Search This Blog

Saturday, January 16, 2010

A QUESTION THAT HAS TO BE ASKED: IS JOHN ROSE COMPETENT TO PRACTICE LAW FOR THE CITY OF HARTFORD ?


Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am no fan of John Rose. Ask almost any Councilperson what they think of Mr. Rose(with the exception of Councilpersons Winch or Torres, they are blind to most issues non-Perez).

If Mr. Rose was in private practice, I'd say let him do whatever he wants. Repeated losses would eventually drain him of his client base and he might be smart enough to change his style.

The problem arises when his repeated losses have cost the people of Hartford millions of dollars. His inefficiency has resulted in hiring outside attorney's to represent the City, also costing the people of Hartford millions of dollars. And many of his "outside" attorneys hired are his former partners firms or part of the John Rose "good ol'boy" network.

Under the Rose style of "Corporation Counsel Office" some of the most basic forms of legal work, such as real-estate closings, are "farmed" out to some of his buddies. Is it maybe time to consider hiring an outside firm for all legal work for the City?

Although I made light of a few of his classic decisions this week on here, the poor decisions by Mr. Rose seem to be far more numerous than any lucid thoughts or behavior.

Charging a Councilperson for copies of documents he requested? Just the legal hours spent on this had to be several thousand dollars. Denying an inmate documents and fighting an FOI decision over the $27.50 copying fee that most likely should have never been charged in the first place if the requestor could prove that they were indigent. Again, thousands of dollars.

Pushing the termination and labor board decision of an employee branded a thief, even though no evidence was ever presented to indicate that she had stolen anything, only that she was a poor supervisor at the worst and most likely being used as a scapegoat at best.

And his legal opiniions issued with out any basis in law, but more likely based on meteorology. Which way is the wind blowing today? On several occasions his "opinions" have been rebuked by others that have reviewed them.

And let's not forget his behavior that has caused many to question his suitability to hold his current position. For me, it started when he mistakenly sent me an e-mail referring to me as an "asshole". I know some people that would terminate anyone under their supervision for such behavior. Not here though, it's Hartford. But apparently that e-mail is still used in FOI training classes on how NOT to reply to requests for public documents, so Mr. Rose's unacceptable manner has had a positive use.

And then we can all watch the WFSB video where we can witness a John Rose meltdown moment. As WFSB reporter Len Besthoff was reviewing an FOI request, Rose appeared in the lobby of his office and lost it with the camera's rolling. While Rose appeared to be totally wrong and out of line, most people with an ounce of common sense would realize that it was a no win situation, especially with the video rolling. Did Rose think the video would be hidden away in some archive? As if a reminder is needed, the John Rose "THIS IS MY OFFICE" tirade can be viewed below in a segment from WFSB's "Face the State" program.

And as Dennis House says in his promos for each weeks program, "Face the State" is the most widely watched political program in Connecticut. Not only does Mr. Rose make us proud in Hartford, this time he showed his style statewide. The segment also mentions his infamous "asshole" e-mail to me.



Several other situations that Mr. Rose has been involved with first hand seem to be opening the door on future million dollar settlements. The Dan Nolan termination case, the Matthew Secore termination case, the Vilma Rivera-Saez termination case. Both Secore's and Rivera-Saez's cases have been decided by the State Labor Board, and both decisions went against the City and Rose's actions.

The Secore case has raised many questions, above and beyond those already raised by other FOI actions by Rose.

In a recent request to Mr. Rose in his capacity as Corporation Counsel for the City, I had asked for documents pertaining to the handling of Officer Secore's case. I had been told that the Labor Board had ruled that Secore's termination was too severe a punishment for his actions. The Labor Board ordered that Secore be re-instated less a 90 day suspension.

In today's mail, I received Mr. Rose's response to the FOI Commission for not providing me any documents pertinent to my request.

I'm not sure if Mr. Rose and I attended the same FOI hearing, because his version of the hearing officers comments doesn't seem to be the same version I recall.

At one point, on page 3 of his brief, he writes "The hearing officer, after having heard Mr. Brookman on direct and cross, and appreciating the claim of Attorney Rose, cconcerning the documents in his file, directed the respondent to "... submit recordes being claimed exempt from disclosure for an in camera inspection".

The fact of the matter is that the hearing officer, after seeing documents that I was presenting that were already in the public domain, she commented seemed surprised, at least from my read of the situation that Rose's claim of an exemption wasn't valid and advised Mr. Rose " the fact that this is already out there, you know what I'm saying without having to say it?"

Later in the hearing, after ordering Rose to present the documents for an "in camera" review, the hearing officer stated to Rose "Frankly, on the basis of what I've seen so far, I'd agree with the complainant" that Rose had apparently withheld public documents. She further advised Mr. Rose, on the record, that it might be wise for him to submit a sworn affadavit to explain any grounds he had to withhold the documents.

Rose's complete brief can be seen below.

I am not an attorney, but Mr. Rose's legal mumbo-jumbo in his brief is essentially meant to deflect attention away from the fact that he withheld the public documents and sites numerous case law. If his "cites" are similar to his usual opinions, they probaly have very little similarities to the facts in this case, other than they mention "FOI".

In the last paragraph of his opinion he states " Mr. Brookman has made no showing that he cannot obtain the documents elsewhere; he has in fact obtained substantial numbers of them"

This has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the complaint. Because I can obtain documents outside of Mr. Rose's efforts does not release him form fulfilling the FOI request. All that statement proves is that I have some relaible sources that can help me keep Rose and others honest. If I didn't have the documents to throw on the table at an FOI hearing, would Rose have even acknowledged their existence? My gut feeling, having dealt with Rose repeatedly, is most likely no.

Rose repeatedly refers to the requested documents as "his file". That's the part where Mr. Rose just doesn't have a clue, these are not his documents, they are PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.

Mr. Rose, you are not in private practice, you are a public servant. Start acting like it please.

JOHN ROSE BRIEF TO FOI COMMISSION

Rose Brief to Foi for Secore Complaint

HOPEFULLY A NEW DIRECTION FOR HARTFORD CITY COUNCIL


This past Monday, Hartford City Councilperson Pedro Segarra chaired his first Council meeting as the Council President.

Several promising signals came from the meeting. One of the first signs was the public comment session of the meeting. Former Council President Torres had established a way of silencing those that took the time to speak at council meetings. Torres had established the use of a "traffic light" type device that limited speakers to three minutes, and when the light turned red, your time was up.

Under President Segarra, the stop light was gone and speakers were allowed to speak. On a night like Monday, when residents took the time to go out in 25 degree temperatures to speak, it was a welcome sign. Myself and others that spoke uninterrupted actually felt as though we were being welcomed and respected by the Council.

Another positive step in this age of technology, was the Council's agenda being displayed on a large screen to those in the Council Chambers and also displayed on public access television for those viewing at home. Brendan Mahoney, Executive Assistant to Councilman Cotto appeared to be responsible for the display, although I'm not sure who else might have been involved.

It was also good to see an orderly meeting being conducted and President Segarra kept the meeting moving, despite a prolonged debate over nonsense orchestrated by former Council President Torres.

Another positive sign not directly related to the Council, was the return of former Concilman John O'Connell. John had been recovering from medical issues and it was great to see him out and about, just in time for budget time.

After the public session, when the actual meeting commenced, President Segarra addressed the Council and the community. The text of his speech is below.

Council President Segarra Speech

Thursday, January 14, 2010

A NOTE TO JOHN ROSE: YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT THIS ON YOUR CALENDAR, OLGA TAKE NOTE ALSO


CCM, CONNECTICUT CONFERENCE OF MUNICIPALITIES TO OFFER FOI TRAINING SEMINARS
FOIA:
What Board, Commission & Committee Members Must Know


Saturday, February 6, 2010 Thursday, March 18, 2010
9:30am - 12:30pm or 6:00pm- 9:00pm
Russell Library, Middletown Senior Center, Farmington, CT


FREE to CCM Member Municipalities
$120 Fee to Non-members


FOIA:
Are You Aware of the Requirements?


Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA ) details requirements for notice and access to public meetings, recordkeeping, and requests for information. It applies to all local government agencies, departments, institutions, boards, commissions, and authorities and their committees.

This workshop is designed specifically for board, committee, and commission members. Attendees will learn about:
· Three kinds of meetings recognized under FOIA
· Requirements for public access, recordkeeping, and release of information
· When can the public be excluded?
· How to handle complaints

A Freedom of Information Commission report concluded that the FOIA is widely misunderstood and ignored by municipal officials. All board, committee and commission members need to understand the requirements of FOIA to avoid costly and embarrassing complaints.
Learning Objectives:
Overview of the FOIA
· FOIA - CGS Sections 12001241
Legal requirements for meetings
· Identify the difference between a meeting and caucus
Public records
· Maintaining records
· Handling requests
· What must be disclosed
· What need not be disclosed
FOI Commission Complaints
· Top reasons for complaints
· How to handle
Penalties & Costs of Noncompliance
· Criminal charges


Who Should Attend?
Board, Commission, and Committee Chairs and members
Staffs to Boards and Commissions
Mayors/First Selectmen
Town/City Managers
Town Clerks
Department Heads
3 Ways to Register:

Online:
February 6th
or
March 18th

Email: CCM Training

Phone: CCM Training Hotline
203-498-3018

Please Register Early!


Cancellation Policy:
Please notify us within 24 hours prior to the workshop if you cannot attend, or a cancellation fee of $10 will be incurred. No Shows will also be billed at $10 per person. Substitutions are always acceptable.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

E-MAILS LIKE THIS MAKE PEOPLE LIKE JOHN ROSE WORTH THE FIGHT

Some days I wonder why I stay in Hartford. Some days I wonder if all the aggravation is worth it. Then, I think about Hartford's people, its neighborhoods, its strengths and its potential.

And on those days when I'm re-thinking my commitment to be a part of change in this potentially great city, I get an e-mail like the one below.

This e-mail shows the potential of Hartford's people, but also shows the desperation. It shows that people care about the city, but are also scared by its lack of leadership and vision.

I have edited out certain details that potentially might identify the sender, but you'll get the message. In the meantime, I hope that they might see some positive change and re-consider their exit from our potentially great city.

The e-mail is from someone that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never met.

To: krbrookman@earthlink.net
Subject: Thanks for your work
Date: Jan 12, 2010 1:27 PM

Hey Kevin,
\
I'm glad someone is on our side.

I'm a relatively new resident in Hartford My wife and I moved here in Early 200* from *********. We haven't lived here long enough to know much about local Hartford politics but I've seen enough already. It scares me! The vehicle tax is infuriating! The property tax on our home went from $7,300 in 200* when we signed on it to $8900 in 2009....with more increases to come.

It is clear that the local tax rates deters young hard-working middle class couples like us from living here. I've written letters to the mayor and council members but no one seems to understand or care. I've only had one response which was a call from ***************. I guess they don't want people like us here.

It all scares me. I invested too much into my home to watch my property-value decline because of rapidly increasing taxes. My wife and I have decided to put the house on the market next spring and get out of here if/while we can. Hopefully it will sell at a decent price and we'll move back to ***********...ironically, in search of lower property taxes. It's disappointing because we like the people we've met here and love our home.

Looking forward to reading your updates. Let us know if we can get involved.

Best Regards,

I COULDN'T RESIST, ANOTHER "JOHN ROSE CLASSIC MOMENT"


The following editorial was published in the Hartford Business Journal on
October 19, 2009.

It speaks for itself.

Futile FOI Fights
10/19/09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The city of Hartford is engaged in a silly Freedom of Information beef over a copying fee of $27.50. It’s a fight that will likely cost the city much more in time and money.

According to the Hartford Advocate newspaper, the flap began in September 2008 when Prison Legal News, a national monthly publication focusing on prisoners’ rights, submitted an FOI request to the city for electronic records from the case of a man who was arrested.

The city told the publication that it would cost $27.50 to get the documents. State law does allow the city to charge 50 cents per page for the 54 pages. But Prison Legal News requested a fee waiver, which is allowed when the information is for the public benefit.

Hartford’s Corporation Counsel, John Rose, denied the request for the fee waiver and Prison Legal News filed a complaint with the FOI Commission, which ruled in the publication’s favor on Sept. 23, ordering the city to turn over the documents free of charge.

But the city refused again to hand over the records, with Attorney Nathalie Feola-Guerrieri from the corporation counsel’s office, telling the publication’s editor that Hartford might appeal.

For the city to even consider an appeal is absurd. The time, energy and money being dedicated to this case would be better used to deal with important issues facing Hartford.

According to the Advocate, the city has spent tens of thousands of dollars in unsuccessful appeals of FOI rulings over the past several years, blowing in excess of $50,000 recently in an attempt to reverse $400 worth of fines against Deputy Corporation Counsel Carl Nasto after he refused to release documents related to the criminal grand jury probe of Mayor Eddie Perez.

This pattern of blowing taxpayer money to deny requests for public information has got to stop.

AND ANOTHER "JOHN ROSE CLASSIC MOMENT" TO END THE NIGHT


As if the previous couple posts aren't enough to convince you that Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose has a real problem with transparency, this decision should help.

In 2005, Hartford City Councilperson Ken Kennedy requested documents from Mr. Rose. Councilperson Kennedy's claim was that he was acting in his official capacity as a duly elected member of the Hartford City Council and was requesting public documents. Mr. Rose apparently disagreed and attempted to charge Kennedy fifty cents a page for copying the documents.

The FOI Commission decided in Kennedy's favor and ordered the documents released to Kennedy, at no charge.

Only in Hartford, a "John Rose Classic Moment"

The FOI Commission's decision is below:

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Kenneth H. Kennedy, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 2005-135
Corporation Counsel, City of

Hartford,

Respondent February 22, 2006




The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 14, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied for the reasons stated herein.



After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:



1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.



2. By letter dated and filed on March 22, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by requiring him, a councilman of the City of Hartford (hereinafter “city”), to pay fifty cents per page for copies of records, and thereby denying him copies of such records.



3. The respondent contends that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complainant’s appeal because “there is no present allegation that the Respondent violated any provision of the Freedom of Information Act …rather, the …[complainant] seeks the determination of his rights under the FOIA".[1]



4. Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides, in relevant part:



Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.



5. It is found that the complaint in this matter alleges a denial of the right to obtain copies of public records without charge pursuant to §1-212(d)(4), G.S.



6. It is concluded that the complainant has alleged a denial of a right conferred by the FOI Act, within the meaning of §1-206(b)(1), G.S., and therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.



7. It is found that the complainant is a councilmember of the city who was elected to such office on November 4, 2003, for a term commencing January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2008.



8. It is found that, commencing in August 2004, the complainant made a series of requests to the respondent to be provided with numerous records.



9. It is found that the complainant renewed the August 2004 request by e-mail dated February 15, 2005, and directed such request to the attention of the city’s Deputy Corporation Counsel.



10. It is found that the respondent maintains records that are responsive to the complainant’s records requests at issue.

11. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to …(3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

12. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides that: “[A]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record”.

13. Section 1-212(d)(4), G.S., further provides that: “[T]he public agency shall waive any fee provided for in this section when:



The person requesting the record is an elected official of a political subdivision of the state and the official (A) obtains the record from an agency of the political subdivision in which the official serves, and (B) certifies that the record pertains to the official’s duties.

14. It is found that the complainant is an elected official, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S. It is also found that the records at issue are records of the city in which the complainant serves, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S.

15. The respondent concedes, and it is concluded, that the records at issue are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

16. The respondent also does not claim that any of the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to any federal law or state statute. In fact, it is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with access to inspect many of the requested records, as well as copies of some of the requested records without cost to the complainant. However, it is found that the respondent is now requiring payment from the complainant for copies of records that were produced, and for records to be produced in connection with the complainant’s records requests at issue.

17. At the crux of the complaint in this matter is the disagreement between the complainant and the respondent as to what “certifies that the record pertains to the official’s duties” means, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S.

18. It is found that the complainant informed the respondent orally and by e-mail that the records requested pertain to his official duties as an elected official.

19. It is found that the respondent has declined to accept the complainant’s representation as indicated in paragraph 18, above, and contends that certification, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S., requires that the complainant submit to the respondent a sworn written statement, signed by a notary public or a Commissioner of the Superior Court, stating that the requested records will be used in the complainant’s official duties. In this regard, the respondent upon receipt of such sworn statement intends to confirm with the city council or council committee, as appropriate, that the requested records do in fact pertain directly to business before the council or committee.

20. It is found that on or about August 2, 2004, the complainant received a letter from the President of Diggs Construction, LLC, the Program Manager for Phase 1 of the renovations of the Hartford Public Schools, along with a two-page unsigned document. It is found that the August 2, 2004 letter and the unsigned document appear to suggest possible irregularities surrounding the award of contracts by the Hartford School Building Committee.

21. It is found that the complainant’s records requests at issue directly pertain to his concern and inquiry into possible irregularities surrounding the award of contracts, and therefore, pertain to his duty as an elected official to respond to concerns and possible improprieties occurring within the city.

22. It is concluded that nothing in §1-212(d)(4), G.S., limits the “official’s duties” to include only business that is formally before the city council or business that has been formally assigned to a city council committee.

23. Consequently, it is concluded that the complainant has met the criteria set forth in §1-212(d)(4), G.S., and therefore, the respondent violated the FOI Act by requiring that the complainant pay fifty cents per page for copies of the requested records.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. In the interest of ensuring clarity and greater understanding between the parties, and also to avoid the duplication of records being produced, the complainant shall forthwith, provide the respondent with a list of the records/ information contained in records, that he has not yet received from the respondent in response to his February 15, 2005 request.

2. The respondent shall forthwith, upon receipt of the list, described in paragraph 1 of the Order above, provide the complainant with copies of all records, responsive to the complainant’s February 15, 2005 request, at no charge.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 2006.



________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission



PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.



THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:



Kenneth H. Kennedy, Jr.

Councilman, City of Hartford

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103



Corporation Counsel,

City of Hartford

c/o John Rose, Jr., Esq.
Corporation Counsel
City of Hartford
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103






___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission







FIC/2005-135FD/paj/2/27/2006