Search This Blog

Friday, August 9, 2013

YOU CAN RUN , BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE

MARCUS WHITE, HOMICIDE SUSPECT
 
 
FROM HPD:


In 2012, Hartford Police Department Major Crimes Detectives began a review of a cold case into the homicide of Mr. Trevon Mauldin. Detective Renee LaMark-Muir’s persistence paid off. On July 30, 2013, Major Crime’s detectives obtained an arrest warrant for Marcus White, 32 charging him with Murder sec. 53a-54a, having a $2,000,000 judge set bond. The HPD fugitive task force arranged for Mr. White’s capture in Cottondale Florida where he is being held, awaiting extradition proceedings. Below are the basic details of the homicide, based on what has been reported to investigators:

 

At 11:00am on December 16, 2007, Mr. Mark Brown went to 151 Martin Street and asked residents if they wanted their driveway shoveled (it had snowed heavily the night before). Shortly thereafter, Brown walked back to his truck. Meanwhile, Mr. Trevon Mauldin and a female were sitting in Mauldin’s truck, also parked in the driveway of 151 Martin Street. The suspect, Marcus White exited his apartment at 161 Martin Street and went to talk to Mauldin.  Mauldin and White then approached Brown.  White put a gun to Brown’s head and demanded his money.  Mauldin stood in front of Brown.  White and Mauldin then struggled with Brown.  White hit Brown on the head with the gun and Mauldin held Brown in a headlock.  White then fired two gunshots, hitting Mauldin in the chest. Mauldin was fatally struck in the chest and fell to the ground.  Brown was grazed on the head and sustained a ruptured right eardrum.  White again pointed the gun at Brown and robbed him of $290.  White was last seen running through the backyards and then south on Garden Street. 

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER HARTFORD CITY HALL MESS

Hartford's Internal Auditors are sure keeping busy these days and the latest Audit report has pointed out some huge problems.

I guess we should be getting used to this by now. The incompetence and mismanagement under the Segarra Administration is almost an everyday occurrence. But the sad part is many of the problems are pointing directly back to Julio Molleda, Segarra's Director of Finance.

The P-card problems and the scathing audit report...Molleda at the helm. The violation of all travel policies and reimbursements....Molleda at the helm. And now, the most recent report into Hartford's Payroll operations...Molleda at the helm. This is the Finance Director being paid well over  one hundred thousand dollars a year ,and   for what? It can't be for his management because there appears to be none.

And let's not forget the acting Chief Operating Officers explanation to the Audit Commission for the $30,000 in missing Credit Card Charges charges, they were found in a shoebox on a shelf in the Finance Department. Yes , you read that right, the City of Hartford maintains its Financial documents in a shoebox on a shelf according to Saundra Kee-Borges.

The report is posted below , but a couple key points. Over ten thousand dollars was apparently paid to one City employee by mistake. According to the report that money has not yet been recovered. The overpaid employee is not named in the report, but that would be interesting to find out who they are and if they are still employed by the City. According to the report, there have been numerous over payments on payroll, but apparently only one of the employees, a Hartford Police Officer, brought the overpayment to his supervisors attention

The most troubling finding that appears in the report is that apparently the City has not filed or forwarded to the State and Federal government the income tax and payroll deductions taken out of City employees checks for the last year and a half. Where has the money gone? And what will that eventually cost the City, hence us the taxpayers, in penalties and interest? It can't be cheap.

An interesting side note, I was told by one source this morning familiar with the federal filing requirements that the individuals required to handle the filings could be held responsible for the penalties and interest. Get out your checkbook Mr. Molleda, this could be interesting.

With the size of the payroll of the City of Hartford, for a year and a half worth of deductions, I would think it will be substantial. And where does that liability come from since we have already closed out the last fiscal year.

The parts about tax forms being mailed  to City retirees that are deceased is just another indication of the incompetence. But I am not sure Segarra minds being the stuff that good jokes are made of. His administration becomes more  and more of a joke everyday and he is the only one that can step up and change that.

So much for the makeover I guess.


Thursday, August 8, 2013

POLICE DETAILS WHEN DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE

The section below is direct out of Hartford's municipal code. The calls for service at 3340 Main Street seem to be exactly what this ordinance was passed for. Why not start enforcing it? It is definitely a matter of Public Safety
 
Sec. 29-17. - Public safety police detail for places of public amusement and extended hours business premises.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)
The city has experienced significant problems with security and illegal activity within and surrounding various businesses operating as places of public amusement, extended hours convenience stores and other businesses open between the hours of 11:30 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. for several years including but not limited to problems with loitering, the illegal sale of narcotics, fighting and other physical altercations and other serious criminal activity.
(b)
This article is intended to aid in preventing crimes and nuisance, to secure for the citizens of and the visitors to the city the general welfare, public order, safety and peace, to protect employees of businesses such as those described herein and the consumer public at such businesses, and to establish security standards for such businesses that are uniform throughout the city.
(c)
The city now declares, in order to permit the development and implementation of reasonable controls that will effectively protect the public, businesses such as those described herein and their patrons, that this article be enacted.
(1)
The chief of police shall review all incident reports for property locations to which public safety personnel reported or were summoned or for which a complaint was filed with the police department for any loud, disturbing, illegal or violent conduct at any place of public amusement, extended hours convenience stores or any other business open between the hours of 11:30 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. ("premises"). Such incident reports shall contain the name and address of the premises and the name of the permittee(s) or owner(s) in charge of the premises.
(2)
The chief of police shall review such incident reports together with any other reliable information available to him/her concerning the premises. After such review, the chief of police shall determine whether the public safety of the patrons, invitees, employees or the general public require the deployment of a police detail to the premises.
(3)
For purposes of determining whether to deploy a police detail, the chief of police shall consider, but not be limited to the following factors in making such a determination:
a.
The nature, scope, and seriousness of the incident(s);
b.
The occurrence of violence and whether physical injuries resulted;
c.
Historical information regarding the premises and the owner(s) or permittee(s) with respect to similar incidents;
d.
The level of cooperation or lack of cooperation from the owner(s) or permittee(s) of the premises in addressing or correcting incident(s); and
e.
The benefit to the public's safety of deploying a police detail to the premises.
(4)
In the event it is determined that a police detail is necessary for public safety purposes the permittee(s) or owner(s) in charge of the premises will upon notice be required to pay the cost to the city of each police detail officer, in a number determined by the chief of police, as well as any necessary expenses incurred by the police department for providing such services. Said police detail shall initially be required for no more than four (4) weeks. After said period, the chief of police shall review the situation and any new information available to him/her. The chief of police may revise the number of detail police officers required or may terminate the requirement for police detail. The chief of police shall continue this four-week review cycle until such time as he/she determines that a police detail is not necessary.
(5)
Prior to any determination by the chief of police of the necessity for a police detail, he or she shall notify the permittee(s) or owner(s), in charge of the premises, in writing, via in hand delivery or via certified mail mailed to the premises, and shall offer the permittee(s) or owner(s) an opportunity to present any evidence within ten (10) business days which he or she believes is relevant to the decision of whether to order a police detail.
(6)
Upon determination that a police detail is so ordered, failure of any permittee(s) or owner(s) to promptly pay in full for a police detail or to abide by the decision of the chief of police shall be forthwith punishable by way of police action temporarily closing the premises and subject the permittee(s) or owner(s) to additional costs, legal fees and interest. The chief of police shall also report such failure to pay for police detail or to comply with orders or directives of the chief of police to the division of licenses and inspections for immediate action pursuant to section 21-9 of this Code suspending or, as appropriate, terminating both the permit or license to operate, where applicable.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

ANOTHER NIGHT, ANOTHER SHOOTING

It is early, so this might just be the first one for the night, but apparently a woman walking into a corner store at Main and Nelson Streets was just pelted with bird shot apparently
fired form a shotgun. Does anyone else seem to notice that once again our shootings and violent crime seem to be rising again?

More on this when I have time to compose some thoughts.

ARE YOU WATCHING THE HIT COUNTER?

I had thought that after Eddie Perez was convicted in his corruption trial the "We the People" blog " would die off. What  could I possibly have to write about?

One local reporter corrected me and said that "Hartford was the gift that keeps on giving"  I wish I didn't have so many girts being handed to me, but oh well.

The way the numbers look, I may quite possibly hit the million page view mark by the end of August.

Thank you to all readers for your continued support.

MAYOR CAN'T SAY "NO", BUT THE COUNCIL CAN

The two resolutions I posted about last night never made it out of Committee tonight at the Council's Operations Management Budget and Legislative Affairs  Committee.

What is next, telling DPW what size engines they can put on lawnmowers?

I only wish that Mayor Segarra would start actually acting like a Mayor so we could get beyond this nonsense and actually start  moving the City forward. The infighting serves no one well, especially not the people of Hartford.

This will make more sense after reading yesterdays post here