Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

SEGARRA'S PLAN TO LOOT EDUCATION FUNDS TO BALANCE CITY BUDGET, BOARD PRESIDENT SAYS NO WAY, THREATENS TO GO "NUCLEAR"

We all knew it couldn't be true, there had to be a gimmick. How does a City that is essentially broke have no lay-offs, no tax increases, hire 20 additional police officers and close a potential 60 million dollar deficit? You can't without a little bit of fraud perpetrated on the taxpayers.

The solution simple, you loot the Board of Education retirees health Care Fund for $30 million

The e-mails below explain the situation better than I  can, so take a read. It promises to get messy as Pedro tries to cover his Mayoral butt to avoid being exposed as an incompetent leader in a critical election year. This is the start of the e-mail from Board President Rich Wareing, Mayor Segarra's response and Wareing's reply to Segarra . An FOI request was made to the City of Hartford to obtain these e-mails.

 At least one candidate familiar with the situation offered a reasonable alternative. It wont' help Segarra's budget picture, but currently the Board is considering closing the Renzulli School on Cornwall Street. Bob Killian suggested using a much smaller portion of the fund, which is currently over funded, to keep Renzulli open until other funding means can be explored and secured.

A request for comment from Mayor Segarra's Communications staff has gone unanswered.


Mr. Mayor,

I write in reference to the approximately $32m in assets held by the Board in reserve against future OPEB liabilities.  I learned this morning from sources within City Hall that it is your intent to use over $12m of the Board's money to balance the City's budget for FY 2015-16.  Unfortunately, this was consistent with other rumors I have heard to the effect that the City intends to use approximately $3.5m in Board money to balance the FY 2014-15 budget.  I just read an article in the Courant confirming your intention with respect to your FY 2015-16 budget and several points need to be made.

First, I should not have learn of things of this magnitude impacting the Board of Education in the news, nor should I have to rely on informal sources within City Hall.  I should have the courtesy of a call from you.  If you have time for cocktails with Brad Davis and well-heeled contributors, you have time to call me to discuss matters which significantly impact the education of our children.

Second, the Superintendent also had the right to notice before you made a public announcement on this subject.   This is especially true when, as you are well aware, she intended to use some of the surplus reserve to balance the FY 2015-16 budget without layoffs and position eliminations beyond those already announced.  Instead, you let her present a budget to the Board and the community based on assumptions which you knew at the time were inconsistent with your own budget plans, yet you remained silent.  Your conduct in this respect was unprofessional and disrespectful. More importantly, it has impaired her ability to do her job.  She deserves an apology and I fully expect that you will make one when you next meet with her privately.

Third, while the City maintains that these monies belong to it, you are well aware that the Board retained outside counsel who rendered a contrary opinion.  Indeed, when I met with Juan Figueroa and you to discuss this issue you both expressed considerable anger that the Board had done so.  I thought at the time your anger was caused by the Board having done so without informing the Corporation Counsel, which as I said at that time was a reasonable position.  It is now clear, however, that your anger was caused by the Board obtaining a legal opinion that might complicate your plan to use Board assets to balance the City's budget.  Indeed, that is no doubt why Mr. Figueroa took the position that the Board needed to obtain the Corporation Counsel's permission to retain outside counsel (which is not true where, as here, the Corporation Counsel cannot provide advice free of ethical conflict), or at the very least, was obliged to let him "craft the scope of the engagement," no doubt to limit our attorney's ability to offer an opinion that might contradict the Corporation Counsel's on this matter. In any event, this is not a matter that you can unilaterally resolve by a stroke of your budgeting pen.  This is a serious legal dispute that, unless handled with considerably more care than you have heretofore exhibited, is quite likely to enmesh the City and the Board in litigation; a result that would be disastrous.

Fourth, While some of the money used by the Board to fund its OPEB reserve was general funds, and some even from the City's modest $94m annual contribution to the Board's general fund, some of that money came from special funds to which the City never had, does not have, and never can have, a claim. Any appropriation by the City of the Board's OPEB reserve will thus necessarily involve its appropriation of State and Federal grant monies to which it has absolutely no legal claim.   This is obviously a serious issue to which the City has given little, if any, serious thought as evidenced by the fact that, when I raised this point with the Corporation Counsel and Mr. Hill, they were quite surprised to learn that special funds were also used to accumulate the Board's OPEB reserve.  Should the State of Connecticut or the United States question the City's conduct in this regard please understand that the City will be solely responsible for its conduct.

Fifth, in light of the foregoing, the Board may reed to rework its budget for the balance of this year and for FY 2015-16 and eliminate as much as $7m in spending.  If so, positions will be cut and the quality of service will be reduced.  Such additional cuts at the Board may allow you to balance your municipal election year budget without a tax increase or layoffs at City Hall, but they will hurt kids, especially those most in need. Indeed, as you know, the Superintendent estimates that the Board needs an additional $12m per annum to fully implement her plans to achieve equity for all learners.  While none of us excepted the City to actually appropriate this additional money, we expected - and reasonably so -- that City would not make it harder to achieve equity for all learners.

I will be candid, I see little hope of averting what Mr. Figueroa described in our meeting as a "constitutional crisis," given your reckless course of action.   I am, however, prepared to meet with you, Dr. Colon-Rivas, Mr. Stallings and the Superintendent to try to work through this issue.

R-----Original Message-----
From: Segarra, Pedro E. [mailto:SEGAP001@hartford.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 10:39 PM
To: Richard Wareing
Cc: Colon-Rivas, Jose F.; Matthew Poland - Library; cstall3@gmail.com; Shelley Best; Robert Cotto Jr; Brescia, Michael F.; Beth Taylor; Narvaez, Beth
Subject: Re: OPEB


I guess we have a disagreement as to facts, analysis, agreements and the status of finances. I also find your tone and approach most disrespectful. Given the late hour of the day I will respond more fully tomorrow and will meet with the appropriate parties as necessary.

Mayor Segarra


Sent from my iPhone

FW
From: Richard Wareing
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:17 AM
To: 'Segarra, Pedro E.'
Cc: Colon-Rivas, Jose F.; Matthew Poland - Library; cstall3@gmail.com; Shelley Best; Robert Cotto Jr; Brescia, Michael F.; Beth Taylor; Narvaez, Beth
Subject: RE: OPEB

Mr. Mayor,

The disagreements around this issue are hardly new, so your surprise is disconcerting.  It certainly does not auger well, but I remain committed, as I told Mr. Figueroa and you, to a "non-nuclear" solution.  I hope you feel similarly.

I make no apology for the lateness of the hour of my email.  I responded as soon as I finished reading your quotes in the newspaper.  Had you chosen to inform the Board and/or the Superintendent of your plan, prior to telling the Courant, we would have been having this conversation on a different timeline.

I won't attempt to parse your cryptic reply about your next steps.  It is enough to say that this matter will get resolved and it will get resolved with appropriate input from and consideration of the interests of the Board of Education.  There are several ways in which that could occur.  I would prefer that it be through honest dialogue between the key players.

Finally, I am in no way being disrespectful.  My tone and manner of address is appropriate, especially given the very serious subject.  What you dislike are the existence and contents of my communication, especially my having called you to task for the poor way in which you have treated the Superintendent.  I fear you have grown too used to hearing only  "yes" from those in your employ and the adulation of those who support you. 

RFW

 
 

Monday, April 20, 2015

MORE SEGARRA ELECTION YEAR NONSENSE

Last week I was surprised, actually I wasn't ,I am getting used to the Segarra stunts. But last week Segarra showed up at the Fire on Main St. in time for the Media live shots on the 11PM news casts. He was flanked by Councilman Anderson. Segarra was looking Mayoral and actually appearing to show concern for the residents. I have never seen Segarra or Anderson at previous fires or even shootings. Why start acting Mayoral now? Because it is an election year , clearly. I do have to give credit to his media handler, (Shelly not Maribel) for pulling the stunt off. Some gullible newswatchers might even fall for it.

 Then today Segarra releases his Budget for next year. How does $12 million in cuts equal closing a $60 million dollar deficit. It just doesn't add up, not unlike most things Segarra does. Oh and by the way, since it is an election year, Segarra is adding 20 cops, 10 cadets and 10 Dispatchers. He has had the money allocated from Federal funds for every year to add cops, he just didn't do it and banked the money, or whatever he does with unused Federal dollars. But then again it is an election year and people love promises of additional Cops, whether it comes true or not, after the election, who cares what he promised.

Segarra even got mileage out of the Aaron Hernandez verdict after a former NFL official made negative remarks about Hartford. Again good job Shelly. Now lets see what he does with today's remarks by Senator Fonfara at the legislative hearings into Segarra's plans to grab state tax dollars for funding the stadium. Fonfara's remarks were more offensive to Hartford than anything any NFL official could spout off. According to the Courant, Fonfara is on record as saying" Hartford's North End is a drug-selling bazaar for suburbanites who drive from their comfortable communities into "one of the toughest neighborhoods in the state of Connecticut.'' Yeah , that's  not too offensive to Segarra's city, but I doubt we will see a word on Segarra's Twitter account. It's an election year.

For everyone that is represented by the good Senator Fonfara , be sure to remember at election time what the Senator thinks of you and your drug dealing Bazaar and be sure to ask him what he has done to change it.

You can read the Courant's article and the Senator's comments here

Be sure to cut through the garbage before you vote.

Friday, April 17, 2015

COURANT : "HUERTAS MUST GO"

Hartford's version of Patton? Hardly
 
On December 31 I called for Chief Huertas to resign. Nothing has changed since then, and the embarrassment to the City of Hartford continues.

Now the Hartford Courant has weighed in on the controversy calling for Chief Huertas to be removed, You can read their editorial here.

You can read my original posting here

It was an interesting comment yesterday regarding Huertas's management style that he doesn't communicate, he gives orders. Maybe that is a big part of the problem there. A little more comunication at HFD might help.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

SPANKED

The Hartford City Council got a very expensive lesson in democracy today at the hands of  Superior Court  Judge Constance Epstein. I say expensive because the only ones who have benefited from the legal battle over removing Hartford's Registrars are the attorneys. Probably upwards of $300,000  has already been spent and the battle isn't over.

The price tag will continue to rise as a result of the dangerous path this incompetent Council has taken us down. Will the Registrars now file legal suits for irreparable harm done to their professional reputations by Wooden and the Council's actions. Imagine what that pricetag could be

I have been pretty vocal , even here on the blog that I thought the process of removing an elected official duly chosen by the voters was a dangerous proposition. Further more it seemed improper to me that the same body that determined the charges was then going o sit in judgement of the alleged offenders and  if they determined guilt they would then determine the punishment. The term Judge , Jury and Executioner comes to mind. And I have never spent a day in law school, unlike several of our Councilpeople , as well as their buddies they brought in as "experts" to advise them at significant expense to Hartford's taxpayers.

Why would the Council ever think it was advisable to take the advice of the author of Hartford's Charter to now interpret it and naturally claim he was correct when it was presented to the voters of Hartford years ago . Did they really think he would say "I was wrong, the Charter is flawed" Come on, he's a lawyer.

Luckily, in the initial evaluation, Judge Epstein got it right. Apparently she didn't get her law degree from Walmart like the rest of them.

I was amazed last month when I asked Council President Wooden if there was any estimate of what the Registrar's impeachment could potentially cost. Had anyone thought about the impact before they embarked on their actions. His answer was a quick "NO". Is that responsible stewardship of the taxpayers dollars? I would say not.

WHO IS THE ZACCO GROUP?

Apparently there was a brush up last night between Councilman DeJesus and an indignant Council President Shawn Wooden. The incident arose over a question Dejesus raised on agenda item 3, a resolution to give a City owned building on Broad Street to the Zacco Group for $1.00. Yes you read that right,  one dollar. The issue arose when Dejesus questioned who the Zacco Group is and why we are giving them a property for $1.00. Apparently the Council President felt that Councilman Dejesus had no reason to question his vote . We all know that this Council under Wooden is supposed to blindly follow and rubber stamp the Segarra agenda.

 There is still no answer as to who the Zacco Group is and why Segarra feels obligated to give them the Broad Street property for almost nothing The lot is too small for a baseball stadium so who knows.

Congratulations to Councilman Dejesus for attempting to protect the interests of the voters who put him there. Shame on Council President Wooden for being a roadblock to the Democratic process.

Monday, April 13, 2015

BUSINESS AS USUAL

Take a look at the mandatory filings that were required to be submitted by Friday for Mayoral candidates. One look will tell you why Hartford is the financial mess that it is.

The long shot candidate, Working Family Party Councilman Joel Cruz claims that he has raised
$4800.00 so far, of which he has spent all but $150.00. He also claims expenses in excess of $9800.00 It kind of sounds like the way the Hartford City Budget is run, where expenses far exceed income.

Good job Councilman Cruz, keep it up and I am sure there will be a spot waiting for you on Hartford's Management and Budget Committee

Here is a link to Steve Goode's story in the Courant.

 The itemized filings from each candidate will be posted here later in the week and you will be able to see for yourself where the support is coming from