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.
thomatedRobles is done for. The question is will he try and expose those other 11 cops who were part of the card time fraud?
ReplyDeleteCampbell will be found not guilty and win his job back. He will then sue under indemnification laws. The PD had a very weak case that even took a few rewrites to get the judge to sign the warrant.
The third guy is also done for.
when are we going to cleanout MHIS?? Why was EJackson given a new contract?
ReplyDeleteContract? Eric Jackson is the Department Head. He doesn't work via a "contract" He works at the pleasure of the Mayor.
ReplyDeletePedro has not been the "change agent" we expected him to be.He has not fired anyone involved in the city hall corruption matter,or the enablers and incompetants except for a few and many corrupt agents and enablers of Perez remain in city hall where they are knifeing Pedro's work secretly.In addition, Pedro has seen fit to hug and extoll the virtues of Perez at the "state of education" speech,all the while knowing that Perez is headed off to jail when his appeal loses. What kind of message does it send the kids of Hartford for Mayor Segarra to embrace a felon who disgraced his office? Pedro's appointments of Rosetti and Arce to the Hartford Housing Authority doesn't bring any confidence to the public as both are retreads from the past with ties to the Perez corruption and with ties to folks who like to eat at the political trough.
ReplyDeleteWhile Pedro has done a good job in other areas and overall,the failure to act and say something about the re-emergence of Perez,Rose and Hennessey into jobs funded by the City makes one believe that Pedro isn't running for Mayor.If Pedro decides to run for Mayor then in order to be successful and win,he must run as a true change agent as the voters have had it with the corrupt in Hartford.
Courant:
ReplyDelete"'The Hartford Police Department will not tolerate the mistreatment of our citizens, especially those in our custody,' Police Chief Daryl K. Roberts stated in a press release."
"Campbell, who has been on the force for more than five years, was arrested Dec. 10 and charged with third-degree assault and tampering with physical evidence. The case is pending; he is to appear at Superior Court in Hartford Tuesday."
-----------------------------------
Chief exaggerates when he says we are expecially concerned about mistreatment of "our citizens" in custody. If memory serves, the citizen in this instance provoked his mistreatment.
Tampering with evidence? Looks like another opportunity for accelerated rehab. of a public servant.
So, Kevin, what is your opinion? Why has Segarra not yet cleaned house as "Honest Abe" points out?
ReplyDeletePeter, you're right Officer Campbell will be cleared. As of today he's not seeking accelerate rehab. His lawyer has asked for a trial. Not too many lawyers skip over the option of AR and go right to a trial unless they are very confident they have a win. After they win that Campbell will be suing the city for full back pay and legal fees. It will go to the labor board and he will be reinstated because the charges didn't stick. All this on the tax payer's dime.
ReplyDeleteThe right way to have handled this is they should have placed him on desk duty (or suspension, but even that is risky) until the "criminal" charges were resolved. If found guilty they terminate him for being convicted of a crime while on duty. If found innocent the PD clears the case and back to work he goes at minimal cost to the Hartford tax payer.
Hartford Police department's Command Staff has a mentality that they can do whatever they want to anyone in the department and not worry about the aftermath that costs the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars. In Officer Murtha's case 1.1 million. I expect something like 2 million for Officer Lawlor's lawsuit.
How can Hartford ever come close to balancing the budget with this incompetency? Yes lawsuits are part of our system but these could have easily been avoided by playing out the steps in order and not jumping the gun.
The Officer Kevin mentioned in this blog, who will be terminated soon, had his day in court and was convicted so now they are letting him go. It's a very solid termination with little to no recourse on the Officer's part. Why not do it that way for everyone?
Mark my words on the hasty termination of Officer Campbell costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in the end. I'm sure Kevin will be keeping an eye on it.
The problem with Pedro is he's part of the system and came up through the ranks making deals along the way. If we want to truly clean house we need a fresh face as Mayor who doesn't owe people favors. This is why I will be voting for Stan.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Pedro supposed to say about the re-emergence of Hennessey and Rose? They are private citizens. If the mayor comes out publicly saying they shouldn't be given jobs anywhere, they will sue and win.
ReplyDeleteNeither man was ever arrested or charged with anything. There is no legal basis for denying them jobs, and if the Mayor comes out and implies there is cause to do so, that's slander. Pedro, being an attorney, knows that.
Bring Back Helen Apostolitis! She had a strong working knowledge of how the SBMA worked. She made recommendations and the (previous) Chiefs usually followed them. Now you have McKoy and Roberts making the discipline decisions. That’s a good move. That usually costs the tax payers a lot of money. CAMPBELL WILL WIN HIS JOB BACK, AND THE CITY WILL PAY. You don’t need a crystal ball for this. All you need is a moderate understanding of the Labor/union system. Keep him on desk duty until a reasonable punishment is clear.
ReplyDeleteCut a check for Murtha.
Cut a check for Secore.
Cut a check for Campbell.
Cut a check for Lawlor.
Cut a check for many others...
When you’re done paying them, think about how much money you are paying the grossly under qualified boss to make these moronic discipline decisions. Where are these department heads getting their advice? -from their Capitol Community College professors? Success is never final, but the SBMA's decisions are. Pay up Hartford, you put these guys in charge.
Many cases go before the labor board and the city wins some and loses some. The problem is the city is not willing to except when they lose some and move on. They spend thousands of dollars (sometimes hundreds of thousands) fighting it out in court. Ask yourself Hartford have you EVER reversed a labor board decision? Has your dragging things out ever saved you any money? Murtha went from 480k to 1 million because city council refused to settle. Now the city appealed that 1 million yet again.
ReplyDeleteHartford needs a competent corp council team that has the last word on terminations of city employees.
The problem is the city is not willing to except when they lose some and move on.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
But again, I don't know about these things. Is it a particular problem with labor issues in the police dept., or union contracts generally?
I note, for example, knowing he was not a union guy, that the Lazu fellow with the illicit driveway repair was fired post haste as soon as he was arrested.
Peter, Lazu was laid off from his job Oct. 2008. He was not fired. His arrest was in January 2009. You need accurate facts and guess who is paying for the legal bill???
ReplyDeleteBY HILDA MUÑOZ, hmunoz@courant.com
ReplyDelete3:00 p.m. EDT, August 24, 2010
Lazu, who lost his job after his arrest, was granted accelerated rehabilitation in June.
Peter, it has nothing to do with unions.
ReplyDeleteThe problem has to do with Hartford approaching each discipline case unfairly based on personal feelings of the employee in violation. In short, if they like you nothing serious happens to you, if not they seek termination.
The State Labor Board is not in place to tell an employer who they can and can't terminate, per say. They are in place to enforce fairness. An employer can't give one employee a written warning yet terminate another for the same conduct.
Anonymous said...The State Labor Board is not in place to tell an employer who they can and can't terminate, per say. They are in place to enforce fairness. An employer can't give one employee a written warning yet terminate another for the same conduct.
ReplyDeleteNovember 8, 2010 7:32 AM
Drop those pants - lift those skirts...ALL OF THEM. It won't happen though cause the Chief will cover and PROTECT his "buds". Sad...
Peter, it has nothing to do with unions.
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
A. MISSION
The State Board of Labor Relations defines and protects the statutory rights of public sector and some private sector employees to form, join or assist labor organizations. It encourages and protects the right of employees and employers to bargain collectively and remedies certain practices on the part of employers and employee organizations (unions) that are detrimental to the collective bargaining process and to the general public. http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/geninfo.htm
B. GENERAL JURISDICTION
ReplyDeleteThe State Board of Labor Relations administers the major portion of four collective bargaining statutes covering state and municipal employees, public school teachers and certain administrators and some private sector employees. The statutes are: (1) The Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§7-467 et seq.; (2) The State Employee Relations Act (SERA), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§5-270 et seq.; (3) The Teacher Negotiation Act (TNA), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§10-153a et seq.; and (4) The State Labor Relations Act (SLRA), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§31-101 et seq.
Peter, while there are different procedures in the process you do not need to be in a union to use the state Labor Board services. Go directly to their web page and research it for yourself.
ReplyDeletePeter, you sited the Board of Labor Relations which is a department within the DOL who specialize in union grievances and contracts. Non-union employees who feel they are wrongfully terminated or disciplined by an employer can still file a grievance with the Department of Labor.
ReplyDeleteI believe the "Wage and Workplace Standards Division" handles non-union cases.
ReplyDeleteHartford Politics 101
ReplyDeleteWhy things won't change in Hartford:
A) One party (Dems)overwhelmimgly in charge of Hartford
B) Dem Town Committee chooses who runs for office (council, etc.)
C) Town Committee made up of many City employees (or closely related folks)
D) Town Committee won't run anyone that will rock the boat and change anything
E) Hartford stays the same (and is getting worse)
End of lesson
Dear Mike:
ReplyDeleteYour latest missive against the Dems left one third of the answer out of the equation: 3 of the 9 council seats used to be filled by republicans(what happened?), and the Republican Town Comm, not the Dems, has consistently run a certain council member who many might agree "never rocked the boat and changed anything", except how to get Acc. Rehab. out of a political corruption charge.
Credit where credit is due.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but I'm afraid you'll soon be saddled with 3 WFP councilmembers if the Republicans don't get their act together.
research it for yourself...
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------
The assertion was made that "it" has nothing to do with unions. That assertion is a gross exaggeration, at
least.
The idea that the Republican Party is responsible for mis-management in the muni. govt. laughable. As noted, we have no conservative on the council. Veronica is a member of the Airey-Wilson Party, and in any case, the remaining 8 are left and far left. But, as to the whole labor relations issue, the inability to easily get rid of undesirable employees, look to the State and its imposition of labor rules (primarily to protect unions).
But, I am still waiting for somebody to deny that the apparent misjudgment to go forward against labor in the case of cops is reflective of anti-cop mentality on Council.
Pickles
ReplyDeletePeter, don't try to make it into a union non-union thing just because you hate unions. The point is ANY employee has the right to file a grievance with the labor board UNION or NOT. Hence, besides the department who handles the grievance process being union has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteANY employee has the right to file a grievance with the labor board UNION or NOT
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
According to the Board itself, its jurisdiction is limited to four categories of collective bargaining. Whether I "hate" the unions is not germane. The question is why is it so difficult to get rid of employees the municipality, rightly or wrongly, doesn't need. The answer would appear to be that the State has set up an elaborate statutory structure whose function it is to protect government employees. Some folks might like this arrangement, all I'm saying is that the rights created are against management, i.e., the taxpayer.
But, in the cases of the cops, the muni guys are fighting against the "rights" of the employees. My honest, non-rhetorical question is why?
Peter, while I do think a largely corrupt City Government has a dislike for law enforcement officers, I think the biggest reason the city wastes so much money fighting loser cases is Attorney Ivan Ramos.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you people get a life? How can you spend so much time on this blog? Are any of you employed? Do any of you know how to say anything nice about anybody? Your bitterness is showing and it is making you look bad.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 2:21PM:
ReplyDeleteWhat part or which posting are you referring to?
If it is the last one referencing Corp Counsel attorney Ivan Ramos, that is perfectly on the mark.
From the Labor board decisions I've read, Ramos has a terrible track record and also seems to be awful in his questioning and attempts to justify the City's position.
I think I had posted here before that Ramos is the attorney responsible for the Dan Nolan hearings. It seems that his witnesses he called to defend the City's actions would have been called as character witnesses for Nolan. They have apparently shot the city's case to pieces. A lot more will come on that when the transcripts are released.
A first year law student from UCONN could most likely do a better job.
And if all these people stopped coming to the blog , that hit counter wouldn't be rising steadily every day like it does
Dear Anonymous 2:21
ReplyDeleteI post alot and have no job.Can you please send me a check ? Make it out to Honest Abe and send it along to city hall.
Do any of you know how to say anything nice about anybody?
ReplyDelete-----------------------------------
Cops, firepersons, our military guys,librarians... Even pols, if they have a modicum of intellectual honesty. Also, Mariano Rivera, W. Mozart, and P. Bonnard, E. Atget, Dexter Gordon...
Thanks to the friends of the parks, my bodega on Broad that sells me beer on the Christian sabbath, but screw any and all community organizers, movement agitators, social activists, blood-sucking liberal pukes... Also, thumbs down to anonymous posters.
Do any of you know how to say anything nice about anybody?
ReplyDelete----------------
As Kevin states on his home page, he started this blog so he could get answers and accountability to what goes on in Hartford. Most of us are not on here to say bad things about people but someone is responsible for every decision made in the city. Lately many of those decisions are bad.
If you prefer we can all meet at Hope Park and sing Kumbaya while watching Hartford continue to go financially and morally bankrupt.