Search This Blog

Sunday, August 9, 2009

ANOTHER F.O.I. LOSS FOR THE "TRANSPARENT" PEREZ ADMINISTRATION

After receiving several calls from people questioning the frequent purchases of food and beverages by Superintendent of Schools Stephen Adamowski on his City of Hartford credit card, and the continuing word that the City of Hartford pays for Adamowski's aprtment at Hartford 21, I submitted an FOI request to the office of Adamowski at the Board of Education. The request was for "any employment contracts or employment agreements","housing and or agreements regarding any living expenses covered by the City of Hartford and/or the Hartford Board of Education" as well as "any documentation regarding use of any City credit cards and/or expense reports or requests for reimbursement submitted to the City of Hartford and/or the Hartford Board of Education." On March 20, 2009 I received a fax from the Board of Education containing a six page employment agreement and a one page summary of Adamowski's city credit card with one line of detail showing the total charged year to date. The employment agreement clearly referenced other documents and supplemental agreements, which were not provided as outlined in the request. Also, since I had previously received detailed documents outlining Adamowski's credit card use from other sources, I knew that the item they had provided was far from what was available as a public document.

Based on my belief that the Board of Education and the City were being far from open and transparent, I filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission. The hearing was scheduled for Monday, July 27, 2009. On Friday, July 24, 2009, less than one business day before the hearing, the City of Hartford's Corporation Counsel's office apparently suddenly saw the light and provided me with what they claim was all of the requested Credit Card information I was looking for. Attorney Melinda Kaufmann from John Rose's office assumed that since they had provided the documents I would now withdraw my complaint. My response to her was "absolutely not", that a delay of several months in providing the documents was unacceptable, and I intended to proceed with the hearing and let the FOI Commission decide if the City's actions were proper and lawful. Apparently the FOI Commission agreed with me and on August 6, 2009 issued a proposed Final Decision, the details of which are below in the PDF Document, and in a rare move by the Commission, a fine is recommended against Jill Cutler Hodgman, the person that the Commission determined was the one responsible and in the care and control of the documents and is the official directly responsible for the denial of my FOI rights (line 49 in attached decision). The decision further goes on to describe the unusual civil penalty "would have a deterrent effect... should Ms. Cutler Hodgman and the other respondents believe that their actions to stonewall the provision of public records can be entirely cured by a last minute offer of documents days before an FOI Commission hearing and that no adverse consequences will flow from that action" (line 50 in FOI proposed Final Decision)

Unfortunately, rather than pay the fines, John Rose and his followers will probably run true to form and appeal this decision , costing the taxpayers another $100,000 as they have done with their court appeals of FOI Complaints brought by Jeff Cohen and the Hartford Courant. They just don't get it, maybe they might want to take an FOI training course offered free by Tom Hennick of the FOI Commission.

And the question still hasn't been answered as to who pay's for Adamowski's apartment in Hartford 21.

Foi Decision Bd of Ed

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

A MESSAGE TO "CITIZEN" , A COWARDLY CALLER AND POSTER

Tonight I received an "anonymous" phone call and then the comment from "citizen" on my recent posting regarding the Hartford Fire Department. The female caller made threats and accusations, the same as in the posting from "citizen". She accused me of writing only about minorities and trying to make minorities look bad. To the best of my knowledge the only minority I can definitely say I have written about was John Thomas, and the reason I know that is because I have seen his mugshot from his arrest after he ran a pedestrian down in the street. I can also confirm that yes, Dan Nolan is white, because I have met him in person. As for Henry Biffle, Gregory Simon or Dion Hightower, I wouldn't know them if I saw them, and the facts speak for themselves, no matter what race they are. When I asked the "anonymous" caller if she knew their races, she said yes, I asked her how and she said she "just knew". I then asked her which one of the firefighter's I wrote about she was related to, and she replied "I don't have to tell you that". It is easy to throw around the term "racist" when you have nothing else to stand on, but I think the facts and documents speak for themselves. As I told the spineless, I mean "anonymous" caller, if she had names to give me, I would look into anything that people give me. If the circumstances regarding Dan Nolan had painted a different picture, unfavorable to him, I would have posted that here also, Lowering standards for the hiring of firefighters is not a matter of racism, it is a matter of Public Safety. If the cowardly caller, I mean "anonymous" caller, is in fact related to a firefighter, I would think that you would want to know that the rest of the firefighters in a burning building behind your loved one are the best qualified and best trained persons for the job and not the one who made the best overture to a politician or city official to get a job.

After tonight, I will no longer take blocked calls, so if you are a coward, don't waste your time. I stand behind everything I say, grow a backbone and try doing the same. And anytime you want to pass along information, feel free.

IS HOMICIDE #21 ON THE BOOKS ?

Hartford Police were on the scene of a deceased person found in a car on Dover Street most of this afternoon. After personnel from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner's Office arrived on the scene, they observed a single gunshot wound to the persons head. From what sources are saying, apparently no weapon was found in the car, which most likely rules out a suicide. The body was taken to Farmington for an autopsy.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

HARTFORD'S DUMBEST CRIMINALS

Apparently armed robbers attempted to hold-up the Bowtie's Cinema at 330 New Park Avenue Wednesday night at gunpoint. It seems that the robber couldn't multitask, and during the robbery placed his gun on the counter. A quick thinking employee grabbed the gun and turned it on the robber. The robber quickly fled the Cinema without his gun or the loot

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

PORTIONS OF GRAND JURY REPORT RELEASED

Prior to tomorrow's Supreme Court hearing as to whether the Grand Jury report will be remain sealed or be released to the public, preliminary portions of the report have been released.

FINAL REPORT OF FINDING OF
GRAND JUROR PURSUANT TO
C. G. S. 54-47g
I. BACKGROUND
On October 24, 2007, an Investigatory Grand Jury Panel,
consisting of three Superior Court Judges, found that the
administration of justice required an investigation to determine
whether or not there was probable cause to believe that a crime
or crimes had been committed in the administration of the
government of the City of Hartford in its activities and dealings
with persons or firms doing business with the city. Accordingly,
pursuant to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes

(hereinafter referred to as C. G. S.) Section 54-47d (a)(1), the
undersigned, on November 6, 2007, was appointed as a Grand
Juror by the Chief Court Administrator for the State of
Connecticut. The scope of the investigation was "to focus on
corruption and the misuse of public funds in the government of
the City of Hartford in its activities and dealings with persons or
firms doing business with the city."
On April 2, 2007, the Grand Juror applied and was granted a
six-month extension which was scheduled to expire on
November 6, 2008. On September 25, 2008, the Grand Juror
applied and was granted another extension which expired on
May 6, 2009. Pursuant to C.G.S. 54-47 g (a) the Grand Juror
has sixty days from the conclusion of the investigation in which
to file the final report.
On January 13, 2009, the Grand Juror issued an Interim
Report in which the undersigned found that probable cause that
crimes had been committed existed with regard to certain
individuals who either worked in city government or had
dealings with officials in the city government of Hartford. For
the purposes of this Final Report, all findings and
recommendations made by the Grand Juror in the Interim Report
are hereby incorporated in this Final Report and made a part
hereof.
In fulfilling its responsibilities, an Investigatory Grand Juror
is limited by the statutes governing the role and function of an
Investigatory Grand Jury, by the specific charge to the Grand
Juror by the Investigatory Grand Jury Panel, and by the
applicable Connecticut Criminal Statutes.
The function of the Investigatory Grand Juror in this matter is
set forth in and is limited by the charge of the Investigatory

Grand Jury Panel. The Grand Juror's function in the
investigation is to determine, on the basis of the evidence
presented to it, whether there is probable cause to believe that
any crime has been committed in connection with the
government of the City of Hartford in its activities and dealings
with persons or firms doing business with the city. Further, the
Grand Juror was also instructed to focus on corruption and the
misuse of public funds in the government of the City of
Hartford.
In conducting its inquiry as to whether there is probable cause
to believe that a crime or crimes may have been committed, the
Grand Juror was limited further by the terms and provisions of
the potentially applicable Connecticut Criminal Statutes. In
connection therewith, the undersigned Grand Juror directed the
Office of the Chief State's Attorney to conduct an analysis of
the Connecticut Criminal Statutes that may apply to any of the
conduct disclosed as a result of the Grand Jury investigation.
The analysis completed by the Office of the Chief State's
Attorney disclosed seven potential statutes and five potential
crimes that may bear upon the Grand Juror's investigation and
ultimate determination as to whether there is probable cause to
bring criminal charges. Those seven statutes and five potential
crimes are:

(1) Fabricating Physical Evidence under C. G. S.
53a-155
(2) Criminal Attempt to Commit Larceny in the First
Degree By Extortion under C. G. S. 53a-49/53a
122a(2) by 53a-119 (5)(h)

(3) Conspiracy to Commit Larceny in the First Degree
By Extortion under C. G. S. 53a-48/53a
122a(2) by 53a-119 (5)(h)
(4) Larceny in the First Degree By
Extortion under C. G. S.53a-8/53a
122a(2) by 53a-119(5)(h)
(5) Fraudulent Voting under C. G. S. 9-360


In conducting its investigation in this matter, the undersigned
Grand Juror scrutinized all of the conduct disclosed in the
investigation to determine if any of the conduct so disclosed
could form the basis of a finding of probable cause to believe
that any one of the foregoing crimes had been committed.
II. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The investigation is now completed. The investigation
conducted by the Grand Jury extended for eighteen months.
There were 32 sessions of the Grand Jury at which testimony
was received from 150 witnesses. 316 items of documentary
evidence were received and marked as exhibits. In conducting
this investigation the Grand Juror has been ably assisted by both
the Chief State's Attorney and Assistant State's Attorneys,
Inspectors from the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, and a
Detective from the Connecticut State Police. In addition to other

tasks they performed at the request of the Grand Juror, those
Assistant State's Attorneys and Inspectors interviewed witnesses
and potential witnesses and reviewed substantial pages of
additional documentary evidence that were either voluntarily
submitted to the Grand Jury or submitted in compliance with
subpoenas issued by the Grand Jury.
III. DISCUSSION *****END OF PORTION RELEASED*****

Hopefully the discussion portion will be unsealed and released to the public after tomorrow's hearing

Sunday, July 26, 2009

CITY RECORDS 20TH HOMICIDE TONIGHT

Hartford recorded its 20th homicide victim tonight as the result of a shooting at the intersection of Liberty and Brook Streets shortly before 11:00PM.

Hartford Police sources confirmed the 23 year old male victim was declared dead at 11:26PM at Saint Francis Hospital.