Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 22, 2010


Another day has gone by and Eddie Perez is still in control at Hartford City Hall. Is it any wonder very few have confidence or hope for the future of Hartford?

We have had to deal with Perez and his ego maniac tendencies for years now, but when does it end? We have heard ever since his first arrest that he wanted his day in court, that justice delayed was justice denied and all the other rhetoric. Now a jury of his peers has given him the justice he so desired, and he still refuses to abide by the decision.

If you apply any common sense to the matter, we have to ask ourselves if the CEO of a bank was convicted of bank fraud and embezzling, would he be allowed to return to his office the day after his trial concluded and he is now labeled a convicted felon? I would think the shareholders as well as numerous regulatory agencies would take a strong stand on the matter.

Yet here we are as the Council allows Eddie Perez to dictate the terms of his eventual exit from City Hall. And not just the Council, under Connecticut State law both the State's Attorney and the Attorney General are empowered to begin proceedings to remove Perez.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009)(a) Any person who holds a municipal office, whether by election or appointment, may be removed from such office pursuant to the provisions of this section if: (1) The term or tenure of such office is fixed by law, and (2) such person: (A) Misappropriated public property or funds, (B) violated the oath of office, (C) was convicted of a felony after such election or appointment, (D) engaged in any act of malfeasance that adversely affected the rights and interests of the public, or (E) failed to perform any duty prescribed by law, to the detriment of the public interest.
(b) The Attorney General, the Chief State's Attorney or the state's attorney for the judicial district in which such municipal officer resides may file a petition with the Superior Court seeking the removal of such officer for any reason listed in subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section. Any such petition shall be prosecuted on behalf of the citizens of the affected municipality by the Attorney General.
(c) Upon receipt of any such petition described in subsection (b) of this section, the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue a summons, together with a copy of such petition, requiring such municipal officer to appear before the court on a date, as specified in such summons, and answer the claim described in such petition. Such summons shall be served not less than thirty days before the return day for such summons and in a manner consistent with the provisions of chapter 896 of the general statutes.
(d) Immediately following the filing of any petition described in subsection (b) of this section, the Superior Court shall forward a copy of such petition to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the state for the purpose of impaneling a three-judge court that consists of three judges of the Appellate Court of the state. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the state, without delay, shall appoint three Appellate Court judges to hear such petition. At the time of making such appointments, the Chief Justice shall designate the date, time and place for the convening of such three-judge court. Such date shall be not less than thirty days after receipt of such petition by the Chief Justice.
(e) Such three-judge court shall hear the claims contained in such petition and all evidence offered in support of such petition and in opposition to such petition. Upon the presentation of clear and convincing evidence in support of the claims contained in such petition, such three-judge court shall issue an order for the removal of such person from municipal office. Any such order that either removes or denies the removal of any such person from municipal office shall contain such findings of fact and conclusions of law as such three-judge court shall deem sufficient to support its decision of all issues presented by such petition.
(f) Any such order of removal shall concomitantly order the records, papers and property of such removed municipal officer to the care, custody and control of the Attorney General, Chief State's Attorney or state's attorney, as applicable.
(g) An appeal from an order issued pursuant to subsection (e) of this section may be taken to the Supreme Court of the state not later than thirty days after the date of entry of such order. The Supreme Court shall consider and decide any such appeal upon the original papers and documents. The Attorney General shall represent the citizens of the affected municipality in any such appeal.
(h) From the date of any order issued pursuant to subsection (e) of this section that removes a person from municipal office, until the final adjudication of any applicable appeal by the Supreme Court, the municipal officer, commission or authority that has power to fill a vacancy for such vacant municipal office may fill such vacant municipal office with a temporary appointment. After the issuance of any final decision by the Supreme Court in such matter, such vacant municipal office shall be filled in accordance with any applicable provision of the general statutes, special act, charter or ordinance.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1 October 1, 2009 New section

Throughout this ordeal, we have heard Perez claim his "love" for Hartford, yet his current actions seem to show the total opposite. Perez's time has come and gone, and for the good of Hartford it is time for Eddie Perez to go.

His "open ended" promise to submit his letter of resignation on Friday, but yet no firm date for him to be gone does not instill any confidence in Hartford's future.

If the Hartford City Council can't or won't take strong decisive action, state officials should to the full extent allowed by law. Eddie Perez can not be allowed to continue to call the shots, he needs to be gone and be gone yesterday.

Monday, June 21, 2010


Well, 5:00pm on Monday has come and gone and Eddie Perez is still Hartford's Mayor. No letter of resignation has been submitted or received by Council President Pedro Segarra.

If Hartford is going to begin rebuilding any confidence as a viable city, this can not be allowed to continue. Hartford is now being run by a convicted felon. No longer "allegedly", no longer "apparently", Eddie Perez is a criminal, a convicted felon.

The Hartford City Council needs to act immediately and decisively to remove Perez at the earliest possible opportunity. Any indecisiveness or ambiguity by the Council will send the wrong message. It has been a long and painful process but a huge opportunity to take back Hartford and move in a positive direction has been placed at our doorstep. To squander that opportunity by being allowed to be held hostage by Perez and any demands will be almost as criminal as Perez's acts that he was convicted of.

The Hartford City Council needs to act immediately and with a clear and unified voice and make a statement to developers, business owners, residents and anyone else able to listen that it is a new day in Hartford.

In the true spirit of Hartford's motto "After the clouds the sun", the dark clouds brought over Hartford by Eddie Perez are parting and the sun will soon be shining on a new day in Hartford.


It has been a long path from my initial feelings that "something" was wrong in the Perez Administration to the final guilty verdict last week.

I guess my original suspicions were raised after I began receiving threats made directly to me or directed at me by Perez staffers. The first was from the Mayor's Chief of Staff, Matthew Hennessy, and was apparently made to Marilyn Rossetti,the Executive Director of HART (Hartford Areas Rally Together)according to what Rossetti had relayed to me.

At the time, I had made a decision to stay in Hartford and become vocal about issues I saw facing the City. To do that I had decided to become involved with HART, who at the time I felt was a strong grassroots neighborhood organization advocating for Hartford's residents. After getting involved with HART I quickly found that wasn't the case, but that's a story for another day.

At the time I became involved with HART, Eddie Perez was being tested by a severe crime problem and he was preparing to make what many thought would be his first major challenge as strong Mayor. The selection of a new Police Chief was in the works and I began to advocate for Assistant Police Chief Mark Pawlina. Myself and others saw Pawlina as the perfect fit due to his reputation in the community and his years of service to the Hartford Police Department and the people of Hartford.

Mark Pawlina was always accessible and was comfortable in every neighborhood across the city. Mark was "colorblind" when it came to serving the people of Hartford and every person and every neighborhood received Pawlina's full attention.

Unfortunately my efforts were not appreciated by those in the Mayor's Office as a selection for Chief had apparently already been made and did not include Mark Pawlina. An outsider had been selected apparently due to his ties with the Hennessey family and Matt Hennessey's father. Patrick Harnett was brought in from outside as Perez's choice for Police Chief.

During all of this, I received a call one day from Marilyn Rossetti and she asked me to stop by her office at HART to meet with her and John Kennelley who at the time was HART's attorney. I agreed and met with them and Rossetti informed me that I would have to stop speaking out and making my comments to the media.

Rossetti stated that she had received a call from the Mayor's Chief of Staff Matt Hennessey who advised her that if I kept speaking out against Perez that HART's funding from the City would be cut. As I said before, I wasn't impressed with HART's "scripted" operations, so rather than become silent as Rossetti requested, I stepped away from HART.

It bothered me that City Hall could wield funding as a weapon to silence residents, but we now know that is how the Perez criminal operation succeeded. It also bothered me that Rossetti and HART would succumb to such threats, but I guess to some a paycheck is a paycheck.

The next threat came directly to me from Perez sycophant Lew Brown. I had been asked to attend a press conference that the African American Alliance was holding on the steps of Hartford City Hall. I had never really met Lew Brown, but I knew who he was from his days as a Television reporter.

I had parked at the curb directly in front of City Hall and was leaning against my truck waiting for the event to begin. As I was standing there, Lew Brown came out of the front entrance of City Hall and made a path directly for me. He stood directly in front of me and began poking me in the chest saying "I know who you are". I was a little taken aback my his demeanor and actions, but he continued poking me saying that I needed to stop "making the Mayor look bad" by saying what I was saying.

As if the poking in the chest was obnoxious enough, he then went on to state that he knew I had "a close friend on the Police Department" who was in line for a promotion to Captain and if I didn't stop saying what I was saying "my Friend" would never get the promotion.

What were they hiding that they were so concerned about one person raising issues? I was concerned about the threats and as to how this administration seemed to stop at nothing to conceal their activities.

For some reason, at about the same time, people began passing information on to me about questionable activities relating to City Hall and specifically Mayor Perez.
Some of the information made sense and could be easily verified, other information took work to dig out and I quickly realized that something was wrong and the Perez Administration was in a bunker mentality.

Although a lot of allegations were being made, the name Carlos Costa soon became a repeating theme. Costa's name originally began surfacing after he was given a "no-bid" emergency contract for the Church Street parking garage. Although that bid appeared to be a legitimate "emergency" contract, most of Costa's bids for the Parking Authority suddenly became emergency work. The source that provided that information to me was concerned that Costa was receiving special treatment to avoid any competitive bidding process.

At the trial of Perez there was a quick reference to work on the Mayor's home being "charged out" to the Church Street Garage during Costa's testimony. That testimony was never followed up as to whether the Parking Authority actually was billed and paid for work on Perez's home or whether it was just an accounting procedure by Costa.

TO BE CONTINUED......................