Some might wonder why the City of Hartford and Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose are fighting so hard to keep from releasing documents related to the case of Hartford Police Officer Matthew Secore.
Over the next few days I will be posting some of the documents I have obtained in regards to this case. None of the documents, not even one piece of paper have come from the City of Hartford though.
On the face value the case seems pretty simple, Secore was terminated after an Internal Affairs Investigation was completed in which Secore was accused of punching Ruben Perez. Ruben Perez is the nephew of Hartford Mayor Eddie A. Perez. Ruben Perez had been arrested after a brutal beating of Officer Secore's younger brother, Slade Secore.
After reading the Labor Board decision, you might think differently about the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. The IAD report also raises some questions about Ruben Perez and his statement. Was it coached? Are the words really those of Ruben Perez? Is Secore totally responsible or was it a breakdown of an entire system?
Matthew Secore commented yesterday here on "We the People". For those who didn't read his comments, they are posted below. I have confirmed that the comments are in fact posted by Matthew Secore.
Matthew Secore's comments: Greetings Mr Brookman,
It comes as no surprise to me that the city of Hartford would not want you to know the details of my case. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to try and answer your questions.
Yes I was reinstated through the process of legal arbitration, agreed upon through the City of Hartford and the Hartford Police Union. However, the city has appealed my award to the superior court. They have every right to appeal but based on what my lawyers are telling me an arbitration award is legally binding and can only be successfully appealed on the grounds of fowl play or a violation of public trust laws. Since my award was not won through any illegal means and I was not found to be a thief or dishonest, the city is fighting a case they are not likely to win. In fact, based on multiple conversations with various lawyers, I'm very comfortable in saying they will not win. So the question becomes, why would the city spend money and resources on a case they are not likely to win? Maybe I can shed some light on that.
Recently I've been issued a civil lawsuit from Ruben Perez, Eddie Perez's nephew. What's interesting is Ruben Perez is suing me on an individual capacity and is NOT suing the City of Hartford. All civil lawsuits are about money, so why sue an individual with limited funds over a government? I guess money isn't his goal in this. Regardless, the case will most likely be settled out of court by the City of Hartford anyway.
I'm not looking for sympathy for I take full responsibility for my actions. My concern comes from one of being a public servant to the tax payers of Hartford. As of this month the city of Hartford owes me over $100,000 in back pay, this does not include vacation time, paid holidays and such. This amount just keeps climbing each week. Also, in about one year my police certification will expire. Per CT state law if it expires and I do not receive a waiver the city of Hartford will have to send me through the police academy again. It's estimated the police academy cost the city $50,000 for each recruit, but mine will cost more because I will be getting paid at the top of my pay scale during that time. I can only speculate on the man hours Hartford has spent on my case but as you can see by how they are fighting your FOI request, your money is no object to them.
Mr. Brookman, I can't answer your second two questions about why the city has not reinstated me yet or what role Eddie Perez played in my discipline. At least not to the level of proof you are accustomed to. What I can give you is my opinion based on the unusual choices and small nuances of how my case was and is being handled by the City of Hartford. I feel the reason the city has not reinstated me and has elected to continue it's losing battle is because Mayor Perez cares more about his personal agenda then he does the tax payers who elected him to be their Mayor.
I look forward to serving the City of Hartford again in the near future,
Last week I put up the link for those who wanted to watch our "1 Hartford" program.
For those that don't have cable in Hartford or if you missed the program Saturday nights at 10:00PM on Channel 5, click below and take a look
When I put the link up last Friday night, within a couple hours over 150 people clicked the link and went to Stan McCauley's accesstv.org website and watched.
This week we discuss Hartford issues including economic development and the loss of more small businesses and more jobs lost, including the Cityplace McDonald's. We talk about the recently released crime stats and the upcoming Town Committee races.
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.
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.
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.
THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THIS BLOG ARE STRICTLY THAT, MY OPINIONS.After getting fed up with the lack of openness in Hartford City Hall, I decided to begin a program on Hartford Public Access Television called "WE THE PEOPLE". Through tips received we have been able to expose numerous issues that the Perez Administration would prefer to keep quiet.
Any information received is kept in strict confidence, feel free to e-mail me at krbrookman@earthlink.net or call me at 860-883-2297 with any information.