HOW DO THEY HAVE THE NERVE TO EVEN TRY?

And now another one from the "only in Hartford" file.

Susan McMullen, Chief of Staff to former Mayor and convicted felon Eddie A. Perez today resigned her position. Most considered her exit from City Hall as inevitable. But before her exit, according to a City Hall source, she has written to the City Pension administrators requesting to boost her pension.

McMullen is somehow asking that her time of service as an employee of the City of New Britain be allowed to calculate her pension. I for one might be convinced to support such a move. We as residents of Hartford do owe her a debt of gratitude. Before you fall out of your chair , consider the facts.

If McMullen hadn't dreamed up the "Dyslexia Defense" for Perez, he might still be a free man today without any felony convictions hanging over him. Susan McMullen and her testimony almost certainly ensured a conviction for Eddie in conjunction with the testimony of Matthew Hennessy. The jurors must have realized the Perez Administration was a fraud after they spent almost a month watching Perez read e-mails on his Blackberry to then be told he was Dyslexic.

Good job Susan, in the end we both were working for the same goal I guess.

McMullen also now seems to hold the record for being terminated as a Mayoral Chief of Staff from the most municipalities in the state. Prior to coming to Hartford she was also terminated from New Britain. Might I suggest Waterbury next?

NO COUNCIL PRESIDENT YET......BUT AT LEAST WE CAN SKATEBOARD

The lunacy continues.

There is still no Council President as the body as a whole can't come to a common decision. For anyone following the debate, it clearly shows, once again, what a dysfunctional body the Hartford Court of Common Council is.

In what should be the most pressing issue before the Council, no resolution to the matter was obtained at Monday's Council meeting. The Council was able to come together to resolve the second most pressing issue in Hartford though. Skateboarders nationwide can now come to Hartford and skate without fear of jail time.

I'm not sure when the last arrest was made for illegal skateboarding, but it is a huge relief to me to know that I can now skateboard without ending up in prison along side our former Mayor and newly convicted felon Eddie A. Perez.

Now for the serious side, you really can't make this stuff up. Forget the leadership of the City, no rush to fill the Council President's position, just continue on like a ship without a rudder.

First off, do the Council members understand the succession outlined in the City Charter? If there is not an actual "Council President" the Council majority leader is technically the "acting Council President". If Mayor Segarra were to become incapacitated, the current Majority Leader would become Mayor.

I have to say that scares the heck out of me. Mayor Winch? I urge everyone, whether you are religious or not, go to your nearest church and light a candle and say a prayer that Mayor Segarra be watched over and kept safe and in good health. And in all honesty, it is not just "Mayor Winch" that scares me but also "Mayor Boucher", "Mayor Torres", insert the name of any Council member and you can see what we are up against.

In the meantime, I think most actions conducted by this Council will be irrelevant. The direction of the City for the next 17 months will clearly be set by Mayor Segarra as he does the heavy lifting while the Council continues to bicker in their sandbox like children.

But at least on the bright side, we can all forget the problems of Hartford as we go out and legally skateboard around the City.

ANOTHER MILESTONE

An observant follower pointed out to me this afternoon that the blog "hit counter" today hit 100,000.

Thanks for your continued support.

LIKE RATS LEAVING A SINKING SHIP

It looks like Hartford's "Queen of Mean" may be calling it quits or at least is very perceptive and can read the writing on the wall. Perez Chief of Staff Susan McMullen must realize her days at City Hall are coming to a quick end.Apparently McMullen has put her house on the market about a week after the guilty verdict for her former boss was rendered, and two days after Perez resigned.



McMullen was instrumental in the states prosecution and eventual guilty verdict after she concocted the "Dyslexia Defense" which seemed to seal Perez's fate as a convicted felon.

Thanks Susan, it couldn't have been done without you.

Just a word of advice to any prospective buyers, make sure any renovations had building permits issued and that the contractors have been paid. Beware of any granite counter tops.

According to the City of Hartford Assessor's website, McMullen purchased the property in 2004 for $170,000 and the property is assessed at $46,460.

THE PEREZ INVESTIGATION, HOW IT BEGAN FOR ME

It has been a long path from my initial feelings that "something" was wrong in the Perez Administration to the final guilty verdict last week.

I guess my original suspicions were raised after I began receiving threats made directly to me or directed at me by Perez staffers. The first was from the Mayor's Chief of Staff, Matthew Hennessy, and was apparently made to Marilyn Rossetti,the Executive Director of HART (Hartford Areas Rally Together)according to what Rossetti had relayed to me.

At the time, I had made a decision to stay in Hartford and become vocal about issues I saw facing the City. To do that I had decided to become involved with HART, who at the time I felt was a strong grassroots neighborhood organization advocating for Hartford's residents. After getting involved with HART I quickly found that wasn't the case, but that's a story for another day.

At the time I became involved with HART, Eddie Perez was being tested by a severe crime problem and he was preparing to make what many thought would be his first major challenge as strong Mayor. The selection of a new Police Chief was in the works and I began to advocate for Assistant Police Chief Mark Pawlina. Myself and others saw Pawlina as the perfect fit due to his reputation in the community and his years of service to the Hartford Police Department and the people of Hartford.

Mark Pawlina was always accessible and was comfortable in every neighborhood across the city. Mark was "colorblind" when it came to serving the people of Hartford and every person and every neighborhood received Pawlina's full attention.

Unfortunately my efforts were not appreciated by those in the Mayor's Office as a selection for Chief had apparently already been made and did not include Mark Pawlina. An outsider had been selected apparently due to his ties with the Hennessey family and Matt Hennessey's father. Patrick Harnett was brought in from outside as Perez's choice for Police Chief.

During all of this, I received a call one day from Marilyn Rossetti and she asked me to stop by her office at HART to meet with her and John Kennelley who at the time was HART's attorney. I agreed and met with them and Rossetti informed me that I would have to stop speaking out and making my comments to the media.

Rossetti stated that she had received a call from the Mayor's Chief of Staff Matt Hennessey who advised her that if I kept speaking out against Perez that HART's funding from the City would be cut. As I said before, I wasn't impressed with HART's "scripted" operations, so rather than become silent as Rossetti requested, I stepped away from HART.

It bothered me that City Hall could wield funding as a weapon to silence residents, but we now know that is how the Perez criminal operation succeeded. It also bothered me that Rossetti and HART would succumb to such threats, but I guess to some a paycheck is a paycheck.

The next threat came directly to me from Perez sycophant Lew Brown. I had been asked to attend a press conference that the African American Alliance was holding on the steps of Hartford City Hall. I had never really met Lew Brown, but I knew who he was from his days as a Television reporter.

I had parked at the curb directly in front of City Hall and was leaning against my truck waiting for the event to begin. As I was standing there, Lew Brown came out of the front entrance of City Hall and made a path directly for me. He stood directly in front of me and began poking me in the chest saying "I know who you are". I was a little taken aback my his demeanor and actions, but he continued poking me saying that I needed to stop "making the Mayor look bad" by saying what I was saying.

As if the poking in the chest was obnoxious enough, he then went on to state that he knew I had "a close friend on the Police Department" who was in line for a promotion to Captain and if I didn't stop saying what I was saying "my Friend" would never get the promotion.

What were they hiding that they were so concerned about one person raising issues? I was concerned about the threats and as to how this administration seemed to stop at nothing to conceal their activities.

For some reason, at about the same time, people began passing information on to me about questionable activities relating to City Hall and specifically Mayor Perez.
Some of the information made sense and could be easily verified, other information took work to dig out and I quickly realized that something was wrong and the Perez Administration was in a bunker mentality.

Although a lot of allegations were being made, the name Carlos Costa soon became a repeating theme. Costa's name originally began surfacing after he was given a "no-bid" emergency contract for the Church Street parking garage. Although that bid appeared to be a legitimate "emergency" contract, most of Costa's bids for the Parking Authority suddenly became emergency work. The source that provided that information to me was concerned that Costa was receiving special treatment to avoid any competitive bidding process.

At the trial of Perez there was a quick reference to work on the Mayor's home being "charged out" to the Church Street Garage during Costa's testimony. That testimony was never followed up as to whether the Parking Authority actually was billed and paid for work on Perez's home or whether it was just an accounting procedure by Costa.

TO BE CONTINUED......................

HERNAN WON'T LIKE THIS

Hernan LaFontaine wasn't happy with Eddie Perez's guilty verdict, as he stated in his op-ed piece in Sundays Courant. He must not be happy with Attorney General Richard Blumenthal right about now either.

Earlier today Blumenthal apparently sent a letter to States Attorney Kevin Kane. In that letter he outlined his plans to move forward to revoke the pension of former Hartford Mayor and now convicted felon Eddie A. Perez. Blumenthal's actions are allowed under an anti-corruption statute passed in 2008 after John Rowland's arrest.

Blumenthal stated that he will be working in conjunction with Kane's office to revoke Perez's pension. The pension would be approximately $25,000 annually for Perez if he began collecting at age 55 and would be roughly $31,000 if he began collecting at age 60.

Sorry Hernan, I guess crime may not pay afterall.

HERNAN: PLEASE SEEK HELP IMMEDIATELY

My phone began ringing early Sunday morning with several callers asking if I had read Hernan LaFontaine's op-ed piece in Sunday's Courant. I hadn't by that point, but I got up and got online at courant.com to read it.

After reading the defense of Perez written by LaFontaine, it should be quite clear to just about everyone why City Hall is the ethical and criminal cesspool that it is. I'm sure that LaFontaine's assessment of the jury verdict is based on his blind allegiance to the puppet master Eddie A. Perez, rather than any common sense reasoning.

LaFontaine claims in his blind review that the state failed to prove their case and that he sat in the courtroom for "weeks" listening to testimony. I saw him there on a few occasions, certainly not weeks, but he apparently missed a few key witnesses.

In claiming that the State never proved any criminal intent, I would ask him to recall a couple of witnesses testimony. Carlos Costa's testimony was damaging, and apparently credible in the eyes of the jury. His testimony pointed out one fact, that when Perez realized that people "on the streets" were talking about the dirty deals at the Mayor's residence, Perez instructed Costa to make up a bill. Hernan, that is what is known as "criminal intent".

Then I guess he missed the testimony of Inspector Michael Sullivan. Sullivan testified that Perez lied to him when he stated that he had paid the bill to Costa. Then less than an hour after Sullivan left City Hall, Perez was at the Hartford Federal Credit Union applying for a loan to pay the bill to Costa that he had just told Inspector Sullivan he had paid much earlier. Once again Hernan, that is known as criminal intent.

Then the extortion charges related to the butt ugly building. Joseph Citino testified to the e-mails and the $100,000 payoff to "take care of Abe". According to testimony, Perez stated that if Citino didn't take care of the payoff to Giles there would be no "next step" and the deal would be dead.Seems pretty clear from that testimony that extortion was in the air at City Hall.

And if that wasn't enough to prove the State's case in the eyes of the Jury, throw in the Mayor's Chief of Staff and his former Chief of Staff's testimony. The "dyslexia defense", I think, sealed the Mayor's reputation as a fraud and a liar. If one ounce of truth was in that testimony, a diagnosis of dyslexia by a doctor would heave been entered into evidence and most likely an expert witness on dyslexia would have been put on the stand.

That testimony went directly to the Mayor's character and the Jury saw right through it.

To say that State Prosecutor's didn't prove their case is the furthest thing from the truth. The State did an exceptional job proving their case, the Defense team for Perez are the one's that did a terrible job. But then again, they had nothing to work with from the start.

And if your buddy, Eddie A. Perez, wasn't so afraid of questioning from Prosecutors, he would have taken the stand to defend himself. What was he hiding that he was so afraid to be questioned about the Extortion charges?

And your allegations that the jury verdict was because of a "population that cannot adjust to a shifting cultural paradigm" seems to infer that the verdict was based on race and Caucasians that are afraid of Hispanics in positions of power. That comment proves your ignorance of the matter. The jury was made up of people that Perez and his attorney's chose.

To blame the verdict on race is more of the ignorant narrow minded thinking that continues to drag Hartford down. The verdict shows that people have no tolerance for criminal behavior, and not because they want to remove Hispanics from office. That is most likely why we have been hearing Eddie Perez being described as a convicted felon since the verdict, not as "the Hispanic Mayor".

And as far as people celebrating or gloating over the verdict, I haven't seen anyone taking great pride in our former Mayor being a convicted felon now. I do see many people ready to pitch in and work with Mayor Segarra in building Hartford's reputation once again to the proud City we once were before your leadership, and I use the word loosely, and Eddie Perez began Hartford's downward corrupt spiral.

Maybe it is time for you to come clean about your support of Perez and why you owe your loyalty to the puppet master.

To read LaFontaine's nonsense, click here

A PITIFUL MAN, A PITIFUL SITUATION

Another day has gone by and Eddie Perez is still in control at Hartford City Hall. Is it any wonder very few have confidence or hope for the future of Hartford?

We have had to deal with Perez and his ego maniac tendencies for years now, but when does it end? We have heard ever since his first arrest that he wanted his day in court, that justice delayed was justice denied and all the other rhetoric. Now a jury of his peers has given him the justice he so desired, and he still refuses to abide by the decision.

If you apply any common sense to the matter, we have to ask ourselves if the CEO of a bank was convicted of bank fraud and embezzling, would he be allowed to return to his office the day after his trial concluded and he is now labeled a convicted felon? I would think the shareholders as well as numerous regulatory agencies would take a strong stand on the matter.

Yet here we are as the Council allows Eddie Perez to dictate the terms of his eventual exit from City Hall. And not just the Council, under Connecticut State law both the State's Attorney and the Attorney General are empowered to begin proceedings to remove Perez.

AN ACT CONCERNING THE REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009)(a) Any person who holds a municipal office, whether by election or appointment, may be removed from such office pursuant to the provisions of this section if: (1) The term or tenure of such office is fixed by law, and (2) such person: (A) Misappropriated public property or funds, (B) violated the oath of office, (C) was convicted of a felony after such election or appointment, (D) engaged in any act of malfeasance that adversely affected the rights and interests of the public, or (E) failed to perform any duty prescribed by law, to the detriment of the public interest.
(b) The Attorney General, the Chief State's Attorney or the state's attorney for the judicial district in which such municipal officer resides may file a petition with the Superior Court seeking the removal of such officer for any reason listed in subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section. Any such petition shall be prosecuted on behalf of the citizens of the affected municipality by the Attorney General.
(c) Upon receipt of any such petition described in subsection (b) of this section, the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue a summons, together with a copy of such petition, requiring such municipal officer to appear before the court on a date, as specified in such summons, and answer the claim described in such petition. Such summons shall be served not less than thirty days before the return day for such summons and in a manner consistent with the provisions of chapter 896 of the general statutes.
(d) Immediately following the filing of any petition described in subsection (b) of this section, the Superior Court shall forward a copy of such petition to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the state for the purpose of impaneling a three-judge court that consists of three judges of the Appellate Court of the state. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the state, without delay, shall appoint three Appellate Court judges to hear such petition. At the time of making such appointments, the Chief Justice shall designate the date, time and place for the convening of such three-judge court. Such date shall be not less than thirty days after receipt of such petition by the Chief Justice.
(e) Such three-judge court shall hear the claims contained in such petition and all evidence offered in support of such petition and in opposition to such petition. Upon the presentation of clear and convincing evidence in support of the claims contained in such petition, such three-judge court shall issue an order for the removal of such person from municipal office. Any such order that either removes or denies the removal of any such person from municipal office shall contain such findings of fact and conclusions of law as such three-judge court shall deem sufficient to support its decision of all issues presented by such petition.
(f) Any such order of removal shall concomitantly order the records, papers and property of such removed municipal officer to the care, custody and control of the Attorney General, Chief State's Attorney or state's attorney, as applicable.
(g) An appeal from an order issued pursuant to subsection (e) of this section may be taken to the Supreme Court of the state not later than thirty days after the date of entry of such order. The Supreme Court shall consider and decide any such appeal upon the original papers and documents. The Attorney General shall represent the citizens of the affected municipality in any such appeal.
(h) From the date of any order issued pursuant to subsection (e) of this section that removes a person from municipal office, until the final adjudication of any applicable appeal by the Supreme Court, the municipal officer, commission or authority that has power to fill a vacancy for such vacant municipal office may fill such vacant municipal office with a temporary appointment. After the issuance of any final decision by the Supreme Court in such matter, such vacant municipal office shall be filled in accordance with any applicable provision of the general statutes, special act, charter or ordinance.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1 October 1, 2009 New section

Throughout this ordeal, we have heard Perez claim his "love" for Hartford, yet his current actions seem to show the total opposite. Perez's time has come and gone, and for the good of Hartford it is time for Eddie Perez to go.

His "open ended" promise to submit his letter of resignation on Friday, but yet no firm date for him to be gone does not instill any confidence in Hartford's future.

If the Hartford City Council can't or won't take strong decisive action, state officials should to the full extent allowed by law. Eddie Perez can not be allowed to continue to call the shots, he needs to be gone and be gone yesterday.

IT'S 5:00PM, DO YOU KNOW WHO YOUR MAYOR IS?

Well, 5:00pm on Monday has come and gone and Eddie Perez is still Hartford's Mayor. No letter of resignation has been submitted or received by Council President Pedro Segarra.

If Hartford is going to begin rebuilding any confidence as a viable city, this can not be allowed to continue. Hartford is now being run by a convicted felon. No longer "allegedly", no longer "apparently", Eddie Perez is a criminal, a convicted felon.

The Hartford City Council needs to act immediately and decisively to remove Perez at the earliest possible opportunity. Any indecisiveness or ambiguity by the Council will send the wrong message. It has been a long and painful process but a huge opportunity to take back Hartford and move in a positive direction has been placed at our doorstep. To squander that opportunity by being allowed to be held hostage by Perez and any demands will be almost as criminal as Perez's acts that he was convicted of.

The Hartford City Council needs to act immediately and with a clear and unified voice and make a statement to developers, business owners, residents and anyone else able to listen that it is a new day in Hartford.

In the true spirit of Hartford's motto "After the clouds the sun", the dark clouds brought over Hartford by Eddie Perez are parting and the sun will soon be shining on a new day in Hartford.

THE PEREZ INVESTIGATION, HOW IT BEGAN FOR ME

It has been a long path from my initial feelings that "something" was wrong in the Perez Administration to the final guilty verdict last week.

I guess my original suspicions were raised after I began receiving threats made directly to me or directed at me by Perez staffers. The first was from the Mayor's Chief of Staff, Matthew Hennessy, and was apparently made to Marilyn Rossetti,the Executive Director of HART (Hartford Areas Rally Together)according to what Rossetti had relayed to me.

At the time, I had made a decision to stay in Hartford and become vocal about issues I saw facing the City. To do that I had decided to become involved with HART, who at the time I felt was a strong grassroots neighborhood organization advocating for Hartford's residents. After getting involved with HART I quickly found that wasn't the case, but that's a story for another day.

At the time I became involved with HART, Eddie Perez was being tested by a severe crime problem and he was preparing to make what many thought would be his first major challenge as strong Mayor. The selection of a new Police Chief was in the works and I began to advocate for Assistant Police Chief Mark Pawlina. Myself and others saw Pawlina as the perfect fit due to his reputation in the community and his years of service to the Hartford Police Department and the people of Hartford.

Mark Pawlina was always accessible and was comfortable in every neighborhood across the city. Mark was "colorblind" when it came to serving the people of Hartford and every person and every neighborhood received Pawlina's full attention.

Unfortunately my efforts were not appreciated by those in the Mayor's Office as a selection for Chief had apparently already been made and did not include Mark Pawlina. An outsider had been selected apparently due to his ties with the Hennessey family and Matt Hennessey's father. Patrick Harnett was brought in from outside as Perez's choice for Police Chief.

During all of this, I received a call one day from Marilyn Rossetti and she asked me to stop by her office at HART to meet with her and John Kennelley who at the time was HART's attorney. I agreed and met with them and Rossetti informed me that I would have to stop speaking out and making my comments to the media.

Rossetti stated that she had received a call from the Mayor's Chief of Staff Matt Hennessey who advised her that if I kept speaking out against Perez that HART's funding from the City would be cut. As I said before, I wasn't impressed with HART's "scripted" operations, so rather than become silent as Rossetti requested, I stepped away from HART.

It bothered me that City Hall could wield funding as a weapon to silence residents, but we now know that is how the Perez criminal operation succeeded. It also bothered me that Rossetti and HART would succumb to such threats, but I guess to some a paycheck is a paycheck.

The next threat came directly to me from Perez sycophant Lew Brown. I had been asked to attend a press conference that the African American Alliance was holding on the steps of Hartford City Hall. I had never really met Lew Brown, but I knew who he was from his days as a Television reporter.

I had parked at the curb directly in front of City Hall and was leaning against my truck waiting for the event to begin. As I was standing there, Lew Brown came out of the front entrance of City Hall and made a path directly for me. He stood directly in front of me and began poking me in the chest saying "I know who you are". I was a little taken aback my his demeanor and actions, but he continued poking me saying that I needed to stop "making the Mayor look bad" by saying what I was saying.

As if the poking in the chest was obnoxious enough, he then went on to state that he knew I had "a close friend on the Police Department" who was in line for a promotion to Captain and if I didn't stop saying what I was saying "my Friend" would never get the promotion.

What were they hiding that they were so concerned about one person raising issues? I was concerned about the threats and as to how this administration seemed to stop at nothing to conceal their activities.

For some reason, at about the same time, people began passing information on to me about questionable activities relating to City Hall and specifically Mayor Perez.
Some of the information made sense and could be easily verified, other information took work to dig out and I quickly realized that something was wrong and the Perez Administration was in a bunker mentality.

Although a lot of allegations were being made, the name Carlos Costa soon became a repeating theme. Costa's name originally began surfacing after he was given a "no-bid" emergency contract for the Church Street parking garage. Although that bid appeared to be a legitimate "emergency" contract, most of Costa's bids for the Parking Authority suddenly became emergency work. The source that provided that information to me was concerned that Costa was receiving special treatment to avoid any competitive bidding process.

At the trial of Perez there was a quick reference to work on the Mayor's home being "charged out" to the Church Street Garage during Costa's testimony. That testimony was never followed up as to whether the Parking Authority actually was billed and paid for work on Perez's home or whether it was just an accounting procedure by Costa.

TO BE CONTINUED......................

THANKS FOR THE INQUIRIES, I AM STILL AROUND

Just to answer the questions, e-mails and comments, I have been very quiet this week at a time when most would expect me to have been very vocal.

Unfortunately it was due to a situation which was out of my control as I was hospitalized most of the week. Things are definitely on the mend now, but it was a tough week where the blog and Eddie Perez were the furthest thing from my mind. Without going into a lot of detail, most of which you wouldn't want to hear anyway, I somehow came down with "infectious colitis" apparently caused by the e-coli bacteria.

Thanks to those who have expressed their concern and to those who have called, e-mailed, and even visited me in the hospital. It definitely makes you realize what is important and appreciate those around you.

With that being said, I plan to start posting this afternoon some of my thoughts on the Perez verdict and also explaining details as to how the investigation began for me.

Thanks again.

I'M SURE IT IS JUST AN OVERSIGHT....BUT....

I received the attached letter and flyer today regarding a candidates forum being held by the Blue Hills Civic Association.

I do believe that the more voters are educated regarding their choices, the better the turnout will be.

I commend the Blue Hills Civic Association for their efforts, but it seems as though many candidates have been left off the list of invited guests.It is easy to forget that there is actually a Republican Party in Hartford. Even though they are on their last gasps of breath on their race towards irrelevance, it does seem only fair that they are included in public events such as this.

Blue Hills Civic Forum

HUBIE, JUST A SUGGESTION......

Hubie,

I know you haven't had the best track record the last few years, you know what I mean, Michael Skakel, Michael Ross and the rest. Now to be stuck with this Perez case, I know it's tough and in this economy a job's a job.

No one can fault you on this one because you are almost guarunteed to get paid by the City if you bill quick enough. I suggest the day the jury goes into deliberation quickly hand deliver the invoice to Susan McMullen for Eddie's legal fees. Hopefully she can "walk the invoice through" for quick payment like they did with Carlos Costa's invoices for Park Street payments after he worked on the Mayor's home.

If you are lucky you can get to the bank before a jury verdict comes back and cash the check. Make it quick though because if Eddie is convicted they will probably stop payment on the check. You know how that works, when Eddie is found guilty he has to pay his own legal fees. And good luck with that one. If he had to run to the credit union after Inspector Sullivan left for a $25,000 loan to pay off Costa, your bill might be a little tough for Eddie.

I wish that "Dyslexia Defense" had gone better for you today. It was creative, I'll give you that, but it doesn't look like many people bought it. Is dyslexia something you can develop late in life, like diabetes? Now that could be another creative twist though if you could get another witness to testify to it like McMullen did. You could probably even find a doctor to testify to it.

Just think of it, as if this trial hasn't brought enough attention to Hartford, you could now be the first to identify the "Perez Syndrome". Adult onset of Dyslexia, blame it on bad air in City Hall, or maybe radio waves from "wireless Hartford" transmitters beaming out the "Gospel of Perez".

And Hubie, in case you don't recall, early on in this sad saga I suggested an insanity defense for Eddie. I think it is more believable as every day passes in this trial, let Hennessey finish his testimony and then I think getting Eddie to cop an insanity plea is a slam dunk.

Maybe he can still collect a pension if you can make the case it was work related.

WILL THE REAL "PEREZ PAWNS" PLEASE STEP FORWARD

I was somewhat surprised when I received an e-mail from former State Representative and former Hartford resident Art Feltman on Tuesday.

The header on the e-mail was "Keep a Perez pawn out of the State House".The body of the e-mail is copied below:

Subject: keep a Perez pawn out of the State House!
Date: Jun 7, 2010 8:03 AM

>
> Sen. John Fonfara, my mentor, is being challenged for his seat in a D
>> primary by union leader Ed Vargas, who organized El Jefe's successful
> field operation when we challenged Perez for mayor- although Eddie has
> one foot
>> in the jail house, he wants to put the other in the State House: he
>> never
>> stops!
>>
>> to qualify for public financing, John is hosting a fundraiser this Wed.
>> June
>> 9th, 5 to 7 p.m. at Casa Mia restaurant at 381 Franklin Ave. (there is no
>> min.)- donations from any address in Hartford or Wethersfield (both of
>> which he represents) up to $100 makes his campaign eligible for public
>> financing- contributions from elsewhere help, too- please send a check,
>> payable to Fonfara 2010, to Alex Rodriguez, 81 Cromwell St., Hartford,
>> Ct.
>> 06114- if you can, stop by that p.m., too
>>
>> please give John the chance to present his side to the voters- if you
>> support me, please support John at this critical time: Eddie is down,
>> but
>> not out
>>
>> thank you

I was even more surprised when I received a phone call later that evening from Art Feltman asking me to support John Fonfara and reconsider my support for Ed Vargas. Just to clarify a point, I have not decided to support either candidate, but it is safe to say it will not be John Fonfara. I really do like the Republican candidate Barabara Ruhe and potentially think she would be the best candidate, but that "R" after her name makes her candidacy an effort in futility.

I am not a fan of John Fonfara, and each year observing him I become less and less of a fan. Has he done positive things for Hartford and the State? I guess you would have to give him some credit and say yes.

Does he listen to the concerns of his constituents? Absolutely not. The major criticism I have of Fonfara is the same that many have for their elected officials. John is not accessible and does not return phone calls. This is just not my observation, but numerous people I have spoke with have voiced their dissatisfaction with Fonfara's not having the common courtesy to return calls.

It is also not acceptable to pay attention to your constituents only when you are facing a serious election challenge, or in the couple months before an election when you are soliciting donations and votes.

But back to the e-mail from Art Feltman. I found it interesting that Feltman referred to Fonfara's potential challenger Ed Vargas as a "Perez Pawn". I'm not overly friendly with Vargas, I do know him though, and I would not consider him a "Perez Pawn". I think at one point Vargas was friendly with Eddie Perez, and like many people has realized the error of his ways and has now distanced himself from Perez.

I had spoke with Fonfara shortly before his last re-election bid and told him I hoped a serious challenge would be a wake-up call for him. I had said that no one is entitled to an elected position indefinitely and any politician had to earn their seat everyday of their term. We spoke about the return phone call issue as well as others.

The one thing you may notice is that Senator Fonfara never seems to miss a photo opportunity with Mayor Perez. I brought that up to Feltman when he was claiming that Vargas was a Perez pawn. Art had no answer for that and I even mentioned that Fonfara marched shoulder to shoulder with Perez in Sunday's Puerto Rican Day Parade. Along with Fonfara and Perez was State Representative Kelvin Roldan.

I pointed out that if ever there was a Perez Pawn, it was Representative Roldan and I asked Feltman if he was supporting Roldan in his re-election bid. Feltman said he would "never support Roldan" and it just seemed ironic to me. In fairness, I am working with Roldan's challenger, Angel Morales as his campaign manager. Art wouldn't answer if he was going to support Morales.

In looking at Fonfara's campaign filings for his 2007 election bid, it seems that he has paid several Perez "pawns" thousands of dollars to work on his own campaigns. Among them Evelyn Mantilla who has benefited quite well from her alliances with Perez as well as David MacDonald who serves on the Board of Education as a Perez nominee and works for Fonfara at the Capitol.

We don't need more negative campaigning, the facts are the facts. To see who John Fonfara was paying during his last campaign, his last filing for the 2008 Campaign is below. The actual pay-outs begin on page 18.

Fonfara Seec30 January 10 Filing 3451

DYSLEXIA? IT COULD EXPLAIN A LOT, IF IT WERE TRUE

It would be easy to be sarcastic regarding testimony today that Eddie Perez suffers from Dyslexia. In respect to those who actually suffer from the affliction, I will not be sarcastic at this point.

As one who has watched Eddie Perez read his scripted remarks for years, I would agree that he is a terrible public speaker. Has he appeared to have a problem reading the remarks? I would say no. I am far from an expert on the topic, but people suffering from Dyslexia usually have long pauses as they attempt to make sense and unscramble the printed word in their minds.

Eddie just seems to have a problem reading, not making sense of what he is reading.

Unlike Democratic candidate for Governor Dan Malloy, who has been upfront about his education issues and his dyslexia diagnosis, this appears to be a last minute diagnosis by a desperate Chief of Staff. It would be interesting to see if any documentation is available to confirm this diagnosis by an actual medical professional.

The other sad part about this is the total lack of trust in anything said by Perez or his administration. When Dan Malloy speaks about his dealing with dyslexia over the years, no one questions it. When Perez's Chief of Staff mentioned dyslexia in the courtroom today as an excuse for Perez not reading his e-mails, her claim was immediately suspect.

Maybe the Perez staff has been reading and taking notes from Malloy's life experiences. Mayor Perez, you are no Dan Malloy.

If it is true, Perez has done a good job of hiding a disability that there is no reason to hide. If it is a concocted attempt to sway a jury, it just adds to the list of Perez's despicable traits.

It is too bad that the Mayor's credibility has sunk so low that we now have to ask for proof of his disability claims.

BREAKING NEWS...CHIEF ROBERTS UPDATES HIS BLOG

Sorry Chief, it's only been ten months since your last blog entry.

To read the Chief's latest blog entry just click on the link in the right hand column

THE PROSECUTION RESTS..... AND NOW ETHICS MATTER

If nothing else has been learned from the Perez corruption scandal, at least someone is paying attention to the City of Hartford's Ethics code.

Apparently Cirque du Soleil has offered complimentary admission to numerous City of Hartford officials and employees.

In a quick response, Hartford's Chief Operating Officer David Panagore sent out the following e-mail to Hartford Department heads and the City Council:

From: Panagore, David B.
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Dept Heads (City)
Subject: A COI Advisory
Importance: High



Many of you may have received an invitation to a private preview for Cirque du Soleil on June 16th (See below) . After conferring with the Corporation Counsel, I share the following advice and direction.



Accepting free tickets to an event falls within the ambit of the ethics code. Without knowing the value of each ticket, the provision in the Code proscribes receiving gifts aggrgegating more than $100 in any calendar year so with Cirque tickets one could run afoul of that prohibition pretty quickly. For example, any staffer who issues a permit for the Cirque show is well advised not to take tickets. Every employee of the City is covered by the Ethics Code and, quite simply, the better part of valor is simply to not accept any free tickets or other such gifts.



If you have any questions, please contact myself or John Rose.



If only he had been around a few years ago and could have changed "cirque du Soleil tickets" to "granite counter tops", the City could have avoided a lot of embarrassment and avoided a corruption trial.

CAN SARAH BARR BE TRUSTED TO TELL THE TRUTH?

Another opportunity to use this picture of Sarah Barr, but also a time to shed some light on whether she understands her job and more importantly does she understand truth and honesty.

The greater question though is do any of the so called "staffers" of the Perez inner circle understand why they are there. It is pretty obvious that none of them are there to actually serve the City, they are there to support the Mayor. But even in doing that, they are terribly incompetent. How could anyone that is supposed to be loyal to their boss allow embarrassing incident after embarrassing incident to occur. I don't care for Perez, most people realize that, but does anyone in his office have his back and really try to protect him?

Sarah Barr ,as an example, has done more to harm Perez than she has done to make him look good. And right about now it would take a lot to make Perez look good, but it is almost like his staff go out of their way to embarrass him. Could you imagine anyone like Sarah Barr or Susan McMullen surviving their stunts if they worked in the CEO's office of one of Hartford's major corporations like the Traveler's or the Aetna.

I can almost guarantee that if someone with a suspended license was allowed to be hired and then drive the CEO of Aetna for several months, many people down the food chain would be on the unemployment line right about now. But not at Hartford City Hall where incompetence is rewarded almost daily.

It also raises a lot of questions though, the most important being how many other drivers are operating the hundreds of city-owned vehicles that shouldn't be behind the wheel driving. What process is being undertaken to check on that? Knowing the way Hartford operates, probably none. Hartford's version of "don't ask, don't tell"

After I posted the information regarding the Mayor's driver being arrested for operating under suspension I e-mailed several questions to Sarah Barr requesting answers to a few questions I had. In her capacity as the Communications Director for the Mayor, that is her job to answer questions.

I know she won't answer questions from me, but I really don't need her comment because I usually have my facts together long before I even attempt to contact her.

In today's Hartford Courant she apparently did answer questions for them, but her answers seemed far from the truth, if not actually outright lies.

When she was apparently asked if a background check was performed before the driver for Perez was hired, according to the Courant article, she said a background check was performed but "nothing that was red-flaggable" came up.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Unless he had a phony license, a drivers license expired for several years should have been more than "red-flaggable", it should have been "rockets red glaring-able" to grab someones attention. But again, in this administration no one ever acknowledges errors, every thing is always done right.

Barr went on to state, according to the Courant,that the background showed "There were no violations. Nothing came up in the normal process of the check". Does anyone want to place bets on whether an actual background check was ever performed ? My money would be placed on no, absolutely not.

Barr went on to state that "The city did not make a photocopy of his license when he was hired".As part of the hiring process, she said, licenses are examined but there is no requirement that they be photocopied the article stated. My understanding is that for any employer to comply with Federal Law, two forms of ID must be provided and copies kept to verify the employees immigration status when the I-9 form is completed. At the very least the employer must verify that the documents "appear to be genuine and relate to the individual and record the document information" according to federal law.

Maybe since Hartford has designated itself a "Sanctuary City" it can choose to ignore Federal Law.

These are the questions I had e-mailed to Sarah Barr requesting comment:

I am preparing a posting for my blog regarding this and I have a couple questions.

1. Was anyone injured and the extent of the injuries?

2. What was the extent of damage to the vehicle?

3. Was the vehicle leaving the Court after dropping the Mayor off?

4. What process is undertaken to check a city employee's driving history and driving record before allowing them to drive City vehicles?

5. Was anyone aware that his license had been suspended?

6. What was the purpose of the Mayor's Chief of Staff calling the investigating officer to City Hall

None of these questions have been answered by Sarah Barr. That's probably better off though, I'd prefer to deal with the truth rather than lies.

NEIGHBORS WORKING TOGETHER TO GET IT DONE

Not every neighborhood in the city has a strong NRZ group operating in their area. But many residents still want to work together for the good of the City. Here is a perfect example. Whether you live in this area or not, crime is an issue we all face as Hartford residents.

Feel free to join the meeting tonight.

Community+Meeting+Flyer[1]

MESSAGE TO SARAH BARR: "THE BIG DOG IS ALWAYS GOING TO EAT"

Sarah Barr, Mayor Perez's Director of Communications and author of the "Gospel of Perez"



In an administration that has focused on delivering the "Gospel of Perez", it seems that the Mayor's mouthpiece Sarah Barr just can't get a break. Try as hard as she might, the punches just keep flying delivering black eye after black eye to the Perez Administration. And many are wondering if the knockout blow that will render Perez down for the count is about to be delivered by a jury of his peers.

Many of the punches that have landed though have been assisted by Sarah Barr herself.

It seems hard for me to understand how someone who was once considered an actual journalist could make a 180 degree turn and now do everything she can to stifle the media. From a journalist who once built stories through FOIA requests to now be a constant roadblock to those requesting documents through FOIA requests makes me wonder.

At what price does someone change from what they were to what they are now. At what point do the ideals and beliefs you lived by and cherished a few short years ago now become irrelevant? And once the gig at City Hall comes to a screeching halt, will her media colleagues forgive and forget and once again label her as a credible journalist? I would most likely say not.

I learned my lesson of Barr's integrity, or lack thereof, early on once I began this blog. I had asked to be added to the media list for press releases from the Mayor's Office, that request was ignored, and as aggravated as I was at the time, it has paid off. Once the word got out to other media people that I was being refused access to the press releases, they started forwarding them to me once they received them. That worked out well for a while until I started getting a dozen or more "press releases" forwarded to me every time they were issued by Barr.

It also helped in developing sources. When people realized I wasn't beholding to Barr or relying on her for information, the good information began coming in regularly. And I mean the good information that has led to some very interesting blog posts, not the spoon-fed garbage from Barr about things like the hawk landing on the Mayor's windowsill and the forecast for Hartford.

Barr has almost never responded to my request for comments when I ask for them. That's fine with me because I usually have my facts confirmed long before I would ever ask her for comment. I request comment out of courtesy, not that they deserve any courtesy. Just because the City doesn't comment doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Lieutenant J. Paul Vance from the Connecticut State Police is a master at the media game. Lt. Vance regularly gives talks about how to handle the media from his viewpoint and experience. Although I have never attended one of his talks, I know a few people who have, and they have all repeated the same comments that Vance makes.

Vance tells those attending that the "big dog" is always going to eat one way or another, it is your choice whether you feed him and keep him happy or does he go through your garbage to find what he needs. Personally, I've gotten used to going through the garbage and found that the meal is much more satisfying than being spoon fed by Sarah Barr.

So Sarah, keep ignoring my e-mails and calls, it is no big deal. Ask anyone who knows me, I'm definitely well fed.

Oh, and it gives me a reason once again to use that great picture.

IS CITY HALL SERIOUS ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY?

In my opinion, and the opinion of many people I speak with, the one major issue keeping Hartford from any significant turn around is the perception of crime and public safety in Hartford.

I like Chief Roberts, I think he is an honest man who really cares about the city he was raised in. I know that he is constantly being told to do more with less. He has many empty promises made to him by Mayor Perez. The most notable probably being the false promises of hiring new officers. At the rate that new officer's are being funded, the Hartford Police Department is just barely keeping up with attrition.

The staffing levels could also jeopardize stimulus funding that has been given to the City for new officers. Under the contract, HPD and the City of Hartford committed to maintaining the number of sworn Police Officers at 460 minimum. Police sources familiar with the numbers tell me that by years end the number of officers could be well below that and jeopardize the stimulus funds.

A few things that really make me wonder about the Perez Administrations commitment to Public Safety in Hartford are quite obvious. One recent example is yesterdays posting about the conditions at the Southend Police substation on Maple Avenue. The are covered by this substation, the Southeast District of the city has seen some of the most impressive numbers in crime reduction and stability for the entire city.

These improvements haven't just happened by luck. A new lieutenant was assigned to the area and strong accountability was put into place. This also was accomplished by building a strong team effort by the officers working in the district. That can only be done by building morale among the officers, and forcing them to work in an office with no heat or air conditioning, to me, doesn't build or maintain morale.

The solution to that situation is simple, a directive from the Mayor to the Public Works Director... get it fixed and get it fixed immediately. I guess that might take some leadership and we all know who is Mayor.

And if you want to talk about morale, how about the carrot on the stick that keeps getting dangled in front of members of the Department. A new state of the art Public Safety Complex that was started at least 5 years ago, if not more, and is now further behind than it ever was.

I remember the first groundbreaking was held years ago under the administration of Chief Harnett. Then the second "groundbreaking" was again held toward the end of the tenure of Chief Harnett. Then the third "groundbreaking" was held under the tenure of Chief Roberts. For those that recall, Chief Roberts wasn't at that dog and pony show because it was shortly after his public comments that Hartford had a "toxic relationship" with itself and we had "lost our moral compass" and he was not in good favor with Perez.

Now, several million dollars later, the new Public Safety Complex is a pile of rubble and a testament to the Perez Administration's commitment to Hartford's Public Safety.

These things all add up to a total lack or respect and no effort to build morale in the Police Department. But one of the most glaring issues that confirms that Perez just doesn't give a damn , is really a simple fix.

For the last few years, Hartford has suffered from a lack of police cruisers. This is due to several reasons, the most popular thing for community people to throw out is that the cops abuse the vehicles and they crash them as soon as they get them. Point taken, but it is also a stark reality that police cruisers get damaged and crash. The solution may go back to training and more defensive driving classes for officers who have a problem driving. Save older vehicles for newer officers coming onto the street until they have proven themselves as capable drivers.

I don't want to see any officer wreck a car, but I'd rather see them wreck a dog of the fleet with 200,000 miles than a brand new vehicle with 1,200 miles on it. The other problem when a cruiser is wrecked is that it is not always the officers fault.Even if someone elses insurance pays the city for the loss, the money goes back into the City's General Fund, rather than replace the vehicle.

The reason for writing this is because of tonight's evening shift at the Police Department. The PD is so short of vehicles, tonight's evening shift had 9, yes nine, cruisers "doubled up". That means that because of the shortage of cruisers, 9, yes nine, officers were riding with another officer because they had no car. So, in essence where there would normally be 18 cruisers patrolling, there are instead nine cruisers with two officers in them.

That drastically effects police response times and police coverage when you cut the number of cruisers able to respond to calls in half. Some calls do require two officers to respond, but many do not. It also cuts police visibility in neighborhoods in half.

There is a lot more, but I think the point is clear that the lip service of the Perez Administration doesn't translate to a strong commitment to Hartford's crime problems and efforts to correct Hartford's image.

I guess it is difficult for a Mayor under arrest and on trial and possibly facing prison himself to welcome law enforcement with open arms.

THIS SHOULD WORK OUT WELL MAYOR, GO GREEN, CARPOOL TO COURT

Just an update to the previous post regarding the Mayor's driver being arrested for Operating Under Suspension.

The driver, Pedro Bermudez, was released at the scene of the accident on a "Written Promise to Appear" next week in court at 101 Lafayette Street, the same Courthouse that Perez is currently on trial at for corruption charges.

This could work out well though for both Perez and Bermudez. Carpooling saves energy.

Oh, and still no comment from Sarah Barr.

ANOTHER FROM THE ONLY IN HARTFORD FILE, MAYOR'S DRIVER ARRESTED FOR OPERATING UNDER SUSPENSION

For anyone that reads this blog, you know that I am very critical of the position for the driver for Mayor Perez being funded when the city is in dire financial straits.

And now, in a move that makes you shake your head in disbelief, it seems that the Mayor's driver should not even be on the road in the first place.

From what police sources are telling me, the Mayor's driver, Pedro Bermudez, 51, had dropped his precious cargo off at the Courthouse for the afternoon session of the Mayor's corruption trial.After leaving the court, the Mayor's driver was involved in an accident at Park and Lafayette Streets. The other vehicle evaded and left the scene, and from what sources are telling me, it actually is believed to belong to a court reporter. UPDATE: 6/2/2010, 4:30PM the evading vehicle was operated by Juan Garcia, a clerk at the Court at 95 Washington Street, he has been charged with evading responsibility.

The driver of the Mayor's vehicle apparently called police and an Officer arrived to complete the accident report.Upon beginning the investigation, the Mayor's driver handed the officer a drivers license from Puerto Rico, which was invalid. It seems as though the Officer explained that to him, at which time the driver reluctantly handed the Officer a Connecticut license.

Somewhere around that time a verbal exchange took place between the Officer and the Mayor's driver and the driver voiced his displeasure with the officer wasting time checking on his license when he should be searching for the evading vehicle.

Ultimately it turned out that Bermudez didn't want the officer checking on his license for a good reason. His Connecticut license had been suspended over 8 years ago and he was not allowed to be driving any vehicle.

Why is it that these things happen when we have so many high-priced members of the "Perez Management Team" that should be watching out for things like this?

Immediately after the Officer finished with his investigation he was summoned to the Mayor's Office by the Mayor's Chief of Staff Susan McMullen. Can anyone say interfereing with a Police Officer?

As soon as the report is ready, it will be posted here.

In the meantime Mr. Mayor, might I suggest that you let your fingers do the walking, try Yellow Cab at 666-6666.

A request for comment has not been returned by Sarah Barr, the Mayor's spokesperson.

KEVIN BURNHAM, PLEASE RETURN YOUR CALLS

For months now I have been calling Hartford's Director of Public Works Kevin Burnham regarding the Southend Wellness Center and the conditions of the building and the Police Offices housed in the building. Even before he was named permanent Public Works Director he has seemed to have problems returning phone calls, and not just from me, but others in the Community also. At one point in March I spoke with Burnham at City Hall and he stated it would all be fixed in two weeks. In fairness to him, he didn't say two weeks from when.

Possibly Burnham has received his training in message handling and returning phone calls from the John Fonfara Training Academy.

Anyway, according to several Southend residents I have spoke with, the heating and air conditioning systems at the Southend Wellness Center have been a problem ever since the City of Hartford purchased and renovated the building.

In January I was in the Southeast Police Substation, housed in the building on Maple Avenue, and since there was no heat, the temperature was 45 degrees. Last week I was in there again and since the air conditioning doesn't work and the windows don't open, it was 91 degrees.

The Department of Public Works solution to the heating problem was to place two small space heaters in the office and run wires up into the ceiling. A definite fire hazard as well as a very inefficient way of heating the offices. The solution for the air conditioning problem from DPW were two small residential air conditioners vented into the space above the ceiling. The air conditioners only run for a short time before they fill with water and shut off and then the holding containers have to be emptied to restart them.

Typical of the way the City handles construction projects, the Heating and A/C units were possibly installed by someone who used to run a hot dog cart on Union Place and was given the contract for the project. It worked on the Park Street bidding process. One would think though that at the very least some sort of warranty would be in place for rooftop units that are less than a couple years old. But then again, if the City holds the contractor accountable for their work, the campaign contributions might not be as large down the road.

On top of that, in January the Wethersfield Police "were attempting to stop" a vehicle headed north on Maple Avenue when it crashed into the front entrance of the Police office. They used to call them pursuits, but I guess that term is no longer politically correct. A light post, fencing, and shrubs were knocked over as well as the front doors being knocked out and replaced by makeshift plywood and a single door.

The intercom that visitors would ring to get into the Police Office was also broken and hangs by wires at the plywood entrance. A large plate glass window above the front entrance was also shattered by flying debris and that window is now held together with duct tape.

From what I understand, the vehicle that crashed into the building was insured, so where is the money to pay for the repairs and why does it take almost 6 months to get the building fixed and where did the money go?

I can almost guarantee that if this was the A/C or heat in the Mayor's Office or Kevin Burnham's Office, it would not take month's to fix. Maybe this is another argument for getting Department Heads to actually live in Hartford, as the city's ordinances require. Maybe the Mayor can send his "Energy Czar" to witness the inefficient use of energy and make some suggestions.

Mr. Burnham, you should have the number from the numerous messages I have left, but it is also at the top of the blog if you need it. Maybe I should try calling 311 instead.

Hopefully DPW will correct this mess as fast as they did the graves in Soldiers Field when WFSB exposed that neglect. I-team please take note :)

GOING, GOING ....GONE

Just an update, the final remaining walls of the Public Safety Complex were knocked down today.

Kudos to the Perez Management Team for another fine job well done. Efficient government at its finest.

"ONE NATION UNDER GOD" , ANOTHER THOUGHT

If a church can not be used for a graduation ceremony, then how can they be used as polling locations during elections? A different set of rules maybe?

Just off the top of my head, the Liberty Christian Center at the corner of Albany Avenue and Vine Street is one of the more active polling places in Hartford.

ACLU ? Judge Hall? Please save us .

"ONE NATION UNDER GOD", MORE THOUGHTS

After posting earlier about the Enfield school graduation conflict, an "Anonymous" commenter posted his (or her) disagreement with my ideas.

"Anonymous" cited the separation of Church and State as one of our basic fundamentals of our Democracy. It's a catchy phrase, but what exactly was meant by the "separation" and what do we choose to scrutinize and what do we choose to overlook.

If there is such a thing as separation of Church and State, what is it and where does it begin?

Let's look at the supposed "separation" starting on a local level. Millions of dollars are given out to religious organizations in Hartford for so-called community initiatives. Some are legitimate programs producing results, many are not.

And if a program funded by the City is held in a church building, how is that any different than a graduation program being forbidden from being held in a church? Are secular symbols removed for after-school or daycare programs held in or around a church building?

And when a program is publicly funded and run by a religious organization, where do we draw the line? Is it ok for a church or minister that receives funds from the City to then endorse Mayoral candidates or politicians from the pulpit? No one can deny that happens in Hartford.

Is it OK for a minister receiving funds from the City to stand behind a recently arrested Mayor and support him with a "prayer vigil"? Or is that just part of "doing business" in Hartford?

That line of separation between Church and State seems to be non-existent when it comes to Hartford. Where is the ACLU on this?

And then we go to the state level. The Roman Catholic Church probably has one of the strongest lobbying efforts at the Capitol, influencing the approval or denial of many legislative efforts. It's the way the system works, but how do you pick and choose what is acceptable and what is not.

And so much for that separation when both Congress and our State Legislature begin every session, every single day with a prayer.

And one of the most interesting "separation's" to me that seems to really cloud that "separation" theory is the Obama Administration's Office of Faith Based Initiatives.

While some see religion being brought into society as a bad thing, is religion not what has held our communities together during good times, but especially during bad times. No one is "forced" to accept or abandon religion, the same as no one is forced into a life of crime or drugs. It is a conscious decision one makes and the same as a decision to use drugs, if it is not your thing, "just say no".

I think I've said enough about this a long time ago, but it just seems bizarre to me that a couple of parents would go to the extremes to alienate their children from religion, rather than explain that diversity is what makes this country great.

You are free to make decisions for yourself. Believe in God, don't believe in God. Choose to drink alcohol, choose not to drink alcohol. The list can go on and on, but will looking at a cross as you walk into an auditorium to receive your diploma really scar you for life?

And is a little more civility and tolerance really a bad thing for us to strive for today?

ARE WE REALLY "ONE NATION UNDER GOD"?

I don't consider myself an overly "religious" person, but for some reason the Federal Judge's decision in the Enfield graduation case is bothering me. To me, your religious beliefs aren't something you wear on your sleeve, but they hopefully come across in the way you live your life and treat others.

I guess the core of the matter revolved around the decision by the Enfield Board of Education to hold graduation ceremonies at the First Cathedral in Bloomfield. After the decision was made, three students and two of their parents objected and the ACLU apparently took up the charge and filed a federal suit.

Long story short, the hearing in Federal Court was fast tracked and yesterday Federal Judge Janet Hall issued her decision. In essence, graduation at the First Cathedral was off, Judge Hall claims it violates the First amendment of the US Constitution.

I guess the first thing that troubles me is that three "Jane" or "John" Doe's can file a lawsuit changing the course for a much larger group of people. This wasn't a majority decision, not even close. This was a decision by three students out of several hundred students and two of their parents

All five plaintiffs in the lawsuit requested "anonymity". So much for taking a stand for something you believe in. And what about that old standard to be able to face your accuser? How can you face an "anonymous" accuser?

Further more, the Judge toured the First Cathedral and as "neutral" as the Cathedral's leaders tried to make the building, there were still "secular" symbols that couldn't be hidden, such as the large cross atop the building.

If secular symbols are the issue, I think the parents and the three students must have much greater problems surviving in our society today. What do they use for currency if they object to secular symbols and statements? Do they refuse their paychecks and object to cashing them because of the phrase on every bill "IN GOD WE TRUST"?

Do they leave a ball park when "God Bless America" is sung? I totally agree that religion should not be forced on anyone, it should be a choice. But then again, for a couple of hundred years religious freedom has been a cornerstone of this country. Walking into a church is not going to make anyone a "bible thumping Christian" (no offense to bible thumping Christians intended) anymore than walking into a bar is going to convert someone into an alcoholic.

As adults, something these three students will eventually be forced to become, we face choices and decisions everyday. Some call for difficult decisions that are not always pleasant, but are one person's rights more important than the majority's rights?

And I'm not sure where the Judge's decision is coming from also. If it is based in the theory that "secular symbols" that can't be removed will somehow force religious beliefs upon the three students and their parents, this could end with an ironic twist.

If by some chance this should end up at the US Supreme Court, the students and their parents will be confronted with numerous "secular symbols".

As they walk up the front steps of the US Supreme Court, if they look up at the stately facade, they will see Moses holding the ten commandments in his lap. Not good for non-believers as they feel the pressure of organized religion staring back at them.




Then , if they make it as far as the entrance to the actual Supreme Court courtroom, they hopefully wont be offended as they pull open the doors to the courtroom, they have the symbols of the 10 commandments engraved into the doors



And then after they take their seats, God forbid (sorry bad choice of words mentioning God). I'll try again.... and then after they take their seats, Heaven forbid,sorry, another religious term. I guess you just can't get away from religious symbols and terms in this country.

After they take their seats, if they look up above the bench where the Supreme Court justices are seated, they will once again see a religious symbol of Moses carved in his full religious glory.



If a little religion is acceptable for the US Supreme Court, will it really hurt a couple of students from Enfield?

And finally, in the words of our 4th President of the United States and a founding father of our country and our Constitution James Madison;"We have staked the whole of all our political Institutions upon the capacity of mankind for Self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God."