The age old question "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise ?" took on a different version at Wednesday's Republican Town Committee meeting in Hartford.
If a Republican Councilperson is corrupt but the Republican Town Committee won't discuss it, does that mean she's not corrupt?
The video below shows what happened when Republican Town Committee member John O'Connell and RTC Vice Chair Elyssa Fuchs tried to open a discussion. O'Connell wanted to address the Hartford Courant's editorial calling for Republican Veronica Airey-Wilson's resignation after she was placed on probation for her role in the Perez corruption scandal.That wasn't about to happen under the control of RTC chair Michael McGarry.
McGarry, who is now telling anyone willing to listen that he was the first to call for former Mayor Perez's resignation, refuses to discuss the role of Hartford's highest ranking elected Republican, Veronica Airey-Wilson, in the scandal. The claim that he was the first to call for Perez's resignation is also totally untrue. Only after Perez was arrested, convicted and sentenced to three years in prison did McGarry speak out publicly.
McGarry has consistently refused to address Airey-Wilson's role and apparent violation of the public's trust as an elected official. Airey-Wilson was accused of taking counterops for her home from Carlos Costa and not paying for them. Only after the state began investigating, according to arrest records, did she fabricate a check showing that she thought she had paid a couple hundred dollars for thousands of dollars worth of granite countertop work.
For the Republican party in Hartford, which most agree is all but dead, this would seem like an opportunity for McGarry and the Town Committee to make a strong statement to regain the public's trust. Instead O'Connell and others were refused the opportunity to even discuss the matter publicly.
The video was shot with my i-pod after the argument erupted so the quality isn't great, but you'll get the point how the Republican Town Committee in Hartford handles honest debate regarding important issues.
O'Connell wanted to address the Hartford Courant's editorial calling for Republican Veronica Airey-Wilson's resignation after she was placed on probation for her role in the Perez corruption scandal.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
I take no particular pleasure in it, but I do believe Veronica should go (as Perez should have long before his last election). I view her "rehabilitation" is an implicit acknowledgment of her dishonesty in her dealings with Costa, and of her breach of the public trust requisite to serving on council.
There doesn't seem to be any legal requirement that she do so, however. (I really think the judge in her case did us, the citizens of Hartford, no favor. There should be a finding of facts and an admission of guilt in exchange for her lenient treatment.) So, at a minimum she should be scolded by the ethics commission, if not by the council itself. By no means should her actions simply go unnoticed by our officialdom, move on, nothing to see here...
I suppose the same is true of the Republican Party; i.e., it can't simply ignore the question. It's not like some faux pas in her personal life. Maybe he's done it, but O'Connell might do well to make his opinion public. I believe he is of stature enough so that a letter to the Courant would be noticed.
It is unfortunate that she has put the Council and her party in this awkward position.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the video. I think it's a genuine public service for you to post these things. In response to Peter Brush, thanks. FYI I wrote to the Courant on two occasions (9/3/2009 &10/3/2010) the Courant did not publish either request for Ms. Airet-Wilon's resignation.
Thanks Again,
John O'Connell
her party
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------
Must say, however, that I always viewed her as a member of the Veronica Party who used the Republican Party appellation to get on the ballot.
As a city employee. Thank you Mr O'Connell for having the courage to challenge the corrupt politicians that have taken over Hartford politics.
ReplyDeleteRest assured Veronica will NEVER step down, short of a direct court order, and even then she would end up getting a job working indirectly for the city in some no-show job.
It never ceases to amaze me that a party so small and virtually insignificant in the scheme of things can't even take the high road to oust a corrupt councilperson. As I've stated before, Hartford and Connecticut if we the voters continue to allow, overlook and otherwise condone such nonsense on the part of elected officials. It's no wonder voter turnout is so low, there are no choices other than the same, tired and outdated politicians. The same politicians that aren't looking out for you or I.
ReplyDeleteIt's fine to complain about the Republican Town guys. But, it should be acknowledged that there's zero interest in the corruption matter from the Dems (who are obviously most culpable). I noticed Luis Cotto in the video; what's the Union Family Worker Party Town Committee say about Eddie? Veronica? ACorn?
ReplyDeleteeven then she would end up getting a job working indirectly for the city in some no-show job.
ReplyDelete--------------------------------
For which she'd get paid more than what she's getting. I don't get it. The graft she got wasn't much. Her salary is ditz. I don't think she's an awful person. Just apologize, say you want to spend more time with your family, and get out.
Just to set the record straight on a small point: If McGarry claims he was the first to call for Perez's resignation, it's nowhere near true. Way earlier, based on many grounds even before formal conviction, it was Councilman Deutsch (of Working Families Party) who did so (as well as calling for Hennessy, still ghosting around, to depart).
ReplyDeleteSadly, public officials (according to office of Sec. of State) - in the past and now - can be formally removed from office not when they are convicted (or admit same), but only when they actually cross the prison threshhold - going in!.
I can absolutely verify that Councilman Deutsch was the first Council person to call for Perez's resignation.Among the Hartford well known political operatives, those that went public first about Perez's resignation were Brookman,McCauley,Harris,King and myself.
ReplyDeleteSadly, public officials (according to office of Sec. of State) - in the past and now - can be formally removed from office not when they are convicted
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
Are we to understand that we have this shiny new charter, and it provides for no mechanism to get rid of crooked pols on council?
But, putting removal aside, and allowing for your early call for Veronica to resign (or did I misunderstand?), the ruling Party has simply not managed a WORD(!) about the corruption issue.
McGarry is a fraud. He owns a magazine that got city advertising, he was living off the Perez government.McGarry has no interest in denouncing Veronica or asking her to resign.He has probably killed off the Republican brand this coming election cycle of 2011.
ReplyDeletePeter...
ReplyDeleteYou are right that the ruling party (democrats)have said nothing as a party nor has the elected officials said anything about the corruption emanating from city hall.I do not believe they will..for several reasons.
You are right again, there is no language in the Charter about removal or impeachment.Id like to see some language on the issue in the next Charter.
no language in the Charter about removal or impeachment
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------
Oh, well. I'd gladly take a cut in my property taxes in lieu of such a common sense provision. But, wait, weren't there some really smart Harvard educated types on the Charter Reform Commission?
Peter...each member of the commision was suggested by a Councilperson...and probably the commission member "checked in " with their sponser for advice as the commission meetings went along.The only Harvard type i know on the commission was Rich Wareing.Check with Rich what the motivation was for leaving impeachment or removal out of the final product.
ReplyDeleteApologies for excess sarcasm. Rich fine with me, and Alan Taylor probably not complete nimrod.
ReplyDeleteBut, come on...
Nothing we can do about obvious malfeasance?
Cut my car taxes.
Peter...Alan Taylor wasnt on the last commission..Rich was...Taylor though as I remember chaired the Commission that got through the strong Mayor Charter.
ReplyDeleteYour car taxes and mine..are too much.
There is nothing about impeachment in the charter because municipal elections (and thus the terms of office holders) are matters governed solely by state law. I vaguely remember someone asking about recall and/or impeachment of elected officials during the commission chaired by Allan Taylor (2002)and that person being advised by our attorney (Bruce Mednick)that it was not a matter that could be addressed in the charter. I also remember Allan concurring with that assessment. I've never researched it myself, but I have no reason to believe that these two attorneys were wrong or that, absent special legislation from the General Assembly, a municipality does not have the ability by charter to impeach or recall elected officials.
ReplyDeleteAs for car taxes, it's calculation is a straight state law issue - it's the mill rate times the asseesed value. You'd need special legislation to change that too, which I doubt you could ever get. Your only hope of relief is to lower the tax levy, which means lowering the cost of city government. You can decide for yourselves how likely that is. :<
As for O'Connell, whatever John's faults, he is #1 honest and #2 willing to speak his mind, #3 vote his conscience, and #4 suffer the slings and arrows. Sadly, these qualities probably shortened his tenure on the Council.
I stand corrected. While there is nothing in the charter relating to recall (i.e. the voters being able to oust and elected official like what occurred in California with Gov. Davis) there is a power to remove both appointed and elected officials in Chapter IV, section 3(a). I had completely forgotten that it applied to elected officials as well to appointed officials. That provision was in the prior charter by special act, so on its face it does provide a means of impeachment. 2 issues, however. The first is practical. You need 7 votes to remove someone. In the case of Veronica, you'd thus need 7 of the other 8 (assuming Veronica either abstains or votes against her removal); not easy. The 2nd is legal. When the new charter was enacted (2002) some minor changes were made to the section (as with the Council's investigatory/subpoena power in Chapter IV section 3(b)) to accomodate the new form of government. This could be the basis of a legal challenge to the validity of the removal provision as you cannot modify the substance of special acts. The question would be were the changes procedural/ministerial or substantive. If you read Allan Taylor's opinion on this issue with respect to the subpoena power under Section 3(b), I think there is a very good argument that the provision is still valid, but obviously any elected removed under this provision would probably challenge this in court.
ReplyDeleteRich:
ReplyDeleteApologies to you and any other Harvard alum.
But, what about Sec. 3 (a)?
... any elective officer... may be removed by the Council...
...upon charges...for neglect of dereliction of duty, or incompetence, or dishonesty...
ReplyDeleteIt would be a mess, no doubt. But, I have to think that if a move were made in that direction a $15g/year councilperson would give serious consideration to getting out without a hearing. In any case, I think concerned legislators, for example Mr. Deutsch, would call for an investigation into Airey/Wilson.
ReplyDelete...would call...
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------Should call.
The council, especially in light of its apparent power to investigate and remove, can't simply sit there and say nothing about Councilwoman Airey-Wilson's actions. It shouldn't have all this time with respect to any and all involved with Costa, etc., but it certainly can't now with her tacit acknowledgment of of wrong-doing in a criminal court.
Rich...that is what I thought..thanks for clearing it up.I concur about John O'Connell.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I can't believe I forgot that the impeachment provision on its face applies to elected officials. I obviously need to bone up on the charter!!!
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that the council should a.) call for her to resign, and, failing at that, b.)proceed with some sort of disciplinary measure up to and including removal. It's a big pain in the ass, but council has time to pass resolutions condemning a state for its immigration enforcement laws, it should have time to clean its own house. Someone(s) on council has to make a move. If the votes aren't there for one or more moves, then we see who is weak. Best would be if she would have the grace to remove herself, avoid awkwardness, etc., spend more time with family, thanks for your service, just get out.
ReplyDeleteAmazing what I have missed in my 4 years being away from the Hartford Republican Town Committee. I cannot fathom the issue of Ms. Wilson not being addressed by the very body that endorsed her. Veronica owes the party a huge apology and a resignation. Veronica did nothing to help the party while I served as its chairman. Veronica wanted to run the party, she walked in late, she added nothing, that was if she showed up at all. The Republican Town Committee in Hartford Connecticut is spineless. Not only should you be calling for Veronica to resign, but, you should have the intestinal fortitude to DEMAND the God Darn voting machines in Hartford be impounded. The election for the State's Chief Executive is being stolen. This town committee wants people to go along to get along. The question must be raised as to why? You have a DUTY a sacred DUTY to the people of Hartford you were ELECTED to serve. I worked hard on that committee to get people to run for office, raise money, and build the party. Instead of supporting a person like John O'Connell and to a lesser degree myself, I was called a racist by Ms. Jenkins, and Musolini by Keith Tinker. The issues do not get raised in Hartford because it would require work and leadership. I am proud of what I did, and John, I am proud of you for trying against idiotic odds to raise the question about Veronica. There needs to be a Tea Party in Hartford. And you know what, people say that if someone brings up the issue of homosexuality too often, that person is probably Gay it goes ME THINKS THOU DOEST PROTEST TOO MUCH. Ms. Jenkins and others on that committee, you might call the Tea Party people racists, but I wonder about you. ME THINKS THOU DOEST PROTEST TOO MUCH. The Tea Party is about CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITED GOVERNMENT. The Hartford Town Committee sadly sound more like the politburo. I relinquished my right to fight by moving to South Carolina. The Tea Party wants America Back all y'all on the Town Committee sound like you think everything is fine. Sal Bramante you too ought to resign for doing nothing. When someone has passion for something you folks just resort to name calling. John, you should get some of the Tea Party people, Blacks and Whites and throw everyone off the Town Committee and at least elect 3 people onto the council again, and dump the working family communist party. Sal Bramante you ought to be ashamed of yourself to the degree that is possible, which it is not, for allowing that party to have a registrar and not fighting it with every fiber of your being. If I come back, I will work hard and tirelessly to bring the founding principles of Liberty and limited government back. It is the way of the future. Sad, so very sad in Hartford Connecticut to see in the proximity of the Charter Oak, where the Fundamental Orders were drawn up, to see this mediocrity corruption and ignorance toward the blood of every fine Patriot. I smell a rat.
ReplyDeleteI cannot fathom the issue of Ms. Wilson not being addressed by the very body that endorsed her.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
Mr. Truthseeker:
I don't dispute that the town committee, such as it is, should call for Airey-Wilson's resignation. But, obviously, as a practical matter that won't accomplish much, at least at present. As far as I can see, there is nobody in a position of authority on council, at the mayor's office, or at the ethics commission who has said a word about the situation.
Frankly, it's not worse than it was, say, four years ago. Your absence has made no impression, as far as I can see. The legacy of Fundamental Orders, Charter Oak, etc., has long since been forgotten and disgraced. But, hey, the weather is nice; 40 and rain.