CITY HALL SOURCES: AIREY-WILSON TO RESIGN

Above: arrest photo of Councilwoman Veronica Airey-Wilson
For the second time in less than a month, embroiled Hartford Councilperson Veronica Airey-Wilson is managing to take the easy way out.

Airey-Wilson, who played a role in the Perez Corruption scandal and was eventually arrested along with Perez ,took Accelerated Rehabilitation to avoid going to trial.
After that decision many were calling for her resignation for her violation of the public trust as an elected official.

Now, it appears as though Airey-Wilson will be able to avoid those calls for her resignation and save face, courtesy of the City of Hartford's pension fund. City Hall sources have advised me that Airey-Wilson submitted her paperwork to accept early retirement shortly before today's 5:00PM deadline. According to those same sources, Airey-Wilson's "package" also includes paid medical insurance at the taxpayers expense for life.

It seems ironic that the State Attorney General is attempting to revoke Perez's pension for his criminal acts while Airey-Wilson is being rewarded and given a graceful exit from City Hall with her pension.

WHAT THE FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS USED TO BE

"ANONYMOUS" posted this "youtube" link from last year's Festival of Lights. This is what I'm sure many people expected when they made the trek to Hartford for the "New and Improved" Festival of Lights.

I'm not sure what STN2 is, but the video gives you an idea of what the Festival used to be before it was "tweaked" to a fake tree standing alone in the park. At least they can say they drastically cut the energy usage this year.

UPDATE: From what I can find on their website, STN2 seems to be a news network at the University of Hartford

OK, THE JOKE IS OVER , PLEASE TELL US THE TRUTH

I think I might have finally figured it all out. For the last several years we have all been on a hidden camera reality show just to see how far we would go to tolerate a corrupt, incompetent, overly inflated municipal government trying to kill a capitol city. Any day now, someone will jump out and yell "surprise, we gotcha"

I won't rehash everything over the last couple of years, but tonight's "Festival of Lights" has to be our last performance before the producers of "Surreal Life: Hartford" unveil their project. There is just no other logical explanation, it can't get much worse.

As dusk started to settle over Hartford, I decided that after this afternoon's post about the poor condition of Bushnell Park, I would give the "Festival of Lights" a chance anyways. I left the comfort of my living room and the fireplace, bundled up and I walked downtown. I was pleasantly surprised by the foot traffic headed toward the park and the large crowd in the park.

Suddenly as I walked into the park I heard the countdown ten, nine, eight......three, two, one, zero. I waited to see Bushnell Park in all its holiday splendor as I expected to see all the trees lit up, the pumphouse outlined in miniature lights, essentially Constitution Plaza re-incarnated in Bushnell Park with thousands and thousands of small white lights. I wanted to see the few thousand people in the park feeling warm and encouraged about Hartford's new direction.

I thought something went wrong because after the countdown all that lit up was an artificial tree in the middle of the park. Ok, they must be waiting for the big finale and this was just a tease to get people going, at least I hoped.

The group singing Christmas Carols was entertaining the crowd, but eventually I heard people start mumbling "when are they turning the rest of the lights on?". I was asking myself the same question. I found an assistant to one of our Councilpeople and asked the question when the rest of the lights were coming on?

Almost apologetically I was informed "that's it". That's it? One tree in the middle of the park, and an artificial tree at that. And a few shop lights with colored filters shining on the trunks of a few trees at Jewel and Trumbull Streets.

So I am convinced that it must be a reality show, no one can be this incompetent and still collect a salary. No one can hype an event such as they did with the move of the "Festival of Lights" and be serious about an artificial tree being lit and expect it to draw all those people back into Hartford in the future.

It just seems that every time we are handed an opportunity to excel and move forward we shoot ourselves in the foot. This time we made a point to do better, we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot we made sure to shoot ourselves squarely in the forehead.

At the risk of getting punched out, I asked a few people what they thought as they quickly exited the park. The comments were pretty short and to the point and ranged from "This sucked" to "We're done with Hartford". One person even commented that a police cruiser parked at the curb had more lights on it than there were in Bushnell Park. The sad part is that they probably weren't far off in their assessment.

Like I said in this afternoon's post, I can't figure out why or who made the brilliant decision to move the Festival of Lights from Constitution Plaza. It just seems like it would have been a great opportunity to build the festival and include the latest crown jewel of Hartford, the Connecticut Science Center. But I guess in true Yankee tradition, we don't want any excitement to stir things up.

Oh well, there will be other opportunities, but we'll probably blow those too.

WE JUST DON'T GET IT

A few short hours from now, the City of Hartford will hopefully be welcoming thousands of visitors to the Festival of Lights. I say hopefully because a new venue is being tried this year as the festival moves from Constitution Plaza to Bushnell Park.

Many of us remember the annual tradition of going into the City the day after Thanksgiving to see everything Hartford had to offer to wide eyed kids anticipating the arrival of Santa Claus. Remember the store fronts that rivaled something from 5th Avenue in New York. The animated window displays of G.Fox and Sage-Allen. Then the trip up to the 11th Floor of G.Fox to Santa's Village and ultimately to sit on Santa's lap and let him know what we hoped for under the tree on Christmas Day.

But that was when Hartford was vibrant and wasn't the skeleton of itself that it is now. We actually had Channel 3 that would broadcast live from their Headquarters on the Plaza as Santa descended down the side of a building in his sleigh. Downtown was full of retail and reasons to actually bring a family downtown. Even the Police Department was steps away from the Plaza and crime wasn't a concern with the police presence downtown.

I just don't understand the move this year, and after stopping by Bushnell Park this afternoon, I really do believe we have a city run by people with no clue how to turn this City around.

If you wanted to impress visitors to your home, wouldn't you put your best foot forward ? Just hours before the switch is supposed to be flipped, Bushnell Park is a mess and there is no excuse for it. The leaves in the Park haven't been done yet, large areas of the Park are covered with leaves and trash. There are a few large piles of leaves surrounding the Carousel that seem as though they were just left there by maintenance crews and just never picked up. The picture above is just an example of the condition the park is in.

The other issue I have is why the operation had to be moved to Bushnell Park. Are we limited to how much excitement the City can tolerate as we try to get people back here? Why not keep Constitution Plaza lit as well as Bushnell Park and maybe include portions of the Riverfront? To connect it all together maybe hayrides or horse drawn carriages to move people around downtown with frequent stops at businesses and restaurants that are trying to weather the economic storm in Hartford.

Imagine if we had all the Christmas lights, hay rides, ice skating a bon-fire in the park on the same night there is a Uconn game at the XL Center, people might just talk about the excitement in Hartford.

We obviously know there is a market for it if anyone can remember the lines of traffic waiting to get into Goodwin Park for the old Holiday Light Fantasia.

It just seems that there is very little creativity in Hartford's thinking and just because we want to be vibrant or try to convince people we are vibrant, doesn't mean it is going to happen without some work.

Maybe if we had high level City employee's that actually lived in Hartford, they might notice and actually pay attention to the things we see everyday as residents.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

A DEFINITE, ABSOLUTE, UNEQUIVOCAL NO, THEN MAYBE THEN YES.... MAYBE

That seems to be the stance that has been taken by Hartford's Mayor Pedro Segarra as to his mayoral run.

Initially it was no, definitely not when he assumed the Mayor's Office in July.

Since becoming Mayor he has been evasive as to whether he would run for a full term or not. This past Sunday on Face the State he still wouldn't commit. He stated he "had taken out the papers" for a possible run but he was still considering it. Then a few hours after the program aired, the Hartford Courant announced that Segarra was running for a full term.

Although I might agree that as of right now the Office of the Mayor is Segarra's for the taking, it seems like the honeymoon period after his shotgun wedding that put him in as Mayor might be quickly ending.And just my thought here, the comments that Mayor Segarra is waiting for someone qualified to step forward and no one has yet is reminiscent of the Perez ego when he appointed himself to the Board of Education because "no one else was qualified".

The people that call me and those that follow City Hall have a great concern for the Mayor's sudden case of laryngitis when it comes to speaking out about the continuing corruption in Hartford. Specific examples are the hiring of former Mayor and now convicted felon Eddie Perez by a non-profit receiving major funding from Hartford's taxpayers, the lobbying contract to Matt Hennessey funded through the Hartford School system and John Rose landing at a law firm that he paid almost a half a million dollars to while he was Corporation Counsel.

And quite a few people are very disappointed that the Mayor has not addressed the air of corruption that permeates the Council Chambers. During the period of the Perez Grand Jury and eventual conviction, Segarra was someone that seemed to still be able to bring integrity and honesty to the Council. Segarra was able to ask tough questions when they needed to be asked and he was also able to avoid the distractions of the corrupt Perez Administration and focus on the business of Hartford, especially during tough, borderline disastrous, budget times.

By luck for the people of Hartford, Segarra was able to persevere and attain the position of Council President. I think this was partially due to his sense of fairness but also in great part because he was able to focus on getting the job done without the grandstanding we see frequently on the part of the Council. I honestly shudder to think where we would be now and where we would be headed if someone else besides Segarra had become Council President and eventually became Mayor.

Mayor Segarra made a couple of quick decisions when he first took office. Although I commend him on those moves, in all honesty they were no brainers. John Rose, Susan McMullen and Lillian Ruiz shouldn't have been tough decisions for anyone attempting a clean sweep of City Hall. It seems as though one of the other crooks at City Hall must have stolen the Mayor's broom though because the housekeeping suddenly stopped.

I have had conversations with the Mayor about others at City Hall that should be shown the door, but in respect to him, those were private conversations and I respect the Mayor as someone I consider a friend and he shouldn't have to differentiate between our talks as friendly conversation or fodder for a blog, so I'll draw the line there.

But, more importantly, the people that I am speaking with seem to share a lot of my thoughts.

Whoever becomes Hartford's next Mayor needs to set a clear tone and we need to know where he (or she) stands. Mayor Segarra has been quite clear that he wants people to feel good about Hartford. His actions show that and in part I think it is working. That is entirely understandable and with a Masters in Social Work i fully understand, I think, where Segarra is coming from. If the Mayor isn't rescuing a cat from a tree or consoling a fire victim, I'm sure we will be able to find him serving hot chocolate in Bushnell Park at the skating rink.

If that is what makes Hartford interesting and draws people back, good job Mayor Segarra. But that is only half of the job. We need a Mayor that can determine when to be the nice guy and also be able to flip the switch and make the tough decisions when needed.

In trying to recover from a corruption scandal, a clear tone needs to be sent to everyone. Whether it is the resident's of Hartford, a business owner looking to move to Hartford or even the people firmly entrenched and profiting from Hartford's corrupt political system, the message needs to be clear...THOSE DAYS ARE DONE!

For someone that has brought dignity and integrity to Hartford City Hall, I would think Mayor Segarra is as offended, if not more offended, as many of us are with what we still see at City Hall. A Councilwoman still sitting there while she is on probation for her arrest in the Perez corruption scandal. The Councilman who is actually Segarra's replacement is neck deep in a federal investigation, and malpractice and fraud allegations. I won't even go into the names I'm hearing that are going to be shoved down our throats for Councilman Ritter's replacement when he goes to the Legislature.

I'm sure this bothers the Mayor, and yes he is only one person, but people want to hear him setting a tone that Hartford is going to move forward and prosper. We are going to do this with every effort to be corruption free and beyond reproach and those who can not play by the rules aren't welcome in Hartford City Hall.

Only doing half of the job, the "feel good" part, is not what the people of Hartford are looking for and we need and deserve the full "Mayoral Package" not just the feel good options.

WHERE IS THE "LIST OF ELEVEN OTHERS" ?

The first "anonymous" poster on the Robles Hearing Report raised the issue of the "others" doing the same "double dipping", a/k/a Larceny, that Robles has been accused of. Many keep referring to the "list of 11 others" and asking where that list is?

The real answer....it doesn't exist.

According to police sources, at least four of them who were closely involved with knowledge of the investigation, the list of real names never existed. In the initial interview with Lieutenant Ed Daley, Robles's supervisor,reference was made by investigators as to the numerous other officers also "double dipping". The tactic of deception is a legitimate interviewing technique when trying to get to the truth.

Although Lt. Daley was interviewed as part of the investigation, there have been no allegations that he was involved other than supervising Robles's time records and not properly supervising Robles's performance.

In the case of Robles the tactic apparently worked as his IAD report and interviews reflect.

It has seemed to create more of a controversy as the word of the list has become public knowledge. I have been assured by Chief Roberts though that if any other names are revealed, those individuals will also be aggressively investigated.

At the time of his termination, according to police sources, Robles repeatedly mentioned the "list of 11" and the "others who were doing the same thing". Robles was given the opportunity to reveal names of others involved.

In the meantime, a new computerized system to track private duty jobs, overtime and payroll should be on-line any day now. According to Chief Roberts, the new system will allow the Department to track billing and payroll and "red flag" any abuse or mistakes.

THE ROBLES HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT

After the IAD report into "double dipping" and larceny allegations against former Hartford Police Officer Hector Robles, a departmental hearing was held into the charges. That hearing evenually resulted in the termination of Robles. The report of the hearing officer, Captain Achilles Rethis, is below. Robles is also the State Representative for the 6th District, recently re-elected as the Democratic candidate

Robles Hearing Officer Report

CORRUPTION DOES PAY IN HARTFORD....IF YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY

It seems as though one attorney is cornering the market on defending Hartford's disgraced corrupt politicians.

Attorney R. Bartley Halloran has filed his appearance as the attorney of record for convicted felon Eddie A. Perez in the State of Connecticut's efforts to revoke Perez's pension. To follow the court proceedings and motions, click here

Halloran has also recently represented former Hartford Police Officer Hector Robles in his departmental hearings that resulted in Robles's termination on numerous departmental charges. Those same charges could potentially result in Robles's arrest on criminal charges depending on the outcome of an ongoing investigation by the State's Attorney's Office.

HOW MUCH MORE CORRUPTION CAN THE HARTFORD CITY COUNCIL CONDONE?

Back in July after former Council President Pedro Segarra became Mayor, there was a lot of political posturing going on when it came to selecting Segarra's replacement on the Council. Much of the posturing was done to attempt to secure the Council President's position by two Councilmembers, rJo Winch and Jim Boucher.

As an observer of the process, I felt that very little thought was given as to who was the best candidate. Rather, it was based on who would swing their vote to either side to sway the sixth vote needed.

We even heard State Representative Minnie Gonzalez speak openly about "the Rule of Two's" during the public session of a Council meeting. Simply, the "Rule of Two's" as explained by Gonzalez, was established during the Perry Administration and was an agreement that there would be 2 Hispanics, 2 Whites and 2 African Americans on the Majority side of the council. No mention of finding the best candidates to fill Council seats, but as Gonzalez explained that Segarra's seat "belonged" to a Hispanic. That's a topic for another post, but can anyone believe that as we are debating Racial Profiling ordinances for the City we still fill Council seats based on racial quotas?

At the time, the one who seemed most likely to swing his vote in support of Winch was Alexander Aponte who also happened to be a Hispanic so automatically he was a great fit.

Prior to the vote to select Mayor Segarra's replacement, I received a call from a source advising me that Aponte was most likely involved in a Federal investigation related to allegations of Food Stamp fraud as well as he was being investigated for possible suspension or revocation of his law license. I related this information to several Councilpeople and provided them with the information as it was explained to me. Councilman Kennedy, Ritter, Boucher, Deutsch, Winch and Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee-Borges were all made aware of the allegations before any vote was taken.

Most of them had at least 24 hours to research the matter on their own, or at least ask for a period of time to look into the matter on their own. Mayor Segarra was also made aware of the pending investigation. The only person to apparently take the matter seriously was Councilman Deutsch who eventually voted against Aponte's appointment.

Councilman Ritter apparently asked Aponte if the allegations were true and Aponte replied to Ritter, in Councilman Cotto's presence, that the allegations were totally untrue and that it was "all about the money" on the part of the person filing the claim.

The motion went forward and Aponte was appointed to fill the vacant seat.

Now, new court documents filed last month in Hartford Superior Court shed light on the allegations and the existence of the Federal investigation Aponte denied. If proven, the allegations could end up in some serious charges criminally against all parties involved.

In addition to the lawsuit against Aponte for malpractice and fraud, Aponte is also facing disciplinary action by the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee which oversees claims of improper or criminal behavior by attorneys as it refers to their license to practice law in Connecticut.

Although no one on the Council, except for Dr. Deutsch, chose to pay attention to the allegations, it seems like it may be very difficult for them to ignore the evidence now.

The allegations against Aponte are detailed in the court filings below, so much for "leadership by example".But then again in Hartford with this Council maybe it is the example that our aspiring "leaders" do follow.

APONTE MALPRACTICE -FRAUD COMPLAINT

DO YOU WONDER WHY WE HAVE A DEFICIT?

Time and time again cash handling procedures and "misappropriated" revenue have been highlighted here, including thousands of dollars "missing" from the Tax Collectors Office. Now the latest revenue drain is apparently the Department of Public Works according to a report issued by the City's Auditors.

The report speaks for itself and can be read below. How many DPW employees could be hired back if the money was actually being accounted for and making it into the Treasurer's coffers?

Department of Public Works Revenue Accounts and Operations - Final Special Review Memorandum

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS .... LEN BESTHOFF

A few people have noticed the absence of WFSB's Hartford Bureau Chief Len Besthoff on their television screens for the last week and a half. Some people have asked if I knew what happened or where he has been. The answer is pretty simple, and no he is not on some special assignment in an exotic location spending the stations "McMahon" windfall. Rumor has it they are using that money to buy a new chopper and replacing the station managers limousine.

Apparently Len forgot that he will be approaching AARP membership eligibility in a few years and injured his knee recently playing soccer. Hartford's Bureau Chief is recovering at home after surgery and should be gracing your TV screens once again in the near future.

Get well soon Len.

THANK YOU TO THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED AND THOSE THAT CONTINUE TO SERVE

Thank you to those military personnel who have served to make our country the Nation it is today. A country where we are free to express ourselves in formats like this, and so many other ways.S ometimes I think we take our freedoms lightly.

JOSEPH MONIZ IS NOT HAPPY WITH "WE THE PEOPLE"

I've written about a lot of controversial issues since I began this blog almost two years ago. Not everyone has been happy with what I write about, but even my critics seem to agree that I have the facts before I write about something.

This afternoon I received a phone call from someone identifying himself as Joseph Moniz. Between the yelling and the difficulty understanding his somewhat "slurred" speech, I was able to understand that he was threatening to sue me and he wanted yesterdays posting removed immediately. He asked for my e-mail address so he could send his demands for a retraction and his threat to sue me.

I actually had to repeat my e-mail address several times for him to understand it and he actually called me back several minutes later asking "What's that e-mail address again ?". At first I thought the call was a joke since the caller seemed to , ummm, how shall I politely say this, seemed "impaired".

Well, some time later I received the attached e-mail:

From: attorney.joe.moniz@gmail.com
To: krbrookman@earthlink.net
Subject:
Date: Nov 10, 2010 3:09 PM

I'm demanding that you retract immediately and publicly what you "blogged" about me which is false. And, when and if you do, give an explanation and apology because I have gotten calls from people who care about me who were shocked. Also, look at the underlying order of garnishment - you claim to be "We the People"?

Do your homework. How can a judge in the USA enter a pretrial order without notice to me that says I can't buy food, buy life saving medication, pay my rent or visit my daughters for the holidays?

You cavalierly blog about me without doing your homework. You don't know me or what I have done, so don't slander or lible me without doing your homework. The problem with the way we share information now is that it's mostly though the internet and there are no rules. So, you send this false message about me, and how do I respond? I have no but to sue you, which is expensive, but to do nothing is more expensive.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I tried to ask the caller claiming to be Moniz what was wrong or inaccurate on the blog. He wouldn't respond and just kept saying he wanted it off the blog or else he was suing me.

I tried to explain to Moniz that the truth backed up by facts and documents are neither libelous nor slanderous, they are facts.

I'm not sure if he felt that I would back down under the threat of a lawsuit, but obviously he must not be a regular reader of the blog. As long as the facts back it up, no subject is off limits here, including that of a disgraced former attorney receiving improper payments in defiance of a lawful court order.

If Mr. Moniz does not agree with the garnishment and the trustee order, that's his problem to argue before a Judge, not mine to turn away from and ignore. In the end it will be the people of Hartford that will once again suffer for others incompetence and potentially illegal and fraudulent acts.

Mr. Moniz, who at one time was one of the areas prominent attorneys, has obviously for whatever reason, reached a bump in the road of life and has issues to address. The revocation and suspension of his license to practice law is not my fault, it is a fact. His license to practice law in Connecticut, according to the Statewide Bar Grievance Committee was suspended "indefinitely" on February 19, 2010.

Complaint after complaint, some of them detailed below, accused Moniz of improper and unethical behavior in his practice of law. In most other private sector businesses, actions similar to Moniz's would quite possibly result in criminal charges. This time the victims of Moniz's actions are the people of Hartford who have handed over $65,000 to Joseph Moniz in apparent violation of a Judge's order.

In addition, as you see on the e-mail, Moniz represented himself as "Attorney Joe Moniz". According to the Grievance Committee that is also illegal for Moniz to represent himself as an attorney because as they stated to me, he is not an attorney in good standing in the State of Connecticut. That would require a valid license, which Moniz's was revoked.

And Mr. Moniz, I do not dispute that you may have received calls from "people that care" about you. If they really care, they may try to help identify what has caused you to go from a promising attorney to what is the current Joseph Moniz. Don't kill the messenger, the facts are the facts. Anyone who was "shocked" by yesterday's posting only needs to read the complaints below to realize that there must be some severe underlying issues and I hope they offer you support to address those issues.

And to the commenters who are ready to make their negative remarks, don't bother. This is one posting where I will make sure I remove any nasty remarks kicking someone when he is obviously down.

Here are a sampling of the complaints filed against Moniz over the last few years:

MONIZ 08-0344
MONIZ 09-0673
MONIZ 09-1073
MONIZ 061118
MONIZ 070424
MONIZ 070989
MONIZ 071184

MORE DOCUMENTS, MORE QUESTIONS...IS IT CONTEMPT OF A COURT ORDER?

Yesterday's posting regarding the contempt proceedings against Hartford Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee-Borges seems to be raising more questions than answers.

I have received several calls with information shining more light on this issue and documents I received today answer a few questions , but raise even more.

Although Saundra Kee-Borges may have seemed unaware of the requirement to make the payment to a Trustee for the $62,500 payment owed to suspended former attorney Joseph Moniz, the paper trail shows otherwise, and at the very least others in the Corporation Counsel's Office seemed to be well aware of the Court Order.

Specifically Deputy Corporation Counsel Carl Nasto seems to be the driving force behind getting the check issued directly to Moniz rather than the Court ordered trustee, Attorney Sidney Schulman. Whether he was doing that on the order of Corporation Counsel Borges or on his own is unknown at this time.

In an e-mail dated Thursday, August 5, 2010 Nasto requested "emergency checks" be issued, in particular one check to "Joseph Moniz, Esq.". In his e-mail Nasto states that "the Court determined that he could be the recipient". For Nasto to address this, he obviously was aware that there was a requirement that the checks be issued to Moniz through the court appointed trustee. Nasto does not mention what "court" determined that the check could be issued to Moniz, rather than the trustee as previously ordered.

Court testimony before Judge Aurigemma on October 5, 2010 seems to contradict Nasto's statements. Other documents also seem to contradict Nasto's request to pay Moniz directly, in violation of the previous court order. In an Interdepartmental Memo dated March 31, 2010, former Corporation Counsel John Rose clearly outlines the payment requirements in writing to City Treasurer Kathleen Palm-Devine.

In the March 31, 2010 memo,Rose specifically stated the July 31, 2010 of $62,500 due to Moniz needed to be paid to "Sidney Schulman, as Trustee for Joseph Moniz". There is no documentation in any court record that Schulman was ever removed as the Trustee, as Nasto stated.
complete text and copy of Rose's memo below

Whether Nasto was confused or intentionally provided misinformation to the Treasurer to have the check issued to Moniz is unclear. His e-mail though clearly indicated that he requested the "emergency check" to be issued to Moniz. More documents have been requested through a Freedom of Information request, although none have been provided at this point.

One further indication that everyone should have known that payments needed to be made to Schulman as the Trustee for the suspended Moniz is the very same settlement agreement that Moniz was being paid for. On page six of the Cintron-Vaughn Settlement Agreement dated February 18, 2020 payments to the attorneys are outlined. The agreement clearly states that the July 31, 2010 payment should be made payable to "sidney Schulman, as Trustee for Joseph Moniz". It appears that no modifications have been made to the terms of the agreement and the terms of the agreement are still binding.
complete text and copy of Cintron settlement agreement below

More will be coming on this, but it seems pretty clear that from all indications the check should not have been issued to anyone except Sidney Schulman as trustee for Joseph Moniz unless Judge Aurigemma or another Judge ordered it. As of now it seems that there are no such orders or modifications. In speaking with several attorneys they all feel that the City is still responsible for making the proper payment to the Trustee account and most likely the City will have to try to recover the improper payment to Moniz.

Rose Cintron Payment Memo


Nasto Emergency Check Email
Cintron Settlement Agreement

TERMINATED HARTFORD OFFICER APPLIES FOR ACCELERATED REHABILITATION

Former Hartford Police Officer Rashim Campbell, who was terminated last week by Chief Daryl Roberts, yesterday applied for accelerated rehabilitation according to sources.

The accelerated rehabilitation program, AR, is intended for first time offenders who are not likely to offend again. If the Judge chooses to grant Campbell's request, after a period of probation of up to two years, Campbell's record would be erased if he does not get arrested again during that time.

A/R is a one time deal and can only be used for a persons first arrest.

There could be problem though if Campbell is granted AR. Although no plea is entered on the part of the defendant, it would seem to place his offense in a gray area. If Campbell gets AR, would that mean that he would be "not guilty" in the eyes of the law?

If so, the City would most likely be liable for his legal expenses and quite possibly would be ordered to hire him back. If he is allowed to clear his record with AR, that's fine. If on the other hand, the City would be forced to hire him back if the evidence is there that he abused a prisoner and pay a large sum in attorney's fees, that is wrong.

The Judge can either approve or deny the request and the State's Attorney as well as any victims can oppose Campbell's AR application.

HOW DOES A DEAD 4 YEAR OLD CHILD , A DISBARRED ATTORNEY , THE CINTRON-VAUGHN CONSENT DECREE AND CONTEMPT ALL CONNECT BACK TO HARTFORD CITY HALL

On Dec. 22, 1999, at 6:22 p.m., a 4-year-old boy, Kyle Kalik Boone, went to the emergency room of William W. Backus Hospital in Norwich with an earache. Less than nine hours later, he was dead.

Kyle's parents eventually hired Hartford Attorney Joseph Moniz to represent them in their negligience lawsuit against the Hospital and its staff. Moniz has since been disbarred and has had his law license revoked. Prior to being disbarred though, Kyle Boone's parents had sued Moniz for malpractice in the way he handled their case against Backus Hospital and its staff.

The malpractice case against Moniz apparently is still ongoing and since I'm not an attorney, the cases twists and turns can be confusing. To read more about the Kyle Kalik Boone death and the subsequent lawsuit, click here to read it in the Courant's archives

One point clearly detailed in the malpractice suit against Moniz though, was a garnishment of his assets and income to satisfy a potential judgement against Moniz.The attorney for Kyle Boone's parents, Robert Reardon of New London, had obtained the garnishment through the Superior Court. Attorney Sidney Schulman of Bloomfield was set up as the Trustee to handle any assests identified for claims arising against Moniz and his disbarrment.

It all seems pretty clear up until this point. Then the path led to Hartford City Hall and everything changed and now Contempt of Court charges are hanging in the balance against Hartford's Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee-Borges, Moniz and Schulman.

The attached Motion for Contempt lays it out in detail. Apparently though, Moniz, before being disbarred, had served as an attorney on the Cintron-Vaughn consent decree case and was owed legal fees for his work. Schulman was also involved in the case and also collected fees. As part of the garnishment detailed earlier, former Corporation Counsel John Rose and the current Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee-Borges were advised by Attorney Reardon that the court order for garnishment included any payments to Moniz by the City.

Rose apparently complied with the garnishment at one point and forwarded Moniz's payments to Schulman, acting as the trustee. When time came for another payment of $62,500 from the City to Moniz, according to Reardon's complaint, Kee-Borges ignored the court order and instead paid the $62,500 directly to Moniz.

There seems to be a lot of questions surrounding the City's position, and some of those will hopefully be answered in response to an FOI request I submitted today. In court transcripts it is alleged that Kee-Borges was made aware of the garnishment and went ahead and issued the check to Moniz in defiance of the Court order. Further testimony states a somewhat cavalier attitude by the Corporation Counsel when she was actually served by a State Marshall with the Court Order.

According to the transcripts, Kee-Borges was served by the Marshall with the garnishment and she replied to the Marshall that he was a few minutes too late, Moniz just left with his check.Transcripts of a hearing before Hartford Superior Court Judge Aurigemma are detailed below in the PDF file "Contempt Motion" and begin on page 8.

Much more to come on this.

Contempt Motion

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A BORDER MAKES

How is it that two neighboring towns can have such widely different standards for their elected officials.

Recently a West Hartford Councilperson announced that he would be teaching law classes in Jamaica for several months as well as being involved with some charitable organizations while he was there. The repercussions were quick to come and the message from his fellow councilmembers was clear.

Essentially, his fellow councilmembers called for his resignation immediately because he was not properly serving the people of West Hartford.

Yet a little bit to the east in the hot bed of corruption known as Hartford, a very different scenario involving elected officials was taking place. A councilmember in Hartford who was involved in the Perez Grand Jury investigation and who was eventually arrested and is now on probation for her involvement, was able to hit the mute button on her fellow councilpeople.

Why is the standard and responsibility for holding public office apparently so much higher in West Hartford? As opposed to the calls for resignation in West Hartford, no conversation has even taken place about the future of Hartford's corrupt Councilperson Veronica Airey-Wilson.

No calls for her resignation, no discussion of her violations of the public trust not even a mention of her violations of the City of Hartford's ethics code. Does this say that Hartford's silence condones corruption? Apparently so if nothing happens.

I know we might not have some of the cleanest hands sitting on the Council when it comes to payoffs and dirty deals, but there are a couple of respectable people still sitting there and saying nothing. How does any Councilmember with integrity sit there alongside Airey-Wilson knowing what she has done and yet they don't say a word?

Why does the West Hartford Town Council obviously understand the awesome responsibility elected officials take on yet Hartford seems as though they could care less? The people of Hartford deserve better from our elected officials.

Those that have been elected by us owe it to us to speak out and set the tone that criminals in City Government are not an acceptable Hartford value.

CLEANING HOUSE AT H.P.D.

It is unfortunate that our investment in the hiring and training of police officers needs to end prematurely, but the public's trust and the integrity of the Hartford Police Department sometimes comes at a cost.

Monday saw the termination of Hector Robles from the Hartford Police Department. Robles was terminated after hearings into his conduct and possible larceny allegations were completed.

Today, Hartford Police Chief Daryl Roberts terminated Rashim Campbell from the department. Campbell had been charged with abusing a prisoner in the Hartford Police lockup. Campbell also was terminated after a departmental hearing.

Police sources are also advising me that a third termination may be coming soon for an officer arrested on domestic violence charges.

After Campbell's termination, Chief Robert's commented “The Hartford Police Department will not tolerate the mistreatment of our citizens, especially those in our custody.”

On a positive note for HPD, next Friday will be the promotion ceremony for officers being promoted to the rank of Detective, Sergeant and Lieutenant. The ceremony will be held in the Aetna Auditorium on Farmington Avenue. More details to come on that soon.

WHERE ARE HARTFORD'S NUMBERS?

The marketing slogan for Hartford, "New England's Rising Star" might be changed soon to "Hartford...We're not as bad as Bridgeport".

That might not apply to the Registrar of Voters Office though. As of 1:30 PM today the Secretary of the State's website still doesn't have Hartford's election result numbers posted.

I am getting numerous calls regarding the State Representative races, particularly the 6th District. I have to wonder why the 1st District, Matt Ritter's race, had the results from the Bloomfield portion of the district posted almost immediately, yet Hartford's have not been reported yet.

The 1st District is also where some of the biggest problems occurred on election day, including voters leaving polling places in disgust. Mark Twain School in particular, when they ran out of ballots. Fortunately both Mayor Segarra and Working Families Party Registrar Urania Petit, as well as myself,were all at Twain School to witness the chaos. They both worked quickly to try to rectify the problems.

But back to my original question. Where are the numbers? This does not instill confidence in the voters when numbers from what seems a fairly simple process aren't reported. How is it that suburban towns with much smaller staffs accomplish the task on time and Hartford and Bridgeport can't?

ANOTHER TRAGIC NIGHT, A HORRIFIC HOMICIDE

Every homicide is tragic, some are easier to comprehend than others, but Hartford's latest raises so many questions.

Last night a 43 year old woman left her job at the McDonald's restaurant on Albany Avenue a little before 10:30PM. She headed toward the bus stop for the bus ride to the Southend and her home on Adelaide Street. She apparently noticed her ex-husband following her and he began to harass her as she walked. According to police sources the woman had a protective order against her ex-husband. From what I am told she called 911 and reported this to the police. Police were immediately dispatched according to the information I was given.

Unfortunately, even an immediate police response couldn't prevent what happened next. The victim was essentially calling in and reporting her own murder to a 911 dispatcher. Two other witnesses across the street on Albany Avenue also reported the attack to 911 but were helpless to stop Hartford's next homicide. The victim was apparently knocked to the ground by her ex-husband and stabbed at least eight times, ending her life.

As tragic as this homicide is, it points to the even greater problem of domestic violence victims who think they are being protected by a protective order. In this case the protective order wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. The domestic violence victim today is dead, most likely thinking the system was protecting her before she was attacked.

Domestic violence is a big problem in Hartford, as well as in just about every other town. Large urban areas as well as the smallest village are not immune, but there has to be a better way to protect victims besides issuing a worthless sheet of paper.

In this age of technology there has to be a way to protect those who are relying on "orders of protection". My first thought would be a system using GPS for both the potential victim and the potential offender. A victim could be warned when a potential threat from the offender enters an area of 500 or 1000 feet from their GPS location. I'm sure it would be cumbersome, but the system we have obviously isn't working.

Last nights homicide victim is only one in a growing number of domestic violence victims being "protected" by worthless orders of protection.

Her ex-husband, her attacker, was also later found dead after he hung himself behind the Woodland Street Post Office.

HOW FAR WILL THE ROBLES FALLOUT EXTEND?

"Marie" posted a comment on the blog earlier today:

Does this mean that all other officers guilty of falsifying their time cards will also be terminated?? Time to lift up all the "other skirts" or drop the "other pants" with regard to abuse of City time. We may lose 1/4 to 1/3 of all muncipal employees!!!! Audit one, audit ALL!!

This raises a valid question.

Although Chief Roberts, as well as others, have stated that the Robles matter was an isolated incident, I think common sense will show it is not.

Sources have told me that it is most likely that several other Officer's potentially may have participated in the same activity that Robles has been accused of. To think that Hector Robles concocted a scheme to deceive the City of Hartford and that he was the only one smart enough to devise such a plan is naive.

The same sources have also advised me that of the other officers potentially involved, they rank from a Captain down through Lieutenants, Sergeants and Patrol officers. This potentially could be devastating to an already understaffed Department if other allegations are proven and result in additional terminations.

But "Marie" has it right. This needs to be investigated and let it lead wherever the facts go. The Robles investigation was labor intensive and took months to finally be finished, but that should not be a deciding factor in rooting out any other corruption or thefts. If Robles was an isolated incident, so be it. If others are involved and need to be exposed, so be it.

The integrity of the good officers of the Hartford Police Department should be the main concern. Anything that undermines the public's confidence and trust of the Police Department needs to be exposed.

This could prove to be a tough period for the Hartford Police Department, but as Chief Roberts likes to say "Success is never final".

MAYOR TO UNIONS- "OUR FINANCIAL PICTURE REMAINS GRIM"

In letters sent to Hartford's union leaders, Mayor Pedro Segarra is calling for Hartford's unions to once again give back. The letters were sent to Hartford's bargaining units last week.

Mayor Segarra's letters requested meetings with the various unions to discuss concessions that will also include insurance plan options and changes. Segarra stated that "we must all be part of the solution to bridge our current budget gap". Segarra also referred to Hartford's budget situation as "grim". The Mayor also states that "we once again have to contend with a significant budget deficit, this time one of $7.1 million".

This potentially could be a tough sell for Mayor Segarra after the way concessions were handled by the previous administration. Under former Mayor Perez, several bargaining units found it offensive that they were giving back concessions at the same time that Perez was giving other staffers, including his former Chief of Staff, tens of thousands of dollars in "ESI" bonuses. Several union members I spoke with felt that the bonuses were paid on their backs after they gave their concessions.

Although the concessions may be necessary, there still seems to be plenty of waste in Hartford spending. Areas that Mayor Segarra may want to look at seem pretty obvious and many have been posted here before.

Travel paid for by the city is still an issue. How do we ask city employees to give back while many inside City Hall are still travelling on the taxpayers dime? Take home city vehicles are still a big waste of city funds. A prime example can be seen in the Public Works Department.

After his arrest a few years ago, DPW Supervisor Gennaro Sepulveda had his drivers license suspended for DUI charges. At the time, Hartford's Human Resources Director stated that a drivers license and the need to drive was not necessary for Sepulveda to do his job. Even though a vehicle and license wasn't necessary for Sepulveda, he has once again been given a "take home" city vehicle. Sepulveda does not live in Hartford and commutes to the suburbs in his city vehicle every day.

Another example is one that several people have called complaining about. After Mayor Segarra appointed Sandy Kee-Borges as Corporation Counsel, a decision was made to move the Corporation Counsel's Office from the third floor of City Hall, to the second floor along side the Mayor's Office. The space is currently being renovated for the move. On this one I tend to side with the callers. It is money being spent for renovations that doesn't need to be spent. No dollar amount estimate is available for the renovations at this time.

In this time of electronic communications. it seems to be a waste of time and money. It might be a "nice thing" to have the Mayor and Corporation Counsel close by, the way it used to be, but we can hardly afford frivolous renovations while we may once again be talking about laying employees off.

The millions of dollars being spent on ridiculous appeals needs to also end. Some of them have been outlined here such as the Murtha case, the Secore case, FOI appeals, the Nolan case, and that's only the beginning. In all of these cases, except Nolan, either the Labor Board or Superior Court Judges have already ruled against the City, yet we continue to appeal. And I am pretty confident that the Labor Board decision in the Nolan case will not be favorable to Hartford. In fact, the evidence presented during the hearings for Nolan will most likely open the door for even more losses for Hartford if they refuse to use common sense.

The Union's are only a small part of the solution, leadership at City Hall needs to close the checkbook and control spending except for essential purchases.

ROBLES TERMINATED FROM HARTFORD POLICE DUE TO I.A.D. PROBE

As of noontime today, Hector Robles was terminated as a Police Officer for the City of Hartford by Chief Daryl Roberts.

Several sources have confirmed that the action took place today as a result of the Internal Affairs investigation and subsequent hearings held over the last two months.

Robles was seen leaving the Jennings Road station minus his badge and firearm after the termination took place.

Robles is still on the ballot for re-election tomorrow as the State Representative for the 6th District.Robles's re-election is most likely going to happen tomorrow, the question is whether the the leadership in the Connecticut legislature will step up and take action on Robles's future at the Capitol.

This is only the beginning of what may prove to be a difficult road for Hector Robles. In addition to his termination , sources have told me that the Office of the Chief State's Attorney is also aggressively investigating the matter that led to Robles's termination and his eventual arrest is likely.

Tor read the original post from August 13, 2010 and the IAD report narrative, click here

The HPD press release is below:

HARTFORD POLICE NEWS
For Immediate Release: November, 1 2010

HARTFORD POLICE CHIEF DARYL K. ROBERTS

TERMINATES OFFICER HECTOR ROBLES

(Hartford) After review of the Hearing Officer’s written findings in the Internal Affairs Investigation relative to Officer Hector Robles, Hartford Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts has terminated Officer Hector Robles effective immediately. In commenting on his decision to terminate Officer Hector Robles, Chief Daryl K. Roberts stated “This is a flagrant violation of our Code of Conduct and public trust and such behavior can not, and will not, be tolerated.”

Officer Hector Robles was found to be in violation of the following articles of the Hartford Police Department’s Code of Conduct by the assigned Hearing Officer:

· Article I, Section 1.00 Conduct Unbecoming an Employee

· Article II, Section 2.10 Knowingly or Willfully Making a False Entry in an Department Record

· Article VI, Section 6.09 Intentional Failure to Comply with Lawful Orders, Procedures, Directives or regulations Oral or Written.