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
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
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

