Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 29, 2010


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.


Anonymous said...

I hope his pension does get revoked. He has hurt the city of Hartford in so many ways.

Jeff said...

If you've been reading any of my comments you know I have no love for Eddie Perez but for some reason I'm having an issue with his pension being revoked.

Here's my logic. His crime is being punished by jail time. His pension is for serving the city for 9 years. To me they are two different things.

I do understand the law is not just punitive and is also meant to serve as a deterrent. However, I'm just having a hard time being 100% on board with taking his pension. (I'm not 100% against it either).

Anonymous said...

I believe that the purpose of the loss of pension is meant to make public officials think twice or perhaps three times before they decide to take bribes or commit extortion. It wasn't a secret that the loss of pention was a penalty for these crimes. Unless you believe that you are above the law, then you are above all laws.

Vito Antonio C said...

Apparently there is wiggle room in the law to allow the convicted official's family to receive all or part of the official's pension. While I am sorry that Mrs. Perez had/has a chronic medical condition, her husband should have considered this before he committed the crimes for which he was convicted. If the Courant's reporting of the criminal trial is accurate, the Home Depot Manager, a prosecution witness, testified that it was Mrs. Perez who cancelled the counter-tops (because Carlos Costa would do it for free). Furthermore, the defense attorney stated that the Mayor knew little of the house renovation project because his (ill) wife was managing the project on a day to day basis. Finally, a reasonable person would find it hard to believe that Mrs. Perez did not know that her husband did not pay Costa. What I am trying to say is that I personally believe that Mrs. Perez was just as culpable as her husband and therefore does NOT deserve to collect his pension. I do not believe that the Perez's have any minor dependent children, but if they did, the children should receive the pension. If Mrs. Perez is as ill as the defense attorney asserts, perhaps she will qualify for social security disability payments if she has sufficient medical documentation AND sufficient work history. Just my opinion...

Bruce Rubenstein said...

Jeff...if there are no consequences over the pension....what is the deterrence for future Mayors?

I think there is sufficient "wiggle room" for the Judge to allow Perez's wife some of the pension, if the Judge chooses to do so.

Dave said...

Jeff -- I think the question is, WAS he actually serving the city of Hartford for those nine years, or was he serving himself and his buddies? Let Abe Giles give him a pension for his service to the Giles family income. The city shouldn't give him anything.

Lauren said...

If in fact the law is created to deter politicians from doing something illegal. Why impose it on someone who did the crime before the law was even created. Common sense states that said person would never have had a time to be "deterred." It's obvious that the people who post here are too emotionally invested against Mr. Perez to offer any type of objective opinion. Kudos to Jeff for at least stating the obvious.

Jeff said...

The deterring consequence of committing a crime is the jail time. Eddie's looking at a possible 10 years here. To me that's enough. He still ran Hartford for 9 years and that's worth something. Granted he ran it like crap for the most part!

What happens if a politician in CT gives 19 years of service to a community and s/he does something criminal for whatever reason on that 19th year. That politician's 19 years of service suddenly never happened? A person earned that time towards their pension plan and contributed part of their pay to it in some cases. The state shouldn't be able to retroactively go back after something that is earned.

It's just my opinion but the more I think about it the less I like seeing Eddie lose his pension.

I'll be interested to see what the judge does with this.

Jeff said...

I know the law to revoke a pension of a public servant came about as a result of Gov Rowland but what's it's history of use since then? Has it been used on any other public servants yet or is Eddie it's first use?

Anonymous said...

It is too bad that everyone is so concerned about whether or not Eddie loses his pension. He didn't care about any of the sanitation workers, laborers, or other city employees that he got rid of and left them without a pension. He didn't care when he laid off people who were sick and needed medical insurance. Nor did he care about anyone that only needed a few more years to retire in order to receive their pension so who gives a you know what about whether he gets his pension or not. Why should his wife have his pension if none of the above referenced former employees can get a pension for their wives, husband, children, etc. The fact of the matter is that the law was in effect and it should be applied to him. He has no respect for the law or anyone else. He proved that when he was convicted and wouldn't leave office. How arrogant can one individual be? What makes him think that he is above the law and everyone else. There are people who let power go to their heads and apparently he is one of those people.

There is a reason why no one could find out how his legal fees were being paid?

An investigation should be launched into the change order process and see how much money is unaccounted for?

When the investigation is over than a bill should be submitted to Perez for reimbursement.

For the people who are so concerned about Eddie's pension I only have one question for you if you live in Hartford.

What about our tax dollars that were wasted?

Jeff said...

Find the answer to my own question at Hartford Courant's web page.

"Blumenthal said it will be first time that his office has invoked a law passed in 2008 after the corruption conviction of former Gov. John G. Rowland. "

Anonymous said...

Where is the mentality, how many of us even get a pension and as far as Perez's wife is concerned yes its to bad she took ill but there are alot of people that take ill, she is intitle to social security disability if she is disabled so let her apply.