The Police Commission held a special meeting this evening at Police HQ on North High Street. There was only one item on the agenda: authorizing Fred Brow to retain the services of legal counsel for the Board. That was an easy win for the Democrats since neither of the Republicans showed up for the meeting. Watch the entire 2 minute meeting here or below:
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Civil Service Commission - July 30, 2008
The Civil Service Commission held a special meeting on July 30th. The agenda states they are going to be discussing the certified list for detective from the Police Department and the Nappe matter. As soon as the meeting opened Lou Crisci made a motion to go into executive session "to discuss our legal issues." Including myself, there were 4 attorneys in the room. Commissioner Crisci, Town Attorney Cofrancesco and the new attorney for the Civil Service Commission. I am retired as an attorney but retain an interest in open meetings since I do a lot of taping and commenting on them. Anytime a board or commission goes into executive session it reduces the public's chance of observing what our officials are doing. Since I am hard of hearing I did not hear the wording of the motion beyond the part about an executive session. When I got home and unloaded the tape to my computer I heard the motion, in full, for the first time.
If I had heard the full motion in the meeting room I would have pointed out to the Commissioners that the notice given by Attorney Crisci's motion was inadequate under the Connecticut of Freedom of Information Act. For example, here is a case I filed against our Board of Education on just this issue of notice for an executive session. The Freedom of Information Commission ruled that an item labeled “Personnel/Legal Issue” does not give valid notice for going into executive session.
When the Commission returned from their executive session they addressed the issue of the certified list for detective. The Commission had not received a request from the previous evening's Police Commission meeting so they took no action beyond asking the Civil Service Director ask the Police Commission to send a request for the certified list. Then, since they had discussed the Nappe case in the executive session, there was no public discussion of that matter.
Watch the entire public part of the meeting here or below:
If I had heard the full motion in the meeting room I would have pointed out to the Commissioners that the notice given by Attorney Crisci's motion was inadequate under the Connecticut of Freedom of Information Act. For example, here is a case I filed against our Board of Education on just this issue of notice for an executive session. The Freedom of Information Commission ruled that an item labeled “Personnel/Legal Issue” does not give valid notice for going into executive session.
When the Commission returned from their executive session they addressed the issue of the certified list for detective. The Commission had not received a request from the previous evening's Police Commission meeting so they took no action beyond asking the Civil Service Director ask the Police Commission to send a request for the certified list. Then, since they had discussed the Nappe case in the executive session, there was no public discussion of that matter.
Watch the entire public part of the meeting here or below:
Police Commission - July 29, 2008 ***Updated***
The Board of Police Commissioners met for their July meeting on the 29th. There was an ongoing battle all night between the Democrats and Republicans over, just about, every item on the agenda. The meeting opened with approval of the minutes for the May 27th and June 3rd meetings. The June 3rd meeting was the one Pat Romano is claiming was illegal. Due to the question of whether the meeting was legal, or not, the Republican members voted against approving the minutes.
The next tussle occurred over the grievance filed by the Police Union on the rehiring, and subsequent layoff, of Officer Nappe. Again, the Republicans contended the meeting held on June 3rd which ordered the rehiring was illegal. Therefore, Officer Nappe is not part of the union which makes the grievance invalid. The Democrats contend he was hired and they should hear the grievance. The union president claims the contract requires the Commission hear the grievance at the next meeting after the grievance is filed. It got pretty ugly for awhile among the Commission members, the union president and Lou Crisci from the Civil Service Commission. Watch the discussion here or below:
The next fight erupted over the request of a certified list for detective from the Civil Service Commission. The Republicans claim the June 3rd meeting was illegal, therefore they need to issue a new request. The Democrats claim the request they issued subsequent to the June 3rd meeting is valid and asked that another letter be sent to the Civil Service Commission based on the vote at the June 3rd meeting. At this point you may be asking if the Police Commission meetings are starting to border on farce. I could not disagree with such an assessment. I will have video of that exchange soon so you can make up your own minds.
***Update #1 ***
Watch the video of the discussion about the detective certified list here or below:
The next tussle occurred over the grievance filed by the Police Union on the rehiring, and subsequent layoff, of Officer Nappe. Again, the Republicans contended the meeting held on June 3rd which ordered the rehiring was illegal. Therefore, Officer Nappe is not part of the union which makes the grievance invalid. The Democrats contend he was hired and they should hear the grievance. The union president claims the contract requires the Commission hear the grievance at the next meeting after the grievance is filed. It got pretty ugly for awhile among the Commission members, the union president and Lou Crisci from the Civil Service Commission. Watch the discussion here or below:
The next fight erupted over the request of a certified list for detective from the Civil Service Commission. The Republicans claim the June 3rd meeting was illegal, therefore they need to issue a new request. The Democrats claim the request they issued subsequent to the June 3rd meeting is valid and asked that another letter be sent to the Civil Service Commission based on the vote at the June 3rd meeting. At this point you may be asking if the Police Commission meetings are starting to border on farce. I could not disagree with such an assessment. I will have video of that exchange soon so you can make up your own minds.
***Update #1 ***
Watch the video of the discussion about the detective certified list here or below:
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Meetings of Interest (***Updated****)
***Update*** Time of the Police Commission meeting is 7:00 PM
There are two meetings of interest this week. The first is the monthly Police Commission meeting which is being held at 7:00 PM at the Senior Center on Tuesday, the 29th. The way the Police Commission meetings have been working the last several months I have no idea what is going to happen but it should make for good video which I will post as soon as I have it available.
The second interesting meeting is a Special Meeting of the Civil Service Commission. That will be held at 7 PM in Town Hall. The meeting agenda is here. From the agenda it looks like they are going to take up where they left off last week with the Nappe case. This time, we can all hope, Mr. Crisci does not exhibit the boorish behavior he did last time. We should, in any event, find out which attorney the Town has retained to represent the Civil Service Commission. Normally that would be the job of the Town Attorney but she is conflicted out of the case since she used to represent Nappe. In any event it should be an interesting meeting and I will bring you the video as soon as I can.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Board of Finance - Special Meeting - 7/23/2008 ***Update #2***
There is a special meeting of the Board of Finance this evening at 7 PM in Town Hall. The meeting includes a presentation on the previous years budget by the auditors and a continuation of the legal bills saga. The audit report is several months behind schedule and it will be interesting to see what the auditors have to say.
We sure had a hot time in Town Hall tonight. The first clip I have is of the Town Attorney attempting to answer a question from Paul Karbowski (R) about hiring a member of her firm to handle the litigation against the airport. Karkbowski has attempted to make it look like that is an unheard of thing. Attorney Cofrancesco came prepared with bills and invoices from the previous Town Attorney who not only had himself but, also, 2 members of his firm on retainer to the Town of East Haven. The Republican Town Attorney, Larry Sgrignari, not only had himself and 2 members of his firm on retainer, he also hired his firm to handle certain matters for the Town in excess of those retainers. The bills for the work that was not handled by the retainers amounted to over $103,000 in fiscal year 2006-2007 alone. If the retainers are added to the $103,000 it is likely Maturo's Town Attorney made well over $200,000 for his firm every year. Watch the video here or below:
***Update #2***
The lack of civility of the Republican members of the Board of Finance was on display this week at the Special Meeting. This seems to be a recurring theme with the Republican members of various Boards and Commissions lately. Last week we had Attorney Lou Crisci on the Civil Service Commission acting petulant. This week Doc Schlegal is having a hard time understanding what the Auditor was explaining to him so Doc called him a liar. The Mayor tried to diffuse the incivility but Doc seemed adamant on holding his ground. Watch it here or below:
We sure had a hot time in Town Hall tonight. The first clip I have is of the Town Attorney attempting to answer a question from Paul Karbowski (R) about hiring a member of her firm to handle the litigation against the airport. Karkbowski has attempted to make it look like that is an unheard of thing. Attorney Cofrancesco came prepared with bills and invoices from the previous Town Attorney who not only had himself but, also, 2 members of his firm on retainer to the Town of East Haven. The Republican Town Attorney, Larry Sgrignari, not only had himself and 2 members of his firm on retainer, he also hired his firm to handle certain matters for the Town in excess of those retainers. The bills for the work that was not handled by the retainers amounted to over $103,000 in fiscal year 2006-2007 alone. If the retainers are added to the $103,000 it is likely Maturo's Town Attorney made well over $200,000 for his firm every year. Watch the video here or below:
***Update #2***
The lack of civility of the Republican members of the Board of Finance was on display this week at the Special Meeting. This seems to be a recurring theme with the Republican members of various Boards and Commissions lately. Last week we had Attorney Lou Crisci on the Civil Service Commission acting petulant. This week Doc Schlegal is having a hard time understanding what the Auditor was explaining to him so Doc called him a liar. The Mayor tried to diffuse the incivility but Doc seemed adamant on holding his ground. Watch it here or below:
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
East Haven Board of Finance - July 16, 2008
Last week's Board of Finance meeting should have been a fairly tame affair. However, the Board members displayed their habitual cantankerousness right out of the gate with the transfer of money to pay the lawyers and continued for most of the rest of the evening. It sure did not help any that the packets provided to the Board members were lacking in a lot of the details needed for some items, including the transfer of funds for the legal account. If I am not mistaken the backup for the legal transfers were a single page of handwritten notes on the transfer with no detail information. Watch the entire meeting here or below:
Monday, July 21, 2008
Civil Service Commission Nappe Discussion - 7/14/2008
Here is the complete discussion on the Nappe issue held by the East Haven Civil Service Commission on July 14th. As I noted in an earlier posting the Republican appointees on the Commission behaved atrociously that evening. Here, without further ado, is the complete discussion:
Thursday, July 17, 2008
PZC Public Hearing for the Quarry on Russo Ave
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
(Un)Civil Service Commission Meeting - July 14, 2008
There are times when I think the Nappe case just drives people insane. Take, for instance, the time one of the attendees of a Police Commission meeting yelled at the Mayor when she was suggesting a prayer might be in order for a Commissioner that had been hospitalized. Tuesday night was no exception. For some reason, unknowable to mere mortals, the Civil Service Commissioners who were appointed by Joe Maturo decided to take it upon themselves to tell the Police Commission they could not restore Officer Nappe to his job no matter what the judge in the case has told the Town of East Haven to do. Louis Crisci, an attorney and chief hatchet man for the evening, decided to push his agenda no matter how preposterous it was. You could tell that his frustration was rising in the following segments where he yells at the Clerk for the Commission and brusquely stops the lone Democratic Commissioner from stating her position on the matter.
To me it seems that the hotheaded Commissioner Crisci owes Andrea Liquori, the Clerk of the Commission, an apology. Maybe when you are doing the dirty work for the Republican party your basic sense of civility flys out the window. Nonetheless, that is not a reason for treating anyone like he treated the people in that room on Tuesday.
To me it seems that the hotheaded Commissioner Crisci owes Andrea Liquori, the Clerk of the Commission, an apology. Maybe when you are doing the dirty work for the Republican party your basic sense of civility flys out the window. Nonetheless, that is not a reason for treating anyone like he treated the people in that room on Tuesday.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Planning and Zoning Comm. - July 2, 2008 Old Foxon Road Quarry
When I went to the Planning and Zoning Commission ("PZC") meeting last night I thought it would be over pretty quick. There were 2 public hearings scheduled at 7PM and the meeting itself was scheduled for 7:30PM. I thought I would be home by 8 PM. Was I wrong!
First, there was a hearing on the property at 110 Barberry Road (see below for an explanation and video). That had been before the Commission on numerous occasions and should have wrapped up quickly. In the end it took up almost 25 minutes by itself and the applicant has to come back for another hearing in September.
The second public hearing was on the property at 176 Old Foxon Road (aka 204 Russo Avenue). The hearing lasted a little over an hour and put an end to my thoughts of a short meeting. A little history on this particular parcel may explain why the neighbors went on for over an hour with anguished pleas to deny the application. Back in 2001 the developer, Oakledge Development Corp made an application to build 55+ senior housing on the site. However, in order to "prepare" the site for the senior housing the developer had to remove rock from the site. It is fortunate for the developer, Oakledge, that the rock could be sold for a profit. The developer would, essentially, be running a quarry on the site for 5 years. At the time, and ever since, the neighbors have been saying the senior housing is nothing but a cover for Oakledge to run a quarry without having to get approval for a quarry operation.
A normal person would ask, why would Oakledge go to the trouble of applying for a senior housing when it just wanted to sell the rock? If they just wanted to sell the rock they would have had to apply for a quarry permit. Quarry permits are much harder to get than getting a senior housing permit and then doing the "site preparation" work of quarrying the rock. If the developer really wants to quarry the rock the only practical way to do it is through the ruse of the senior housing.
In 2006 the original 5 year permit was due to expire when the developer went back to the PZC for a 2 year extension. The extension was granted. Now, 2 years later, they are back for another 2 year extension. The neighbors see no end in sight to the quarrying and blasting on the site. No work has been done on the site to prepare for senior housing or any other development. It is no wonder why the neighbors think the senior housing is all just a charade perpetrated by the developer, the attorneys and the PZC. One of the neighbors mentioned the incestuous relationships among the parties involved in this project. I will be digging into the campaign financial disclosure forms, public filings and PZC records and will let you know what I find in a future post. For now, watch some of the neighbors arguing against the 2 year extension here, or below:
At one point during the public hearing, the lawyer for the developer got into a bit of a snit over being questioned by mere mortals. "We can blast without Planning and Zoning permission." He also told the peasants who were rising up against his client, "we can have trucks running 24 hours a day." He may, or may not, be legally correct. However, he did sound like a heartless twit who was threatening the neighbors with far worse if they did not shut up and leave him and his client alone. Watch it here or below:
First, there was a hearing on the property at 110 Barberry Road (see below for an explanation and video). That had been before the Commission on numerous occasions and should have wrapped up quickly. In the end it took up almost 25 minutes by itself and the applicant has to come back for another hearing in September.
The second public hearing was on the property at 176 Old Foxon Road (aka 204 Russo Avenue). The hearing lasted a little over an hour and put an end to my thoughts of a short meeting. A little history on this particular parcel may explain why the neighbors went on for over an hour with anguished pleas to deny the application. Back in 2001 the developer, Oakledge Development Corp made an application to build 55+ senior housing on the site. However, in order to "prepare" the site for the senior housing the developer had to remove rock from the site. It is fortunate for the developer, Oakledge, that the rock could be sold for a profit. The developer would, essentially, be running a quarry on the site for 5 years. At the time, and ever since, the neighbors have been saying the senior housing is nothing but a cover for Oakledge to run a quarry without having to get approval for a quarry operation.
A normal person would ask, why would Oakledge go to the trouble of applying for a senior housing when it just wanted to sell the rock? If they just wanted to sell the rock they would have had to apply for a quarry permit. Quarry permits are much harder to get than getting a senior housing permit and then doing the "site preparation" work of quarrying the rock. If the developer really wants to quarry the rock the only practical way to do it is through the ruse of the senior housing.
In 2006 the original 5 year permit was due to expire when the developer went back to the PZC for a 2 year extension. The extension was granted. Now, 2 years later, they are back for another 2 year extension. The neighbors see no end in sight to the quarrying and blasting on the site. No work has been done on the site to prepare for senior housing or any other development. It is no wonder why the neighbors think the senior housing is all just a charade perpetrated by the developer, the attorneys and the PZC. One of the neighbors mentioned the incestuous relationships among the parties involved in this project. I will be digging into the campaign financial disclosure forms, public filings and PZC records and will let you know what I find in a future post. For now, watch some of the neighbors arguing against the 2 year extension here, or below:
At one point during the public hearing, the lawyer for the developer got into a bit of a snit over being questioned by mere mortals. "We can blast without Planning and Zoning permission." He also told the peasants who were rising up against his client, "we can have trucks running 24 hours a day." He may, or may not, be legally correct. However, he did sound like a heartless twit who was threatening the neighbors with far worse if they did not shut up and leave him and his client alone. Watch it here or below:
Planning and Zoning Comm. - July 2, 2008 100 Barberry Road
There was a public hearing in front of the PZC on Wednesday night. One of applications considered was for 110 Barberry Road to subdivide 55 acres into 2 parcels. Robert Neubig, the owner, appeared to argue for the right to subdivide. However, there were issues with the Health Department approval that needed to be corrected before the application will be granted. Apparently, the plans the Health Department approved were not the plans he proposed in his application to the PZC. The Commission sent him back to the Health Department to get approval on the plans as he submitted them last night. Watch the video here or below:
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Voting District Map (1st draft)
Here is a map of the 5 voting districts in East Haven. To which district you are in click on the pin. This is a first draft and I am looking to add shading, district names on the map itself and some voter registration information for each district. Let me know if you have any suggestions, corrections or comments.
View Larger Map
View Larger Map
School Roof Bonding
During the past several weeks I have heard many questions arise about how the town will pay for the 4 new school roofs. Here are some of the most common questions:
1. Will the Town borrow $9.5 million? - The short answer is no. The Town will, in the end, borrow approximately $2.2 million. The State of Connecticut through the school construction and clean energy funds will pay for the rest of the cost for the new roofs and solar panels.
2. Why did the Town Council vote to borrow $9.5 million? - The State of Connecticut requires any school construction project involving state grants be totally funded before it begins. The Town Council, therefore, had to vote to bond the entire project even though the full amount will never be borrowed by the Town.
3. How will the State pay for the construction work? - As the work is being done the contractors will submit bills to the Town. The Town will submit the bills to the State. The State will pay their share of the bills (approximately 68%) and the Town will pay the remainder.
4. Can the State of Connecticut decide to not pay their amount after the work has started? - With the State going through a tight budget year this seems a very good question. However, the State is obligated to pay for the school construction and clean energy projects once those projects are approved.
Watch the answers to these questions from the Town Council meeting the other night here or below:
1. Will the Town borrow $9.5 million? - The short answer is no. The Town will, in the end, borrow approximately $2.2 million. The State of Connecticut through the school construction and clean energy funds will pay for the rest of the cost for the new roofs and solar panels.
2. Why did the Town Council vote to borrow $9.5 million? - The State of Connecticut requires any school construction project involving state grants be totally funded before it begins. The Town Council, therefore, had to vote to bond the entire project even though the full amount will never be borrowed by the Town.
3. How will the State pay for the construction work? - As the work is being done the contractors will submit bills to the Town. The Town will submit the bills to the State. The State will pay their share of the bills (approximately 68%) and the Town will pay the remainder.
4. Can the State of Connecticut decide to not pay their amount after the work has started? - With the State going through a tight budget year this seems a very good question. However, the State is obligated to pay for the school construction and clean energy projects once those projects are approved.
Watch the answers to these questions from the Town Council meeting the other night here or below:
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Town Council - June 30, 2008
The Town Council meeting got off to a rocky start last night. About 10 minutes before the start of the Public Hearing, Councilman Parlato raised an issue with the notification for the Board of Finance meeting last week. If the notification was done improperly then, under the Freedom of Information Act, the Board of Finance meeting was invalid. If that meeting was invalid then the Town Council could not vote on the roofing project until the Board of Finance held a valid meeting. If it seems confusing to you then you would have been right at home at the Town Council meeting.
The Mayor, Town Attorney, Vice-Chairman of the Town Council and other members of the Mayor's Administration went upstairs to determine whether or not the Board of Finance meeting had been noticed properly. The time for the 7:00PM start of the meeting passed and still there was no resolution. Apparently, Mr. Hongo came downstairs and asked for another 2 minutes to resolve the issue at 7PM. However, at 7:15 the Republicans left the conference room to go home. Around 7:20 the Mayor and the other Democrats returned to find the Republicans missing and no quorum (8 members are needed for a quorun). At that point the Mayor and Democratic Town Chairman started to frantically get another Democratic member of the Town Council to show up. Finally, around 7:45 there was a quorum present and the Republicans, except for Mr. Parlato, returned to the conference room for the start of the public hearing.
The following clip shows the various explanations for what happened. Gary DePalma, the Dem Vice-Chairman and Kenny McKay, the Republican leader, express their view on what did, and should have, occurred. Watch it here or below:
In the end the bonding for the roof work on the 4 schools passed. I will have more on the pros and cons of doing the roofs in a future post.
The Mayor, Town Attorney, Vice-Chairman of the Town Council and other members of the Mayor's Administration went upstairs to determine whether or not the Board of Finance meeting had been noticed properly. The time for the 7:00PM start of the meeting passed and still there was no resolution. Apparently, Mr. Hongo came downstairs and asked for another 2 minutes to resolve the issue at 7PM. However, at 7:15 the Republicans left the conference room to go home. Around 7:20 the Mayor and the other Democrats returned to find the Republicans missing and no quorum (8 members are needed for a quorun). At that point the Mayor and Democratic Town Chairman started to frantically get another Democratic member of the Town Council to show up. Finally, around 7:45 there was a quorum present and the Republicans, except for Mr. Parlato, returned to the conference room for the start of the public hearing.
The following clip shows the various explanations for what happened. Gary DePalma, the Dem Vice-Chairman and Kenny McKay, the Republican leader, express their view on what did, and should have, occurred. Watch it here or below:
In the end the bonding for the roof work on the 4 schools passed. I will have more on the pros and cons of doing the roofs in a future post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
