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
-
21 comments:
Kevin the Aponte vote was also helped along by Mayor Segarra who called Ritter and others on Aponte's behalf, even after some folks warned Pedro about Aponte.Pedro ensured the other day's Hartford Courant article and more to come on the Aponte matter and doesnt seem to care.
Thanks, Kevin, for the document. Good reading.
Food stamp fraud; shocking.
Previously deported illegal alien as repeat fraudster; doing the fraud Americans won't do.
Attorney claiming to represent party he never met while she, the party, is in jeopardy with the feds for above said fraud; good one, laugh out loud, etc. (I presume that at least she received the legal servicing pro bono.)
That she bought the property from her priest, and that store operated by fellow parishioner; nice touches.
That Attorney Aponte now our councilman; not surprising.
Does the dedicated public servant need work done on his kitchen/bath?
2-2-2 Rule; priceless.
I was involved with formulating the 2-2-2 informal policy for positions on the Council back so many years ago.It was thought that we needed to ensure minority of color representation reasonably coterminous with their population in Hartford.Now in 2010 in Hartford minorities of color represent the majority in Hartford.I suspect the population is close to the following;
45% Hispanic
30% Afro-American
20% White
5% Asian and other
In addition,many families are "mixed" and the reports that I have seen indicate that somewhere between 15 million and 20 million families out of just over 300 million people, are mixed and dont really belong to one ethnic or racial designation.
In my own family that is the case as I have afro american and hispanic immediate familly members, while I am white.The future seems to be that there will be more mixed relationships and that is a good thing if you believe in the old saying.." the heart wants what the heart wants," making the racial and ethnic designations in the future meaningless and moot.
I now question the 2-2-2- policy going forward and perhaps it is time to simply drop the formula and just put on the Council the best qualified person, regardless of anything.
I agree with Bruce. The "policy" of 2-2-2 needs to be eliminated and is a disgrace and racist.
City Council and all of Hartford's operations need highly qualified individuals without political allegiances to do the work that needs to be done.
Now if only the voters can choose highly qualified Council people we'll really have something.
How come the Hartford Town Committee is mum on anything involving corruption and crime within the political class? Is Jean Holloway ( who reads this blog every day) that afraid to say anything ? Why is she covering for her old boss, kickback Lou and Angel Morales?
Jean you are doing a great job
time to simply drop the formula and just put on the Council the best qualified person
-----------------------------------
I don't know if the Dem. racial quota system is "racist." But, it is dumb. Perhaps it should be more nuanced. For example, the DTC should consider instituting some sort of rotating seats for sexual orientations, religions, occupations(with the proviso that we have a minimum number of lawyers on council at all times).
The important thing is that we maintain six Dems on council. I shudder to think what the town would look like if we hadn't had Dem. control all these years.
Peter...Some of us think,quite rightly i am afraid, that the problems of Hartford aside from a terrible prolification of criminals,corrupt and enablers is institutional and if the Republicans were in, the problems would essentially remain the same.
Mike and Peter...I don't think the 2-2-2 was racist so much as it is now unuseful and dumb.As I said before, probably there are a good 15% of mixed families in Hartford for whom one cannot "pencil in" what their race or ethnicity is on a form.Given Hartford's impending deficit issues and other issues, it is important that Hartford have the best qualified people it can get to sit on the City Council rather then someone who is put in their because of some outmoded quota.
Bruce:
There is no question in my mind that the problem with Hartford is demographic, and caused by State laws (education by district, and exclusionary zoning in burbs). No municipal govt., liberal v. conservative, progressive v. limited, corrupt v. honest will change conditions on the ground too much. I do think there's a difference between the parties, though, and in my view the fiscal situation in the city is driven by the liberal agenda. The raison d'etre of the Dems is to provide programs, social justice, not to mention unionized public sector jobs. And, corruption more likely with slush funds managed by a one-party regime.
Peter...the strong mayor charter gives any sociopathic personality who happens to be mayor the ability to be corrupt.I believe either party running Hartford given the charter and given the fallibility of human beings would be doing the same thing.The other issues involving Hartford's plight deals with the national and state economic situation and not the "liberal agenda as you assert" which were brought about by conditions and events outside the purview of Hartford local politicians.So it makes no difference which party is in power, Hartford would still be in dire straits.
There is no assurance that if the Republicans were in power that their government would be any different.They also have outside political operatives,donors and the republican self interested that would be looking to do the same thing ( rip off the city financially and otherwise)as some of the Democrats have done.
Most people Peter, want honest politicians running Hartford, before they sort out and decide on any particular agenda, liberal or conservative.
no assurance that if the Republicans were in power that their government would be any different
-----------------------------------
No assurance, but I'd prefer it if the municipal government's scope were radically diminished, taxes reduced, cops supported, roads paved.
The left is committed to dispensing services; housing, medical, food, wireless internet, re-development, social work... It is this that has caused fiscal crunch here in town, at State, and in D.C. So, even without guarantee, those interested in fiscal sanity have no choice but to vote R.
To the extent that all humans are fallible, that government will be corrupt regardless of party; just another argument for less government. Axiomatic; fewer programs, less opportunity for corruption.
Peter,
I agree with most of your comments, but do you really think that anyone that votes "R" in Hartford is voting to make a difference. The only Republican on the Council, besides being a corrupt official, has never seen a budget increase she hasn't liked. An when she may have a problem with the growing city budget, she typically abstains when the tough votes need to be cast.
If we actually had a viable Republican Party in Hartford that actually understood Republican ideals and stood for something, your thinking would be correct. Unfortunately, the GOP is dead in Hartford and our two party system consists of Democrats and the Working Family Party, and as you know the WFP will draw us even more to the left than the most liberal Democrat in Hartford ever could.
The Republican Party in Hartford needs leadership and organization to once again become a part of the checks and balances, until then, nothing will change.
fewer programs, less opportunity for corruption.
===================================
I am not sure all programs result in less corruption if deleted. welfare to work programs were pretty successful when they first were introduced in the 90s. The juvenile rehab programs are less expensive than life incarceration of adults or years of death penalty litigation.(not to mention damage to the victims). Having said all of that: I don't think program corrupt anything just like guns don't kill people. people kill people and corrupt people end up abusing programs.
It is the people factor.
The Republican Party in Hartford needs leadership and organization
___________________________________
Well, yes. But, problem here is not primarily that; lack of leadership/organization. It's not as if it were a business with a good model, but simply incompetent implementation. The obvious fact is that there are no customers for what a Republican Party might have been selling lo these past 50 years. There are reasons why people in Hartford vote 100% Dem. (despite the oft heard complaint that all parties are the same). In addition to self-serving allegiance to the established machine with its goodie-delivery system, we are also simply left wing idealogues. We believe in all this stuff.
Back to the original topic. I notice that the priest's expressed concerns about taxes were a motivation for "selling" the property to Aponte's "client" Diaz. What is the tax status of the parcel?
If everyone wants the best person available why not appoint AJ Sierra as the next councilperson. My understanding is that everyone felt he was the best person last time. Why wouldn't he be the best person this time?
For those of you that don't see the reality here Segarra is no different then Perez, he is simply doing business as usual following in Perez's footsteps. Segarra has not cleaned house and he is getting jobs for family and friends in what is yet another tough budget year. I mean really Aponte come on now be serious.
Most people Peter, want honest politicians running Hartford...
------------------------------------
Not much evidence of this, though. Or let's put it this way; honesty is not the greatest of our wants.
I agree with anonymous on "November 20, 2010 11:29 AM". Pedro only fired people he had a personal beef with and not much else has changed.
Um, did anyone pay attention to what the Republican Congress did under George Bush? Ran back up the massive deficits Clinton had gotten rid of. Did anyone pay attention to what the Republicans did under Ronald Reagan? Also ran up huge deficits. Yes, the GOP was at one time the party of tight spending ... in the 1950s, under Ike. In modern times, they are just as happy to roll out the pork barrel as the Democrats, and for the same reasons: cutting spending costs you votes from the people whose services/programs you have cut.
Look at the latest polls -- Americans want deficits reduced, but they don't want taxes raises, entitlements cut, defense cut, etc., etc. Guess what? No way to reduce the deficit then, so don't expect the GOP to do anything to do it.
Who will fill Matt Ritters seat? Another west end liberal? I hear talk that Sean Arena has 4 votes and some red hair woman from the south end 1 vote.
If we agree with Larry's politics or not he is the most honest person sitting on that council i believe.
"There is no assurance that if the Republicans were in power that their government would be any different.They also have outside political operatives,donors and the republican self interested that would be looking to do the same thing ( rip off the city financially and otherwise)as some of the Democrats have done."
So what does that say about the twin parties. Tip them upside down they are all the same?
Post a Comment