Alderman Sherwood has pointed out to me the new ethics proposal has eliminated Board and commissions from having to file a financial status report.
This change will apply only to the elected officials who will be required to make such fillings.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
New Proposal of The Ethics Odinance For New Britain
Alderman Sherwood has pointed out to me the new ethics proposal has eliminated Board and commissions from having to file a financial status report.
This change will apply only to the elected officials who will be required to make such fillings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
If Alderman Sherwood's ethics policy is going to apply to elected officials, when is he, as the ethics Czar, going to do something about the blatant ethics violations of Alderman Catanzaro???
You mean Phony Phil came out of hiding? What is he doing to address the illegal conduct by his fellow Democrat? Does he understand what expulsion means?
ETHICS LAWS SHOULD BE SIMPLE SUCH AS PROHIBITING:
The participation in the enactment or defeat of legislation in which they had an interest.
What do "YOU" think Sheriff Sherwood?
I believe Alderman Sherwood would have more credibility if he would enforce current ethics rules. As the defacto leader of the Democrats and self proclaimed ethics Czar Alderman Sherwood has clearly shown that he is not interested in non biased enforcement of the current ethics rules. (Which in of itself is unethical).
If say Alderman "democrat" forgot to list a stock holding and/or an asset. Would Alderman Sherwood find that:
(a) It was a honest mistake and though a clear violation of the rules that he is one of us? Though he violated the rule it doesn't offend me and hey the rules are realy meant to catch the bad guys like Alderman "republican" or Mayor "republican"?
(b) Alderman "democrat" can vote on it because even though voting on it is a violation of the ethics code. He wouldn't be heard if he didn't vote. And again those pesky rules are only for the real bad guys like Alderman "conservative democrat"
(c) These new ethics rules are outdated. They were meant to catch people like Alderman "conservative republican" not Alderman "socialist lap dog"
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
— Thomas Jefferson
I think Phony Phil put it on the same shelf that they put Mayor Stewart's ethical mishap when he signed as Mayor on a union agreement with the fire union while also signing his name as a union member. That's right. DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Two Tim Stewart signatures. One as mayor, one as union guy. Mayor negotiated the deal as mayor that he would benefit from.
They put it on the same shelf as they put Mark Bernakie proposing heating oil resolution while serving on the board of a private school that would benefit.
They put it on the same shelf that they put the complaint against lou salvio who violated city ethics rules by disclosing executive session information about Paul C.
After the coverup with cantazaro, why do they waste our time with this nonsense? When the Democrats do their duty and impeach cantazaro we'll pay attention to them, until then, this is just a bunch of phony B.S. from the master of B.S. Sherwacky.
Anonymous said...
I think Phony Phil put it on the same shelf that they put Mayor Stewart's ethical mishap when he signed as Mayor on a union agreement with the fire union while also signing his name as a union member.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Tim Stewart is on a leave of absence from the Fire Dept. as is required by the City Charter.
To insinuate that the Mayor cannot negotiate city employee contracts is absurd.
I would like to point out to you that the issue with Alderman Catanzaro is not that he is on the HRA board or that he is a city employee. The issue is that Alderman Catanzaro willfully votes on legislation that the Charter clearly forbids.
Also what else could be more unethical than punishing a whistleblower?? You seem to want people to forget that members of Alderman Salvio’s party were also found to be in conflict. However they unlike Alderman Catanzaro have resolved the areas of conflict.
Alderman Catanzaro and the Democratic members of the Common Council have chosen to disregard the charter.
This is not only unethical it is in my opinion criminal.
Sometimes people have to take the blinders off and stop drinking the kool aid.
The Mayor is not in a union. He is on leave from his job and probably will not even return to his prior employment when he finishes as our Mayor.
What economic benefit has Bernacki or his family received with heating oil?
Another democrat "brain child" run afoul. The d's have long advocated for whistle blowers laws. I guess that was to protect Whistle blower "community activist" or Whistle blower "union guy" or Whistle blower "liberal democrat". I guess Whistle blower "republican" isn't covered.
Solve your own problem(s) instead of trying to manufacture them on others.
Anonymous says:
............"They put it on the same shelf as they put Mark Bernakie proposing heating oil resolution while serving on the board of a private school that would benefit.
They put it on the same shelf that they put the complaint against lou salvio who violated city ethics rules by disclosing executive session information about Paul C."
Heating oil resolution? How did the democrats vote on this and what happened to the resolution? How is this a Bernacki conflict and why did no democrat have the cohones to call Beracki on it?
catanzaro conflictS situations? Two hearings - Salvio only attanded one; Salvio did not participate in any executive sessions.
If phony Phil knows info was leaked from executive sessions, who told Phil?
Has anyone seen Catanzaro this week? Where is he?
Anonymous wrote:
I believe Alderman Sherwood would have more credibility if he would enforce current ethics rules. As the defacto leader of the Democrats and self proclaimed ethics Czar Alderman Sherwood has clearly shown that he is not interested in non biased enforcement of the current ethics rules. (Which in of itself is unethical).
This is a very good point. How can the Czar of ethics write new ethics rules when it would appear that he himself has been involved in unethical behavior by failing to enforce the ethics ruling against a fellow subversive?
Once again, a boy in a man's job.
Create more issues to hang the "ethics" tag on? Please.
Rome is burning, state is $8B in the hole, $1.8 T federal Obama deficit, stock market is 50% less than when Obama became president and new ethics (for NB democrats to violate) is the most important issue our freshmen democrats think are important?
What business is it of ours where the Mayor or Council members OR THEIR FAMILIES invest their money?
Everyone lost their 401k money!
Where they own their home? Foreclosures anyone.
Solve the problems instead of creating them.
HUD funding is still being withheld. Will the Sherwood amendment to the Sullivan amendment of the ethics ordinances release these funds? NO... of course not!
Just more rules for the democrats to violate.
What will show us you are really interested in ethics is to ELIMINATE the conflicts so that HUD money can be released to these agencies.
Man up.
To any outsider it would appear that this will be a set of regulations that will only apply to Republicans.
If Democrats are already above the law when it comes to ethics, who else would Czar Sherwood have in mind to apply these rules to--especially when he openly supports such a blatant violation of the law by endorsing Alderman Catanzaro and his voting against the acceptance of his own ethics commission ruling that he had already violated the ethics laws?
If Sherwood is such a proponent of ethics reform, how is it that he joined Catanzaro in voting against his own ethics ruling in violation of the city charter? Is this not questionable ethical conduct on behalf of Alderman Sherwood and the other 13 subversive Democrats?
Once again Sherwood demonstrates to the rest of us what a phony he really is. I guess that is how he earned the endearing nickname: Phony Phil--by which so many people now know him by?
Anonymous says;
To those of you who read this blog and comment on issues; Friday evening on Nutmeg TV, watch the 2/25/09 Council meeting. You will hear both John "the lesser" McNamara and Sherwack praise alderman Bernacki for his attempt at "cost sharing" with parachial schools for the schools' purchases of heating oil.
Same old, same old, praise someone for their efforts in public and then knife him in the back on this blog. Typical liberal durty trick!
At the last city council meeting I introduced a resolution that would allow ALL non-public schools to voluntarily join the City of New Britain in bulk purchasing heating oil for their individual schools. There are over 600 New Britain children that attend alternative schools in New Britain.
Schools can opt in or not participate. Their choice. The Mayor asked that the resolution be referred to his office as well as the City Counsel office to ensure we can handle this request. I complied with the request.
At the council meeting, I was praised by both Democratic chairman McNamara and Ald Phil Sherwood for bringing forward this resolution. I can't say that these two are exactly fans of mine on most issues.
The council vote to approve was unanimous.
Neither my wife or I have any financial dealings in this resolution. I receive no compensation for this resolution either from the schools or the heating oil company.
As a volunteer for many fine organizations it COSTS me and family a lot money through each of their development campaigns.
The city council meeting will be broadcast Friday night 6 or 6:30.
See for yourself.
Mark Bernacki
This is not only unethical it is in my opinion criminal.
These guys won't stop until someone ends up in jail. You would think they would learn a lesson from Governor Blagovich, Governor Gray Davis, Mayor Marion Barry, Mayor Kwamie Kilpatrick, Senator Ernie Newton, and even Mayor Eddie Perez who is currently awaiting trial for his arrest on bribery charges.
you mean ethics laws apply to Democrats? When did that start?
Just another example of what a phony Phil Sherwack is. When Alderman Bernacki does something good to help private schools purchase their heating oil at a discount, they attempt to turn it around as something wrong, but had it been a Democrat that was helping the schools he would be shouting it from the highest mountain.
You are making it so obvious to us all just how phony you are Mr. Sherwack.
That is what you get when you send a boy to do a man's work.
Has anyone seen Catanzaro this week? Where is he?
Little Mac's number one contender for mayor is in hiding? Maybe even he is so ashamed of his own unethical behavior, that he is afraid to show his face in public?
the most pathetic fact is that sherwack still fails to realize that the rest of town is laughing at him. what do you expect from a boy?
At least Catanzaro won't be spending as much time at the golf course as the incumbent; he'll earn his keep as mayor and be fair to all.
You'd think Mr. Stewart worked at the parks and rec dept too with a permanent assignment at Stanley GC
Anonymous said...
At least Catanzaro won't be spending as much time at the golf course as the incumbent; he'll earn his keep as mayor and be fair to all.
You'd think Mr. Stewart worked at the parks and rec dept too with a permanent assignment at Stanley GC
JUST ANOTHER FALSE PROMISE. YOU WOULD THINK MR. CATANZARO IS A HEALTH INSPECTOR WITH THE AMOUNT OF TIME HE SPENDS AT LOCAL RESTAURANTS.
Anonymous said...
At least Catanzaro won't be spending as much time at the golf course as the incumbent; he'll earn his keep as mayor and be fair to all.
You'd think Mr. Stewart worked at the parks and rec dept too with a permanent assignment at Stanley GC
I couldn't stop laughing after I read this one. I was rolling on the floor because it is obvious that the Dumbocrats actually think this loser, complete with all his unethical behavior, could stand a chance against the mayor who is so popular that he always wins by a landslide! Still rolling on the floor laughing that this is the best the loser Democrats could come up with! What a bunch of losers.
Spending your own money at New Britain's golf course is now an ethical violation?
Frank, is this part of the new ordinance proposal or is this just another democrat diversion?
Is it now illegal for elected officials to play golf? What's next driving a car? Talking on your cell while driving? oops...... the democrats already put that one in.
Ethics for the 13 unethical mushrooms. if it weren't true, it would even be funny.
News
Council co-opting state ethics mandate
Thursday, March 5, 2009 11:59 PM EST
By JAMES CRAVEN
Staff Writer
In an attempt to co-opt a possible state mandate toward stricter ethics disclosure, New Britain Alderman Phil Sherwood has proposed strengthening the city’s ethics code by adding to the ordinance on disclosure of financial interests.
“All 169 Connecticut towns are charged with policing themselves,” Sherwood told the Committee on Administration, Finance and Law Wednesday. “This creates some problems locally and also creates, in my opinion, fertile ground for unethical behavior.”
Sherwood said that by making the ethics code stronger the city might escape having a more onerous code thrust upon it by the state.
Senate Bill 339 by state Sen. Edward Meyer, D, 12th District, would require municipalities to adopt codes of ethics that are consistent with a number of state-mandated provisions, although those have not yet been delineated.
The proposed amendment to Section 2-543 of the city code would include additional wording on who must disclose and what must be disclosed to the public.
The amendment would require the mayor, common council members, city clerk, tax collector, treasurer, constables, registrars of voters, members of the board of assessment and appeals and all department heads to file statements of disclosure within 90 days of the ordinance’s taking effect, or within 30 days of taking office.
The statement would require the disclosure of all property owned within the city, excluding a primary residence; the name of any employer from which the official, employee or spouse earns more than $10,000; the name of any business entity that had a contract with the city in the preceding calendar year for goods or services exceeding $5,000; and a certification that all required persons have read and understand the city’s code of ethics.
The amendment also would allow a fine of $10 for each day of violation, up to $5,000.
“Simply put, this will allow the public access to what they need to know about their politicians,” Sherwood said.
The committee estimated the disclosure statement would be at most two pages, far less than the 14-page document required by the state.
Alderman Gregory Gerratana said the statement asked only for reasonable amounts of information.
“There needs to be transparency,” he said.
The committee voted unanimously to forward the resolution to the Common Council for additional comment.
James Craven can be reached at jcraven@newbritainherald.com or by calling (860) 225-4601, ext. 231.
URL: http://www.newbritainherald.com/articles/2009/03/05/news/doc49b0ac0715125803921040.prt
© 2009 newbritainherald.com, a Journal Register Property
Anonymous said...
From Jim Craven's NB Herald article on Sherwack's ethics proposal;
"...The statement would require the disclosure of all property owned within the city, excluding a primary residence; the name of any employer from which the official, employee or spouse earns more than $10,000; the name of any business entity that had a contract with the city in the preceding calendar year for goods or services exceeding $5,000; and a certification that all required persons have read and understand the city’s code of ethics."
Can't wait to see what to see what phony phil and self proclaimed expert on everything, greg gerratona do with this one. Gerrantona lists his residence (Who's Who in NB Government) as 674 Lincoln St. - his parents' house. Supposedly, he doesn't live in the main house! Where does he live? And he talks about transparency! Yeah, RIGHT!
Post a Comment