With a 13-2 vote the Common Council voted against the finding and recommendation of the City’s Ethics commission to reprimand one of their own for a conflict of interest or violations of two ethics city codes.
Please note of the 13-2 vote recorded simply means that the Alderman in question voted on his own issue creating still another conflict to be added to the existing pile of his voting conflicts recorded as though to say to the voters that elected him “ he cannot be touched”.
With a very brazen attitude he elected to vote with his conflicting manner, as he has in the past many times, on an issue to not accept the Ethics commission’s findings resulting from the hearing that found him violation of two sections of the city’s code of ethics.
Voters remember when you vote this coming November that all the Democratic members of the council voted to ignore the findings of the city's ethics commission and that included Mr. Ethics himself;
“Alderman Phil Sherwood”.
His is part of the “untouchables” of the Democratic Council membership.
They really think that they are unsinkable.
I have known Paul C and Mr. Salvio for many years. This seemed like it was done because of politics and because Paul is a union guy and is he one of them councilors that tried to update the conflicts ethics laws?...did that even happen or was this payback.
ReplyDeleteIf the council voted the complaint down they probably did the right thing. I've seen how Mr. Salvio can conduct himself in the meetings on television and it seems he is too negative and often chastising other people.
On January 21, 2009 the New Britain Board of Ethics voted unanimously (5 – 0) that NB Alderman Paul Catanzaro was guilty of two charges of conflicts of interest.
ReplyDeleteThey recommended to The Common Council that the Alderman be reprimanded.
Please understand that The Board thoroughly investigated the conflict issue
Compare The Board’s findings with those of all 13 Council Democrats (yes, including Catanzaro) at the NB Common Council meeting on Wed., 2/11/09. With a 13-2 vote the Common Council voted against the finding and recommendation of the City’s Ethics commission to reprimand one of their own for a conflict of interest.
Only Republican aldermen Bernacki and Salvio voted to uphold The Board’s findings. The 13 Democrats, without thorough investigation simply decided that the Board’s findings were without merit. Typical!
Please note, the 13-2 vote recorded by the town clerk, simply means that the Alderman in question voted on his own issue.
And so did Mr. Ethics of the Common Council Alderman P. Sherwood proving his word is of no value politically.
Reply To Anonymous who posted the following:
ReplyDelete"I have known Paul C and Mr. Salvio for many years. This seemed like it was done because of politics and because Paul is a union guy and is he one of them councilors that tried to update the conflicts ethics laws?...did that even happen or was this payback.
If the council voted the complaint down they probably did the right thing. I've seen how Mr. Salvio can conduct himself in the meetings on television and it seems he is too negative and often chastising other people."
I must point out to you sir that the union has nothing to do with the problem that exist with Alderman Catanzaro's conflicts.
As I have stated he continually votes on issues that not only appears to be a conflict but does vote when he does have a direct conflict of interest and submits his conflict vote knowingly.
I do understand you speak out of friendship but I speak from watching his direpute to acting properly with his votes.
Amazing. Paul Cantanzaro votes on his own ethics finding. This is totally unacceptable and needs to be brought up to a higher authority. How can residents and taxpayers trust in this goverment
ReplyDeleteto serve the people that have been
elected. What is it going to take
for voters to make informed votes.
Mr. Salvio is negative regarding such issues? Tell me what there is
to be positive about with this un-ethical council? Name something, anything they have done to serve
this community with thought and honesty? Anyone reading come up with an answer as to why we should
have any of the people who currently sit on the council.
It makes perfect sense that Catanzaro would vote on his own ethics findings since he is only looking out for himself as is his custom.
ReplyDeleteHis lack of concern for others is apparent in the way he neglects his own property. His yard is always a mess and his house is falling apart. His lack of attention to his own property is bringing down the value of his neighbors property. If you don’t believe me, take a ride by 250 Hillhurst Ave. and see for yourself.
This is nothing more than a clear picture of how he would allow our city to be ran if he had a chance.
One Big Unethical Mess!
I feel the reinstatement of the building commission was a very positive item passed by the council
ReplyDeletebecause absentee landlords and predator slumlords will be held accountable for the investments that the make.I am a handicapped person who suffers from the negligence of absentee landlords.
now the commission can audit the building dept to make sure enforcment is carried out.
Rose Kaminski,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t count on that if I were you. If the mushrooms would vote against the ethics commission and their findings what makes you so sure they wouldn’t do the same with the findings of the building commission?
You can’t count on them for anything but padding their own egos.
Is it true that Tim's daughter is on one of those commissions that oversee a lot of federal money?
ReplyDeleteGive me a break, we all know the only reason the city has a building commission is because the democrat council was upset at the lack of enforcement. If you're going to be up on public officials that is your right. But if you want to have credibility stick to the facts.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, couldn't help but notice that there is NOT ONE HOUSING ADVOCATE on the building commission. So it will be a joke. Thank you mayor for standing up with the slumlords once again.
Frank:
ReplyDeleteIt would be good for you and those alleging conflicts by members of the Council to read the code of ethics.
It's hard for someone like me who doesn't have an axe to grind in the city to find any conflict anywhere on any votes by alderman after reading the code.
Conclusion: complaints are partisan personal attacks by Salvio who engages in name calling and character assasination :(
In response to the anonymous who stated that he could not find in the ethics codes where anyone ever voted wrongfully.
ReplyDeleteI personally wrote a newspaper article taking exception to this alderman voting on an issue involving his conflict by voting on his own motion that affected his own boss where he works at a city department.
Did last night’s vote by this very same alderman voting on the ethics issue that involved him give any rise to you that a conflict of interest was underway by his voting on the issue?
If not you better you better stop drinking the cool aid.
Frank, we all have bias, but yours is coming across particularly strong.
ReplyDeleteYou have not mentioned or tried to hold Alderman Salvio responsible for disclosing information form executive session to the press during this complaint process. Fine if you think Paul is a self serving official...but be a little more consistent with your criticism and critique.
Sec. 2-449. Prohibited activities.ETHICS CODE
(c) No official or employee shall willfully and knowingly disclose confidential information
acquired in the course of and by reason of official duties. He/she shall not use any
confidential information obtained from public office or employment to obtain financial
gain for himself/herself, family member or a business with which he/she is associated.
Sorry Frank. It's clear you still haven't read the code and are just spreading falsehoods.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how the ethics commission (by the way comprised of Mayor Stewart supporters that is a true violation of the code the code) had the gall to cite the sections of the code they did in finding against Catanzaro.
In the good old days a conflict of interest was when an official or a member of the immediate value voted on something that provided something of material value.
If someone can explain how Alderman Catanzaro can remain objective when:
ReplyDeleteWhile associated with HRA he was voting on items that directly benefited them.
While he is a current employee of the city he votes on items that directly affect the budget, staffing etc... For the department he works for. Essentially he is his own boss’s boss.
And now unbelievably he votes to dismiss a find of ethics violation against him???? Even though the commission of 5 voted unanimously that he in fact did have ethics violation.
Janet clatoricz said...
ReplyDeleteIs it true that Tim's daughter is on one of those commissions that oversee a lot of federal money?.....
I believe that she is. Though I can’t see how that is relevant. I think that you are trying to imply that she or Mayor Stewart has a conflict of interest. Janet If I am not mistaken the common council approves or at least reviews the mayors commission nominations. Apparently they were ok with it. What is the ethics violation that you were implying that they are guilty of? I think Ms Stewart has become a formidable politician in her own right. But to attack her simply because she is “Tim’s daughter" is childish at best.
What part of a "unanimous" vote by the ethics commission don't these bleeding hearts understand? If it is a partisan vote by the ethics commission as alleged by Catanzaro's defenders, then why did the Democrats on the ethics commission vote in favor of the decision?
ReplyDeleteIt also appears that the left wing loons see nothing wrong with an alderman voting to reject his own ethics violations.
This is the evidence that there is something seriously wrong with the system. Maybe it is time for the state to establish a statewide ethics commission with direct authority over municipal governments because it is obvious that they can not police themselves.
This voting on your own ethics commission ruling seems to me that it would rise to the level for an impeachment in the Senate in accordance with the state constitution.
Maybe it is time this Alderman were brought before the legislature to answer for these violations.
That would be one way to restore trust in government in New Britain.
Rep. Frankel, a member of the investigatory committee, stated in House debate what he considered impeachable conduct.
ReplyDeleteIt is my belief that historically, and that there is ample precedent, that impeachable conduct is in fact a course of conduct which is improper, which is wrongful, and which makes an office holder unfit to continue to hold that office because it brings disdain upon that office and violates the public trust. I believe that is the standard, and I believe that is the standard which we should, if we ultimately consider the resolution before us, to look to.
IF THIS DOESN'T DESCRIBE CATANZARO'S ACTIONS, WHAT DOES???
IMPEACH!!!!!
The founding fathers thought that the prohibition of legislators holding employment with the state government was so important to the effectiveness of state government, that they wrote the prohibition into the state constitution:
ReplyDeleteSEC. 11. No member of the general assembly shall, during the term for which he is elected, hold or accept any appointive position or office in the judicial or executive department of the state government, or in the courts of the political subdivisions of the state, or in the government of any county. No member of congress, no person holding any office under the authority of the United States and no person holding any office in the judicial or executive department of the state government or in the government of any county shall be a member of the general assembly during his continuance in such office.
Although this prohibition does not apply to municipal governments, the same reasons that made it so vital to prohibit this conduct on behalf of state employees also exist within any municipal government. Any city or town that has failed to enact similar prohibitions is simply neglecting to protect the integrity of their process.
Can anyone argue that voting on your own ethics violation after a unanimous decision by the Ethics Commission, doesn't rise to the level of impeachment??? Then let's get this process started:
ReplyDeleteARTICLE NINTH.
OF IMPEACHMENTS.
SEC. 1. The house of representatives shall have the sole power of impeaching.
SEC. 2. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the members present. When the governor is impeached, the chief justice shall preside.
SEC. 3. The governor, and all other executive and judicial officers, shall be liable to impeachment; but judgments in such cases shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust or profit under the state. The party convicted, shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial and punishment according to law.
SEC. 4. Treason against the state shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. No conviction of treason, or attainder, shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture.
Anonymous says...
ReplyDeleteThe very first cmment on this blog says it all says it all, to wit, if as is claimed, Mr, Salvio chastises and is negative at public meetings, he does it where it can be viewed and heard, i.e., at public, recorded and televised meetings. At least this way, the view can see the whole context in which it is done. If anyone has questions about the 2/11/09 Common Council meeting watch it on TV next Wed. or Fri. and judge for yourself. If you want to see negativity and character assassination make sure you watch and listen to the comments of the DTC Chairperson during public participation. Give it a try, "why dontcha?"
"If the council voted the complaint down they probably did the right thing"
ReplyDeleteAll i can say to that is WOW! why have a moyor of commissions, this council can handle everything and if they decide on something it MUST be right!
But seriously- how does one vote on an issue about HIMSELF?
One thing I find funny on this blog was when I first came here and Frank was criticizing the mayor on some things, the ethical alderman from Commonwealth Ave posted under his own name. But ever since he promised to find out the back taxes owed to the city (didnt deliver) and started getting criticized, he posts under "anonymous".
Anonymous says...
ReplyDeleteThe very first cmment on this blog says it all says it all, to wit, if as is claimed, Mr, Salvio chastises and is negative at public meetings, he does it where it can be viewed and heard, i.e., at public, recorded and televised meetings. At least this way, the view can see the whole context in which it is done. If anyone has questions about the 2/11/09 Common Council meeting watch it on TV next Wed. or Fri. and judge for yourself. If you want to see negativity and character assassination make sure
you watch and listen to the comments of the DTC Chairperson during public participation. Give it a try, "why dontcha?"
APPARENTLY ANOTHER DUMBOCRAT WHO THINKS IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO VOTE ON YOUR OWN ETHICS VIOLATION. IS THERE ANYONE LEFT IN THIS CITY WITH EVEN A SHRED OF INTEGRITY? THIS CITY IS LOOKING MORE AND MORE LIKE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WITH ALL ITS SCANDALS.
Perhaps the mayor should send this case to the Soeaker of the House to begin impeachment procedings?
ReplyDelete