Search This Blog

Friday, September 16, 2011

GOING "HOLLYWOD"



The story that I never really thought was going to be a story has really become a story, and it just won't go away. This Sunday at 11:00am I will be on WFSB's "Face the State" with Dennis House.

Here is what Dennis posted on his blog "We are joined this Sunday by Channel 3′s Len Besthoff, our chief reporter on the Nappier case; Kevin Brookman, the city blogger who first broke the story, and Kevin Rennie, the Hartford Courant columnist, and former state senator, who provides a political perspective to the story."

And if you don't get your fill there, I will be a guest on WNPR radio with Colin McEnroe Monday at 1:00PM.

Imagine what will happen when I break a real story.

MORE OF THE SEGARRA TRANSPARENCY, ANOTHER DAY AT FOI, THE LT. EDWIN DAILEY REPORT

Forgive me for sounding skeptical, but it is easy to say you are transparent, but that old saying "actions speak louder than words" seems to ring true. Here is one such incident, and unfortunately just one of many that Mayor Segarra continues to allow to happen in his "transparent" administration.

The latest is the story of Lt. Ed Dailey and the investigation into his actions the morning of February 24, 2011 related to an incident at 16 Rockville Street in Hartford. LT. Dailey was the Lieutenant in charge of the midnight shift on February 24, 2011when officers were dispatched to the are of 16 Rockville Street on the report of an "apparent assault".

As of this date it has not been determined if there was ever an assault or was it just an individual extremely high on drugs who slipped and fell down his front porch. The so called "victim" refused to cooperate with police and no witnesses or evidence of an assault was ever found.

Sometime in early April, I had received a call that charges were being brought against Lt Dailey for a department policy violation of "Failure to supervise". I know everyone has an agenda, but the caller advised that I needed to get a copy of the investigation conducted into Dailey's actions by Captain James Bernier. They further went on to say that the report was obviously a witchhunt to try to demote Dailey and it would be clear when I read the report.

SO, I decided to submit an FOI request to the Hartford Police Department for the Dailey investigation report as well as "any and all related documents". Once again, HPD is too predictable. My FOI request was promptly met with a denial. The City claimed that it was "part of an ongoing investigation" and therefore exempt from disclosure. They forgot to read the next few words in the exemption that states "ongoing investigations" in which the "records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime".

After the HPD denial, apparently orchestrated by Detective Ursula Wiebusch and Corporation Counsel attorney Nathalie Feola- Guerreiri, I asked Chief Daryl Roberts if there was any potential of criminal charges against Lt Dailey. He stated "absolutely not" it was "purely administrative charges". That seemed to be in direct contradiction to the denial, so on April 28, 2011 I filed an FOI complaint with the State of Connecticut.

And yes, you read that correct, the complaint was filed on April 28, 2011 and finally on September 15, 2001, it came to a hearing before FOI. That is one of the big problems with FOI complaints. As an agency that has a large caseload, combined with cuts to a staff that was already too small to handle its caseload and now being combined with two other agencies, Hartford has learned how to play the game.

The City of Hartford knows that even if the law is in my favor, or that of anyone requesting documents, a denial is no big deal. They can just deny the release of anything they don't want the public to see or that they may feel will be embarrassing. The consequences are almost non-existent. Deny the release, go to a hearing that may take 6 or 8 months to be scheduled, then wait for a hearing officers report which could be another three or four months, and then finally the hearing officers report would go before the full FOI Commission for adoption and they could be another two or three months before it gets on the FOI Commission agenda.

So all in all, the documents could take up to a year to obtain, at which point the City knows they will most likely be useless and worse case scenario, the FOI Commission might assess a fine, typically under $200.00, which in the end the City will pay anyway and there is no accountability or penalty to the individual making the unlawful decision.

The largest fine I ever obtained at FOI was the maximum fine of $1,000.00 against former Corporation Counsel John Rose, and the full FOI Commission eventually reduced that to $200.00, which the City of Hartford paid for Rose.

So anyway, back to the Dailey report. An FOI hearing was scheduled and held on Thursday September 15, 2011. The City tried a few different ploys to defend their actions, the first was by apparently forgetting to tell Chief Roberts that there was a hearing he needed to attend, or at least they felt he didn't need to be there to answer any questions.

Although the City's defense before FOI seems to hinge entirely on the Bernier investigation report , it was clear that in my FOI request, I stated "any and all documents" related to the incident and the City did not provide one page of documentation related to the request, no memo's, no incident reports, no dispatch logs...NOTHING, not one sheet of paper.

The first tactic the City's lawyers used to defend their actions was that the report was not yet finished. That seemed odd since the Corporation Counsel's Office was already involved and had scheduled disciplinary hearings against Dailey. I'm not sure how you hold a hearing for discipline without having all the facts, but I guess that is how it goes when a real estate attorney like Feola-Guerrieri decides to practice municipal or employment law.

But, interestingly enough, I had already obtained most of the documents through "alternative means" after the City refused to provide them in accordance with the FOI laws. After the claim by corporation Counsel attorney Alexandra Deeb to the hearing officer that the report was not yet complete, I think she was caught off guard when I began producing copies of the City's own documents that I had obtained through "alternative means". ( I love that term ).

The claim that the investigation was not yet complete was met with my document, below as "claimant's exhibit C". (That's me claimant). It is the Command Review form that accompanies the investigation as it is forwarded up the ladder for discipline. As you can see in the document below, Deputy Chief Scott Sansom signed off on March 4, 2011 "INVESTIGATION COMPLETE, I CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND INFRACTION".

INVESTIGATION COMPLETE, it would seem pretty hard to then claim the report was not released because it was "incomplete" or ongoing. That Command review sheet was also signed off on the same day by Assistant Chief Brian Heavren and Chief Daryl K. Roberts.
Dailey Command Review Form

When I introduced the Command Review form, it seemed to create a problem for the City's claim that the report was not complete, Deputy Chief Sansom's words seemed to pretty clear, and also very legible "Investigation complete".The City's attorney regrouped quickly though and tried a new approach.

It was the City's contention that in their view the investigation was not complete until the disciplinary process had completely run its course and Dailey was either found liable or cleared. Their point is that it wouldn't be fair to Dailey for information to get out about the charges before he was disciplined. If you read the report, and Dailey's rebuttal, it should become pretty clear to you that the last thing Captain Bernier or the City cared about was fairness for Lt. Dailey.

It also seemed less than genuine on the part of the City's attorney to grasp at that small thread, if the hearing officer bought their claim that the report was "technically" not complete, they would also have to meet those couple little words for the exemption to apply..."records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime". They then stated on the record that criminal charges against Dailey were a possibility, though that seems to surprise everyone involved that I have spoke with.

But to point out the ridiculousness of that argument, I said that we go against that everyday in the Courts. If we went by the City's standard , no arrest report or arrest warrant would be made public until after a persons arrest was completely adjudicated through the courts with either a conviction or a dismissal, and we know that is not the case.

The City introduced a copy of a department policy, but I'm no lawyer, but I seem to recall that State Statute takes priority over any City Policy and because HPD may or may not have "a policy" that does not release them from complying with lawful state statutes.

Attorney Deeb from the Corporation Counsels office also did not seem thrilled that I had the full report and the documents I had and she tried to insinuate that Lt. Dailey had provided them to me. That was not the case, and I'm not sure what bearing that had on anything, other than the fact that it proved that the City was being less than truthful in their actions.

The FOI hearing officer also seemed to question why Chief Roberts was not there to defend his actions and those of his department. Eventually she ended the hearing, continuing it to another date and explained to the Corporation Counsel Attorney's that she expected Chief Roberts to appear or the FOI Commission would issue a subpoena to Roberts compelling him to appear. She stated that she would prefer to have Chief Robert's appear voluntarily rather than have to issue the subpoena.

The FOI Hearing Officer, Attorney Tracie Brown, explained that she would prefer the voluntay route rather than the subpoena because it might appear that the Commission was coming down on Hartford "like a hammer". Maybe it is about time that they do though, coming down on Hartford "like a hammer" might just send the message that the game playing with public documents is not going to be tolerated by FOI.

Below is the investigation report submitted by Captain Bernier, dated February 24, 2011, almost two months before I requested it through FOI, even though the City claims through its convoluted claims, that the report is incomplete.

And I know that sometimes these HPD postings may tend to become a means for bashing some through the comments, but I would ask for those reading, compare the Bernier report with Dailey's response and let me know if you think Bernier's report was fair or if Daileys response has validity. Is it proper in an investigation to leave out documents that show all of the facts or is it acceptable to only present the facts that would lead to a finding that Dailey was wrong?

A lot more to come on this, but enough typing and scanning documents for one night.

The charges against Dailey, please note there is no mention of any "criminal charges" as the City's attorneys claim there "may" be as an outcome for the investigation:
Dailey Disciplne Review Form

The Department Advocates letter to Dailey detailing depertmental charges, again no mention of potential criminal charges
Dailey Advocate Memo of Charges

And this is one of the reports omitted from Captain Berniers report, an interview conducted by Detective Fowler
Dailey Fowler Supplement Report

And Lieutenant Dailey's response to the allegations:

Dailey Respone Memo

And finally the Bernier "report",note the date on the cover page, even though the City contends the report is not complete:
Dailey Bernier Report

NAPPIER/KIDIK "SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT"

The "Special Investigative Report" (SIR) into the actions of Hartford Police Officer Jill Kidik and her traffic stop of State Treasurer Denise Nappier has been completed. Although I had requested the "SIR" through an FOI request to the Hartford Police Department, they have not complied. Voice messages left for HPD spokesperson Nancy Mulroy were not returned today. Surprise Surprise. So much for that "transparency" we keep hearing about from the Segarra Administration.

But as anyone who reads this blog knows, I have a tendency to obtain documents through "alternative means", when will the City ever learn that there are good people who want to do the right thing and are able to understand the FOI statutes.

Not much new information is revealed in the report. Although I still stand by what I said earlier, Officer Kidik seemed to exercise poor common sense the way she proceeded, especially when she realized that she was dealing with the State Treasurer.

It appears that Kidik is still being made out to be the scapegoat in the matter, but the admission by a DMV spokesperson seems to show who was really at fault. Apparently the DMV didn't enter the correct motor vehicle registration into the statewide computer system until September 2, 2011, the day AFTER the incident. If DMV had properly done their job, this incident would most likely never have occurred.

Another interesting point in the report is that when the investigator, LT. Emory Hightower, interviewed Nappier she apparently never mention ed any racial aspect or made any claims that she felt the incident was racially motivated as she originally did to the media.

The finding of the report recommends retraining for Officer Kidik, but it seems like several others should be spending time in a classroom, starting with DAS and DMV personnel who are the ones who seem to be the most responsible for this mess.

And now, for your weekend reading pleasure, here is the Nappier S.I.R:

Nappier Kidik SIR

Thursday, September 15, 2011

ANY DAY NOW....THE "RUDEWICZ REPORT"

Many of you, myself included, have been awaiting the release of the outside investigation of the Hartford Police Department which has become known as the "Rudewicz Report". The lead investigator is retired HPD officer Frank Rudewicz, now an attorney with Marcum Associates.

From what sources are telling me, a draft of the report was submitted to the City of Hartford Corporation Counsel this week and the city requested a few clarifications/changes to be made in the final report. The changes were supposed to be completed quickly and from one source I am told the report is expected to be submitted most likely by Monday at the latest.

It is interesting how the timing worked out for its release after the primary. Hmmmm.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

JUST A THOUGHT




This quote just seems so appropriate after yesterday's primary and as we head toward the November election

IS IT TOO EARLY FOR "I TOLD YOU SO" ?




The Hartford Courant is reporting that the Market at Hartford 21 is having problems and once again cutting back their hours. Here is a link to their story

I don't think anyone will argue with the need for a downtown market if we are going to provide basic conveniences to attract downtown residents. The problem arises though in how it is operated.

I don't think it made sense for the city to throw $300,000 at a couple that was familiar with the restaurant business, but not the grocery business. The key to that operation is to attract the people through the door and then have them buy something, not walk away because the prices are too high.

I recall the first time I went in the Market, I was surprised by their extremely high prices. I usually shop at Stew Leonard's in Newington so I am used to paying a little more for quality. At least at Stew Leonard's though when you pay a little more, the freshness and quality is there.

My first trip into the Market at Hartford 21 I looked at the produce and was turned off by the moldy strawberries in the produce case and although the cuts of meat probably were great when they were fresh, they were beginning to get a tint to them that wasn't calling out for a steak on the grill.

Like I said, the secret to an operation like that is volume. If you don't have customers coming through the door, the inventory isn't moving as quickly as it should, and the proprietor's don't make any money on products they throw out when they pass their shelf life.

The other problem is quantity purchases. One of the first things I noticed was the "RAO's Pasta Sauce" at the Market. Like I said, I'm used to paying more at Stew Leonard's and I'm willing to pay the $4.99 a jar they charge. The same item at the Market was $9.99 a jar. Stew Leonard's probably buys pallets, if not a truckload of the sauce, where as the Market may buy a case or two.

The market at Hartford 21, as a single location store, charges what they have to charge to make a profit, and probably a very small profit per unit at that.

I wish that the Market can make it, but empty shelves and constant cut backs of hours doesn't paint an optimistic picture. Maybe a store like Stew Leonard's might be interested in a location in downtown Hartford for a "Stew Leonard's Express". Although the sandwiches and baked goods at the Market were good, Stew Leonard's has a reputation that is part good food and groceries and part entertainment.

Although nothing is 100%, I would think Stew Leonard's could create a snowball effect in economic development for downtown. I think the message that Stew Leonard's is willing to take a chance on Hartford would draw others in as well. And before you think I'm crazy that Stew Leonard's would want anything in Hartford, I have been told by the Redevelopment Commission Chairperson Sean Arena that the discussions, although informal, had taken place previously before the Market was given the lease and the City's loan of $300,000 to start up.

Maybe this time, if the Market doesn't make it, Stew Leonard's should be approached with the goal on the part of the City of making it happen.