear himself to the business community when he lectured MetLife on how many workers it should employ and criticized ING for moving out. MetLife didn't return his phone calls a few years later when it decided to leave Hartford. Why ING couldn't be kept in the city is still unclear.

Mr. Perez has been more incendiary than helpful in labor disputes, needlessly stirring up one at the Marriott Downtown that cost the neighboring convention center some major conferences.

But Aetna, Prudential, The Hartford and Travelers, bless them, are among Hartford's committed - and growing - companies. And business leaders say Mr. Perez's behavior is improving.

Most serious was his Rowland moment, when he hired a city contractor for $20,000 worth of work on his kitchen and bathroom and didn't pay him for two years until the state came investigating. This is so wrong on so many levels that it calls his character into question. So does a no-bid city parking lot deal and other troubling arrangements with North End power broker Abraham L. Giles, whose help Mr. Perez doesn't need.

These transgressions are not as minor as state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and other high-ranking Democratic backers make them out to be. But Mr. Perez's accomplishments outweigh his errors, worrying as they are.

He has proved he can lead the city to greater things. His integrity, however, is still on trial.

The Other Candidates

Mr. Perez's most serious rival, petitioning candidate I. Charles Matthews, 63, is a former deputy mayor and retired corporate executive who works as a consultant on human resources. He was a tough politician in his time and is a worthy challenger to the strong-headed mayor. His message is trustworthiness, but his chief appeal to many is that he is not Mr. Perez.

State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, 57, also a petitioning candidate, provides a good check on Mr. Perez's worst instincts - such as her proposal for taking ethics commission appointments away from the mayor and giving the panel the power to impose penalties. But her call to open the old YMCA to the homeless is not a formula for urban success.

Republican James Stan McCauley, 47, is a pastor and CEO and executive director of Hartford Public Access Television. This mellifluous speaker would make a good city council candidate with his fresh ideas, but he is too new to electoral politics to oust a solid incumbent.

Thirman L. Milner, a petitioning candidate who will turn 74 on Monday, set his own record when he became the first popularly elected black mayor of a Northeastern city in 1981. His campaign, however, has been perfunctory.

Newcomer Raul DeJesus, 20, a police cadet and petitioning candidate, is a fresh face who also needs seasoning in elective politics. But it's reassuring to get this bright glimpse of Hartford's political future.

WHO IS NOT COVERING THE PEREZ TRIAL?

If you aren't following Helen Ubinas' "tweets" on line or viewing the trial first hand from the courtroom, you might be missing out on the media coverage.

It's tedious being there, uncomfortable sitting on the benches and you have to develop a thick skin to the glaring stares from the Mayor's sycophants. And that doesn't even draw into consideration the parking and trips to the meter every two hours, only to have to empty your pockets all over again to make it back into the court through the metal detectors.

But one of the reporters who may have the best understanding of the issues and the investigation of the Perez case is noticeably absent. Jeff Cohen started some aspects of the investigation through his investigative reporting when he was at the Courant. Prior to the start of the trial, Cohen left the Courant and started with WNPR radio.

I think Jeff might have been as surprised as the rest of us when he was named as a potential witness during Jury selection.

For ethical reasons and to preserve his journalistic integrity Jeff and his new bosses at WNPR have made a decision for Jeff to distance himself from the trial. It just seems amusing to me to see someone that understands ethics and integrity taking the high road when we are talking about an Administration devoid of any clue what integrity and ethics are.

You can read a much more in-depth explanation by clicking here

THANK YOU HPD, IT IS A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE

One of the most prevalent issues affecting "quality of life" issues in Hartford's neighborhoods is noise. Loud stereos, loud cars and probably the most common complaint is the noise plague that descends on Hartford's neighborhoods at the first sign of warm weather.... the mobile Ice Cream truck and their obnoxious sound systems.

One of the most active "NRZ's" (neighborhood revitalization zones), Hartford's version of neighborhood community groups, is the Maple Avenue Revitalization Group. MARG has been one of the most pro-active groups in the City in working to help re-write Hartford's noise ordinances and address quality of life issues.

MARG, in conjunction with their Board President Hyacinth Yennie, is constantly fielding complaints at their community meetings regarding the Ice Cream trucks and their late night loudspeakers.

Recently at another meeting being held at Saint Augustine's Church basement, an Ice Cream truck parked outside with its loudspeaker blaring and actually making it difficult for those inside to hear the guest speaker at the meeting. Hyacinth went outside and advised the operator of the noise ordinance and asked him to turn the music down as a courtesy to those inside. The operator refused.

Unknown to the Ice Cream truck operator, MARG and its members also have an outstanding working relationship with their HPD Community Service Officers Ted Sposito and Carlo Faienza and the HPD Zone Lieutenant Robert Allan. The story about the Ice Cream truck was related to them and today apparently Officer Sposito heard the music and observed the truck violating Hartford's noise ordinance late in the afternoon.

Although in the overall picture, a loud Ice Cream truck may not seem like a large issue. On the other hand, it is probably the number one complaint I hear throughout the summer at community meetings relating to quality of life issues( that and ATV's racing on the streets).

Lieutenant Allan and his Community Service Officer's obviously get it. It's all about the "broken window theory", if you focus on the minor issues and send a clear message, the more severe issues tend not to develop.

Oh, and by the way, the photo above is that same Ice Cream truck being towed after Officer Sposito stopped the driver. He was violating the noise ordinance which would have resulted in a trip to Community Court. He apparently was also operating the truck without any insurance and that required a tow truck.

Good work to MARG and HPD.

If you have a noise complaint or need information as to how to make a noise complaint, the document below from the HPD website should help:

2009_03_26_NoiseComplaintProcedures

OUTSIDE OPINION ON PEREZ REMOVAL: "THE ISSUE IS MOOT"

The outside attorney's opinion that the Hartford City Council requested regarding removing Mayor Eddie A. Perez is in. Apparently the answer is that the issue is dead. According to the opinion, the time for action was before the trial began.

In the opinion below, Attorney Allan Taylor of the Day Pitney Law firm advised the Council that the issue is "moot". The opinion states that "The Council's failure to have adopted an Ordinance specifying the "procedure for determining said absence or disability" renders moot the question whether it could lawfully declare the Mayor absent or disabled as a result of his obligation to attend his criminal trial".

In plain English, any action by the Council would would have had to have been an Ordinance passed before the trial began. That's not to say the Council couldn't start a proceeding to remove the Mayor after a hearing before the Council, but in all likelihood the seventh Councilmembers vote required to accomplish that most likely would be elusive.

Once again it raises the issue as to whether Corporation Counsel John Rose is able to advise the Council properly or is he only the Mayor's attorney or is he purely just incompetent?

Taylor Opinion 5-17-10

MORE TROUBLE FOR OLGA VAZQUEZ

After watching last weeks budget hearing and listening to the numerous complaints I frequently hear about the Democratic Registrar, I keep asking myself what is going on in that office?

It just seems to keep getting worse for Hartford's Democratic Registrar of Voters Olga Vazquez.

After the 5th District Democratic Town Committee race petition mess, the Superior Court decided that Vazquez and her assistant Garey Coleman had acted improperly in the handling of the petitions. That should have been pretty clear to Vazquez because she had been fined previously by the State Elections Enforcement Commission(SEEC) for similar behavior in 2004, that decision and complaint can also be viewed below.

Now the matter will once again be headed before the SEEC for their investigation and a ruling on Vazquez's actions.

The complainant, Jean Holloway, is now Hartford's Democratic Town Committee chairperson.

In a complaint filed on April 16, 2010 by Georgiana "Jean" Holloway it is once again alleged that Vazquez has violated state election laws. The complaint can be viewed below. It seems that the investigator assigned should be able to make quick work of this one by reading the Judge's decision and reviewing the Court's transcripts.

VAZQUEZ Complaint+2010 048[1]
Olga Vazquez 2004 Full Decision

rJo: DON'T FEEL BAD, IT'S NOT ONLY YOU

After a post a couple days ago about Hartford City Councilperson Rosezina "rJo" Winch's misspelling of the office she wishes to run for, it seems now that she is not the only one unable to spell.

Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura has announced this week that he is running for the "Office of State Controller". The only problem is that there is no such office. I can only assume he intends to run for "State Comptroller", the position that will be vacated by the the current Comptroller Nancy Wyman who has announced her wish to become the next L-i-e-u-t-e-n-a-n-t G-o-v-e-r-n-o-r.

For more on Jarjura's announcement, check out Colin McEnroe's blog at courant.com by clicking here. When you get to his blog, click on the other link about the state "reprasentive" and that will bring you back here. Colin linked to "We the People" . In Hartford that is what we call "quid pro quo". P.S. Colin, where are my countertops?

For those writing these releases, at the top of your screen you might see the letters "ABC" with a "check" mark. That is called "spell check" , you will find it is very useful to avoid emburrussing mistooks.

Just kidding, I know how to spell "embarrassing" and "mistake", save the e-mails.

THE PEREZ TRIAL: WEEK ONE IN REVIEW

I'll be the first to admit that I am far from impartial on my thoughts regarding Mayor Eddie A. Perez. With that being said though, even if I were impartial, I would have to say it was a damaging opening for Perez's defense on corruption charges.

First up, Hartford Public Works Assistant Director John McGrane. A very believable and credible witness who testified about Carlos Costa's performance on the Park Street streetscape project. McGrane's most damaging testimony regarded the intervention by the Mayor and his staff on Costa's behalf.

McGrane outlined discussions and meetings where the determination was made that could result in "calling" Costa's bond for the project and his termination from the job. The meetings included numerous decision makers including DPW Director Bhupen Patel, Corporation Counsel John Rose, outside consultants from Urban Engineers, Inc, and eventually Charles Crocini from the Mayor's staff.

At one point a decision was made to call the bond and a letter was sent by McGrane to Costa's bonding company, USF&G putting them on notice of Costa's inferior performance. A week later that letter was rescinded by Crocini, clearing Costa from potential repercussions by the bonding company at that time.

McGrane had testified that there were problems with Costa right from the start of the project, and that the City was aware that he had drastically underbid the project and there were concerns if he could complete the job for the cost he had bid. The City had estimated the completion cost of the job at over $7 million dollars. Costa's bid was almost $2 million dollars under the estimated cost when he bid $5.3 million.

In spite of that and the City's concerns, Costa was still granted the contract.

After McGrane testified there were two consultants hired by the City from the firm of Urban Engineers and they essentially re-inforced McGrane's testimony of Costa's incompetence for the job and detailed numerous problems. They also testified to the actions of Crocini and the Mayor's Office to override their decision to terminate Costa from the job.

Then comes smoking gun number one, the first of many by the looks of the witness list. Former Public Works Director Bhupen Patel. Patel testified once again to pretty much the same testimony of the first three witnesses, detailing numerous ( the correct term is probably excessive) problems with Carlos Costa's performance on the job. Patel's most damaging testimony was probably about the meeting where he was summoned to the Mayor's Office and when he entered he was met by an angry Perez and Charles Crocini.

Patel testified that when he entered the office Perez was angry and waving a letter sent regarding calling Costa's bond and his termination from the Park Street project. Patel testified that Perez was waving the letter and yelled at him "What the "f" is going on?". The prosecutor asked him did Perez say what the"f" and Patel answered yes. I think the Judge understood what was going on and she intervened and asked Patel "did he say the letter "F" or use the word?".

Patel answered that he used the full "f" word and the Judge advised him that for the record he had to say what the Mayor said exactly. Patel seemed embarrassed and reluctant to use the word publicly, but eventually re-stated Perez's comments. Patel quoted Perez as saying "What the fuck is going on here" while waving the letter.

Then, under questioning by the Prosecution, Patel related that less than two weeks later Perez and COO Lee Erdmann summoned him to the Mayor's Office once again. In that meeting, Perez told Patel that he was going to "take DPW in a different direction" and demanded Patel's resignation.

Next up was Carlos Costa. If Patel was a smoking gun, Costa was a cannon attack. I arrived a few minutes late for the beginning of his testimony, but I was struck by the voice testifying. It kind of seemed like a mix of Marlon Brando's voice from the "Godfather" with an accent although much softer.

Costa was on the stand all day Friday and will be returning Monday morning. Keep in mind that Costa is also on the hook for his own felony charges in this whole deal. Both sides tried to make his testimony and his pending charges an issue. The prosecution soliciting testimony from Costa that no deals or promises had been made for his testimony, and Santos trying to paint the picture that Costa was testifying to "save his skin" as he repeatedly said during jury selection.

None the less, Costa, I think, came across as credible. Many of his damaging answers seemed to come after a prolonged delay, serious thought, and then a quiet response, sometimes animated with hand gestures and a shifting of his body in his seat.

Several of his answers had to be making Perez's head spin as to what damage was going to be done next. His initial response that he thought his relationship with Perez would be helpful as he encountered problems on Park Street and then his bombshell that he didn't expect to get paid for the renovations on Perez's home because"that was part of the cost of doing business in Hartford".

Then came probably the most damaging testimony of the day. Even though no prices were ever discussed, no quote was ever given, no deposit was ever paid, Costa one day got a phone call from Perez telling Costa that the needed to "make up an invoice". Costa did just that and virtually "made up" an invoice. No real numbers, no real dimensions, no real itemization of the mirrors, the lighting fixtures, the exact number of square feet of granite, nothing, pretty much all made up.

Oh, and what was the motivation for "making up" the invoice? Perez told Costa that "people" were starting to talk and questions were being asked about the "free" repairs on his home. Still a long ways to go, but that fabricating evidence charge seems to be getting clearer.

In watching this trial, one thing I am seeing is the reason that some lawyers have the reputation of "sleazy lawyer".

The first day I was struck by the number of questions Perez's attorney, Hubie Santos asked, only to quickly see the Prosecutor, Michael Gailor, jump up and object to. It seemed like 95% of the time the Judge sustained the Prosecutors objections. I asked another Attorney later why this guy, Santos, had the reputation he has and gets the fees he gets if he was that bad at questioning.

I figured even a lawyer fresh out of Law School would know what they could ask and how they can ask it. The attorney I spoke with said Santos knew exactly what he was doing. By asking the questions, however improper, the jury had heard the question. Even when Judge Dewey sustains the objection and instructs the jurors to disregard Santos, you can't pull it back from their minds. They heard what they heard already.

At one point late in the day yesterday, Santos said to Costa essentially "you were arrested and plead not guilty to bribery charges, right?". Costa replied yes, at which time Santos said then how can my client be guilty of bribery if you claim you never bribed him? Gailor quickly jumped up to object and Judge Dewey immediately chastised Santos that he knew that was improper and it was Costa's "Constitutional Right" to plead not guilty.

Hopefully some sanctions will start coming Santos's way if the Judge gets fed up enough. But then again, if you don't have a defense I guess you have to resort to the underhanded tactics. That's what the taxpayers of Hartford are paying Santos to do as a defense attorney.

And I didn't realize the toll this was taking on Perez until this morning. It's obvious he is nervous in Court, constantly shuffling in his seat, rubbing his cheek, rubbing his face, chewing on pens, chewing his lip. But this morning my mother called and said she felt bad for Perez. She had watched the Fox 61 coverage from Friday night and said his hands were shaking as he sat there in court. I watched Fox's coverage on Courant.com and sure enough, his hands were shaking.

I'm sure that as the trial progresses we will see that this trial has "taken a toll" on many more than just Eddie Perez. We've already heard from a couple of them, including Bhupen Patel who was forced out by Perez after 28 years of proud service to the people of Hartford.

THE PEREZ TRIAL, CARLOS COSTA ON THE STAND TODAY

After yesterday's testimony by former DPW Director Bhupen Patel, today promises to be even better. Well, better for the Prosecution, potentially very bad for Perez.

I'll try to post updates here as the potential bombshells are dropped.

Costa is due on the stand at 9:30am

BEATING THE BUDGET

As Budget deliberations continue, the Hartford Police Department has found a way to supplement their fleet, courtesy of a drug dealer.

Unlike other Hummers featured previously on this blog, I'm sure this one is properly registered.

BUDGET HEARINGS GO NUCLEAR TONIGHT

Where do I even begin on this one?

I guess a quick re-cap of the basics would help. In 2007 the Working Families began to make in-roads into Hartford politics. In that election, the WFP won two of the three minority seats on the Hartford City Council, leaving only one Republican survivor.

In November of 2008 an unsuccessful candidate for Council in the 2007 election ran for Registrar of Voters as a third party candidate. Under state statutes, Urania Petit found a way to legally run and fulfilled all of the requirements and was elected as the first third party Registrar of Voters in the State of Connecticut.

Petit apparently was born and raised in the West Indies and hails from Saint Lucia. When you first meet Urania and begin talking about voting rights and democracy, her passion is overwhelmingly obvious . It is not uncommon to see her eyes begin tearing up as she speaks about everyone's responsibility to vote.

Since day one in the Registrar's office, roadblock after roadblock has been put up in front of her. To her credit, she has pushed forward and shows her professionalism every step of the way. As an example, even though she is equal in authority to the Democratic and Republican Registrar's, she has not been treated that way. When it came time for an office after her election, the vacant office of former Democratic Registrar Shirley Surgeon was not given to her.

Instead, a small cubicle, smaller than most people's closets, was constructed in the middle of the Registrars Office. Originally the "cubicle" had no air conditioning and was extremely uncomfortable after anytime with the door closed. Surgeon's former office was instead given to Democratic Deputy Registrar Garey Coleman.

Next, was the issue of furnishing the office. Petit was not provided with any office furniture even though I'm sure there was plenty available furniture after lay-off's of numerous city hall employees. After repeated requests for a desk and chair, Petit eventually went out and purchased her own office furniture.

The relationship has become more contentious month after month with regular accusations being lobbed at Petit by the Democratic Registrar Olga Vazquez. I could go on and on about the behavior of Vazquez, but if anyone followed the nonsense and fraudulent behavior during the processing of the 5th District Town Committee petitions, you already understand what makes Vazquez tick.

Let me fast forward to today. Over a week ago I had made an FOI request for the time records of Deputy Registrar Garey Coleman, I'll keep you in suspense for the reason for the request, but it should be good when it is done. Anyways, despite numerous requests, the documents haven't been provided by Olga Vazquez. Today, I made an additional request for the records to both Republican Registrar Salvatore Bramante and WFP Registrar Urania Petit.

The reason was that since the Registrar's Office is supposed to be non-partisan, both Bramante and Petit have an obligation to provide the documents which are maintained in their office.

Petit responded to my e-mail FOIA request, cc'd to Bramante and Vazquez. Petit apologized and stated that she was not given access to "MUNIS", Hartford's "do-all" database where payroll records are entered. I was able to verify that Petit was being truthful and she did not in fact have MUNIS access. Why that is so, even though Bramante and Vazquez have access, is another issue.

I replied back to Petit, cc'd to the others, and thanked her and advised her that since she was not in "care and control" of the requested documents as outlined in the FOI Act, I would omit her from any FOI complaint and/or request for fines.

Once again, fast forward to the Council's Budget hearing tonight.

Before the hearing began, I had gone into the Council's Conference room behind the Council Chambers. Several people were sitting in there including Urania Petit. I made some small talk and we were talking for a couple minutes and I noticed tears began running down Petit's cheeks. I asked her what was wrong and after some prodding she told me I "got her in trouble" today.

She related that apparently by being honest with me about her MUNIS access and my response back, that she was being too truthful. When Vazquez received her copy of the e-mail between Petit and myself, Vazquez apparently confronted Petit and called her a "rat" for giving me honest information. Yes, you read that right, this is our Democratic chief election administrator calling Petit a "rat" for being honest with me.

Petit also relayed to me that she wasn't comfortable testifying on the Registrar's budget because she essentially had no involvement in the budget process and planning. She also stated that she wasn't allowed to make any office expenses either, even though she is one third of the administration of the office. Repeatedly she has been rejected by her counterparts when she submitted receipts for reimbursement.

Quite simply, I said to Urania that enough was enough. I told her that if she wasn't comfortable with the process, then say so when asked. And that is exactly what she did. Much to the dismay of her counterparts, the fire in the Saint Lucian was lit.

And then the question about the use of consultants and the large amount of money spent for them in the Registrar's office came up. After the lies and the fraud were exposed after the 5th District petition debacle, you would think Olga would have learned that basic lesson that "honesty is the best policy". Nope, not Olga.

She spoke in defense of the hiring of "consultants". In the Registrar's Office. "consultant" has traditionally translated into "payback for political cronies and hacks". Just think back to the last election for the Board of Education where Hartford's "Queen of Absentee Ballot Fraud" Prenzina Holloway was hired as a "consultant". Enough said.

Round two for the WFP Registrar Petit. "And in this corner, wearing the colors of Saint Lucia, Uraniaaaaaa Petitttttttt" . Lets get ready to rumble.

Petit described how the consultants are nothing more than a waste of the taxpayers money. She stated that with three Registrars and each Registrar having a Deputy Registrar, there was no need for "consultants". You have six people able to do the work, again, no need for any consultants. It was obvious that Vazquez was in the final seconds before ballistic launch and Bramante was laying his head down on the table to try to stop the room from spinning,
by the looks of it.

Could it be that the patronage factory we call the "Registrar of Voters Office" was finally being exposed?

I for one am extremely proud of the courage Ms. Petit showed tonight. I see now why she has not been embraced by Hartford's entrenched political operatives. She has the potential to derail another car on Hartford's gravy train. Next stop ........an Honest Hartford City Hall.