The first comment I think is actually a fair question, any one who wasn't at the hearings would probably make the same comment.
Anonymous said...
wasn't rose representing olga as the registrar? i mean, the suit was regarding things olg did/did not do as registrar of voters. so, where is he defending the slate?
The comment is accurate, John Rose as Corporation Counsel is pretty much obligated by the City Charter to represent city officials. He did that in the case of Olga Vazquez. Sometimes it was a little difficult to keep track of who he was representing by his comments before the Judge. At one point he stood and said "the Registrar blew it" and "the City won't be harmed" if Judge Peck vacated the stay . That is all part of his job, as required by the Charter.
The question of if and when he crossed the line and began representing the Giles slate is an entirely different issue. After Rose stated that the Registrar blew it and the city won't be harmed, he seemed to begin arguing for the Giles slate.
Rose continued on and stated that if the Judge lifted the stay that the Giles slate "will be dead, they will be done" and further stated that they would be "murdered at the polls". Does that sound like he is arguing for his client, Olga Vazquez OR advocating for the Giles slate?
It seems pretty clear to me. If the Giles slate felt that their chances were dead and they would be done, that is their problem then and they needed to hire their own attorney if they felt aggrieved, the same as the Kirkley-Bey slate did when they felt Olga Vazquez stepped on their rights.
Whether your question was meant to be sincere or sarcastic, I know there aren't many that understand the issue if you weren't in court to hear it. Regardless, I hope this has offered some clarification to those trying to understand this mess. Hopefully at Monday's Council meeting it might become clearer. If there is a side I'm missing that you think can justify Mr. Rose's arguing for the Giles slate, please feel to post it here.
-
6 comments:
Kevin,
I have always been puzzled about why you haven’t ever come clean with the internet public about the fact Eddie Perez rescued you from being foreclosed on your former Jefferson Street home (138 I think) back in 1999. When your alarm business was going under he arranged for you to get a loan from HEDCO to save your home and business. You have always lived off the generosity/resources of others. Your holier than thou rap doesn’t cut it.
Unlike you, I try to get my facts straight before I post them here, In 1999 Mike Peters was Mayor, and yes I moved back to Hartford and purchased the building, at Mayor Mike's urging. At that time I felt Hartford was going in the right direction. Perez had nothing to do with that.
As for my business "going under" I am in my 22nd year in business. Under Perez, I should have probably moved out of Hartford and improved my profitability, but I choose to stay here.
About the only thing you did get right was the address. Another proud accomplishment for Perez, a building that won awards when I occupied it to an unsightly boarded up eyesore now.
Good job Eddie
Brookman, I asked the question. Thank you for going into detail as to the current allegations on "rosie."
I hope the explanation made sense
It makes sense. I guess I'm confused with the resolutions, particularly the vote of no confidence. Does it have to do with the Olga/Giles bruhaha you just explained or is it just a "last straw" type of thing? Keep in mind, I know you didn't put the resolution in, just asking your two cents.
My impression is that this has been brewing for a while. It has been a constant problem, but I think Rose's performance at the Kirkley-Bey/ Giles hearing and the $1000.00 FOI fine was the final straw to force the Council's hand. I doubt much will change because I don't think the votes are there to remove him, but I also think that the Council is starting to step up and do their job with their new leadership under Pres. Segarra
Post a Comment