EDITORIAL
Today The Herald reported that Alderman Phil Sherwood joined Majority Leader Michael Trueworthy in calling for the dismissal of the city’s auditing firm for “failure to follow the rules of the city charter.”
(“Aldermen claim possible auditing conspiracy” Aug 5, by James Craven, Staff Writer).
The article went on to quote Alderman Sherwood as saying that he felt the auditor’s failure to comply with the rules and not sending a representative to answer to this subcommittee had a “conspiratorial feeling” even though he acknowledged that their representative had been on vacation until at least August 2. But what about the conspiracy that Sherwood, Trueworthy, and the rest of the Council Democrats engaged in back in February--when Alderman Catanzaro committed a violation of that same charter right in front of them all.
In fact it was such a serious violation, that the city charter cites it as cause for Catanzaro to be expelled from office as a result. As I have previous reported, the city Ethics Commission, by a unanimous bipartisan vote, found Alderman Catanzaro in violation of the city ethics rules, and issued a recommendation to the council suggesting that he be reprimanded over an issue whereby as an Alderman, he voted against contracting out work by the same city department he works for, requiring the work to be performed by city employees and creating a situation whereby he possibly could have received personal overtime.
At the February council meeting, Alderman Catanzaro spoke against his own Ethics Commission ruling, and then joined his fellow Democrats in voting to reject the commission’s ruling—both in direct violation of the city charter. These actions occurred on the public record, and in the presence of the council members.
Section 4-7 of the city charter states in part: “No member of the Common Council shall be heard to speak upon, nor shall be allowed to vote upon…any matter in which the member has a pecuniary interest.” That same section goes on to state: “Any violation of this provision shall be grounds for expulsion of any member violating the same…”
Alderman Catanzaro committed these violations in the presence of the other Democrats on the council, who were each sworn to uphold the Charter of the City of New Britain, and they have failed to perform their sworn duty by enforcing that section of the charter. The problem is that it is left to the members of the council to enforce charter violations against fellow aldermen, and this council apparently is unwilling to enforce violations committed by members of their own party.
Isn’t it ironic now that an election is approaching, some of these same aldermen profess to be champions of enforcing the charter when they feel it will benefit their own campaign, despite the fact that they are on record as blatantly disregarding charter violations committed by their fellow alderman?
Apparently they believe it is within their discretion to pick and choose what sections of the charter they will enforce without regard for their oath or the law.
Isn’t this the ultimate in hypocrisy?
19 comments:
Frank:
You are absolutely correct. Current Council Democrats are the biggest hypocrites ever on any Council. Knowing well in advance that the auditors could not be present, Trueworthy goes ahead and gets co-conspirators to come to a meeting to stage a stupid show. He did the same thing at DiLoreto school a few weeks ago. Trueworthy and Sherwood are laughing stocks in New Britain. And they get "Foggy" Eva (tell me what to say) & Larry the Lip to go along with this stupidity. I'm surprised they didn't trot out the rest of the Council tax scofflaws and conflict of interest buddies to go along. By the way, have all Council members paid their taxes this year? And they have questions? About what? Vacation schedules? What to do when you don't have a quorum?
Please voters, get rid of this bunch of hapless clowns.
Frank,
I half agree with you.
Dems protect their own...yes.
But the city council's main job is to oversee the finances..whether they are capable of doing that is questionable I know.
Just saying that maybe the council got this one right and they should can this auditor. Haileys Commit comes every seventy years perhaps the democrats can be right every now and than too :)
I am dissapointed though that the paper did not quote salvio and bernacki at the meeting.
FRANK
I wish posters would not put things that insult attack and call people names. I agree with what posters are trying to say but the name calling takes away from it and turns me off.
Freedom of speech is important but if we use our freedom to call people names it makes us look crazy and mean like Lou sometimes looks.
VOTE REPUBLICAN
I guess only council members are allowed to violate the charter?
Sounds like another staged event where they knew the auditor was away on vacation and wouldn't be present, much like the Pinnacle Heights fiasco where Sherwood criticized the developer for taking a vacation and not having someone else to be present to represent their interests because they had been summoned to appear before the high and mighty Sherwood when he knew right along that they were on vacation that week.
Your council--one staged event after another.
Trueworthy said: “Is it legal to transfer sewer funds into the general fund?” he asked. “I think there are questions that need to be answered.”
Isn't he making the mayor's case for this? It was the mayor who first questioned the $500,000 transfer by Mattabassett, and aren't the Mattabassett Commissioners not appointed by and serve directly for the council? Sounds to me like Trueworthy is unhappy that the mayor caught them at some sort of shenanigans and is trying to deflect responsibility for his own appointees?
Afterall, it is only $500,000 of your money, so why would Trueworthy want you to know the truth about what happened to it, especially when it was Mayor Stewart who has been questioning this action by council appointed Mattabassett Commissioners for months?
"I am dissapointed though that the paper did not quote salvio and bernacki at the meeting."
I was told that they did not go to the meeting.
Simply Put :
GET RID OF THIS COUNCIL
Could it be that Trueworthy and company are still holding a grudge that the city didn't want to hire an auditor of their own chosing a year or so, to "supplement' the city auditor? Something doesn't smell right here...
"Freedom of speech is important but if we use our freedom to call people names it makes us look crazy and mean like Lou sometimes looks."
YOU SOUND LIKE ANOTHER DUMBOCRAT LIBERAL LOON. GO SMOKE YOUR PIECEPIPE WITH THE MACNAMARA KLAN
Frank Smith did a good job seeing through the Bull put out by these council Democrats.
This meeting sounds so similar to the recent meeting where I read about Alderman Sherwood calling it over Pinnacle Heights when he knew at least a week prior to the meeting that the developer would be away on vacation and wasted everyone's time holding the meeting anyway, then he had the audacity to criticize the developer by saying something ridiculous about anyone who had the resources to spend $5 million for this property should have the resources to have someone available to attend the meeting--I guess because Lord Sherwood expected them to?
Then just when you thought you had heard it all, he then questioned why Mayor Stewart couldn't have represented the developer at this meeting? To begin with, I thought that the mayor represented us,(the taxpayers) and can you imagine the rhetoric that would have emanated out of the Democratic Party had the mayor even entertained one question on the subject? In my opinion, the mayor did the right thing and resisted Sherwood's obvious efforts to trap him into answering questions for a private developer.
Am I the only one that sees this scenario as bassackwards? Shouldn't an Alderman be kissing the butt of anyone willing to invest $5 million in New Britain, instead of using them as pawns for childish political games?
Now we are confronted with a story about how the same alderman demanded that a city auditor appear before him as if he were God Almighty, and in the same article we are told that he knew the guy had been on vacation, but then he goes on to claim that a conspiracy might be afoot because the guy isn't there to dance for the almighty Sherwood. This latest story is apparently about a $500,000 transfer of sewer funds by the Mattabassett District--a situation that the mayor has been questioning for months. Let us not forget that the Directors of the Mattabassett District are appointed by the Democrats on the council, and not the mayor. The mayor has no authority over their appointment or even their removal--once again as in the case on Catanzaro's ethics violations, only the Democrats on the council have this POWER. So when you cut through all the rhetoric, it appears to me that the mayor's questions about this unexplained transfer of money are getting uncomfortable for certain council Democrats, so in their usual way, they are trying to find a way (falsely as it may be) to lay the blame for the actions of their own representatives onto the doorstep of the mayor.
This latest theatrical production was so impressive, that I would suggest that the council start holding their future meetings at the Hole in the Wall Theater. Then at least they could start charging admission.
City doesn’t need change Obrien Style NB Herald
To the editor:
State rep Tim O’Brien claims he is running for mayor to bring change to New Britain.
The legislature in Hartford where he serves passes a budget last year – he voted for it – that turned out to have a deficit of over a billion dollars. This year the state has no budget to date as an estimated eight billion dollar shortfall needs to be addressed.
New Britain’s budgets under Mayor Stewart have been balanced, on time and have controlled spending. Businesses in Connecticut are closing at record rates and new business creation is at an all time low. State rep Tim Obrien supported a surcharge on business taxes of 30 percent. Is that a change we can count on to increase jobs in Connecticut?
The legislature proposed raising taxes and fees to new highs during a recession and state rep Obrien went along with that change. The legislature proposed new programs that will cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars without any way to pay for these programs. State rep Obrien supported that change.
Six years ago New Britain voted for real change. That was a change to a lowered mill rate, controlled spending, a better bond rating, and a city revitalization program that is taking off. Compare the two versions of change, the failed policies at the state legislature supported by candidate Obrien or the positive changes that New Britain has been experiencing under Mayor Stewart for the last six years.
Paul Carver
Imagine how fast Catanzaro would have been expelled if he did the same things and he were a Repbulican?
Lightning speed maybe?
Paul Carver raises some very valid points.
We have a candidate who has let the people down by failing to pass a budget. Instead of supporting cutting spending, like the rest of us, O'Brien is on record in the legislature supporting huge increases in spending despite an over $8 billion deficit, and has supported expansions of state government, and has offered no way to pay for these new programs.
O'Brien promises the people of New Britain that if he were elected, he would return some 27,400 manufacturing jobs to New Britain, but actions speak louder than words, and O'Brien's actions have been to support a 30% tax on all businesses in the state. This one tax is predicted to drastically reduce jobs in this state at a time when employers are already moving out of state in record numbers. The only impact I have seen Mr. O'Brien have on New Britain jobs was to participate in protests that many believe have had a role in Wal-mart's decision to close its New Britain store.
As I said, actions speak louder than words. Under Mayor Tim Stewart's leadership, New Britain has had a balanced budget, taxes have been kept low despite the actions of the sometimes uncontrollable council, and the city is without exaggeration in better financial condition than most other cities in Connecticut.
In these troubling times, we need a mayor with a proven record to lead more than just radical protests.
The council Democrats should take note of the uprising against Congress as being expressed in the turnout at the town hall meetings. Don't believe they are real, just ask Congressman Murphy about the 200-300 people that turned out at Stop & Shop in Simsbury chanting "HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE."
Could be the council is next? Only November 3rd will tell for sure!
Get rid of the do-nothing democrats that claim to 'represent us'
http://thebizybee.blogspot.com
The Council subcommittee on Administration, Finance & Law has only one Republican, Lou Salvio. If anyone wants to know where Salvio was, call him and ask him. The Subcommittee Chair is Toni Lyn Collins. The Vice Chair is Greg Gerratana. Neither the Chair or the Vice Chair cancelled the meeting, knowing full well that the City Auditor had previously planned vaction plans and had called the Chair and the Council office to explain that they could not attend. There is a Council Ad Hoc Audit Subcommittee. There are three members, Collins, Rocha and Trueworthy; this subcommittee is charged with meeting with the City Auditor to receive an auditor's report. Collins and Rocha missed Wednesday's meeting. The City's auditor has no obligation to meet with the A, F & L Subcommittee.
Council members Hermanowski and Magnuszewski (according to the Herald) said that the auditors violated state laws - there are no such laws - that is unless Hermanowski and Magnuszewski can cite them. These are serious accusations against a firm with such a sterling reputation. I don't think the First Amendment would protect Larry, Eva and tthe other 5 Council Dems present last night at the AF&L meeting.
By attacking a firm like Blum Shapiro - a firm that conducts audits for close to two thitds of Connecticut towns and cities - the way that they did, I would be surprised if Blum Shapiro did not take legal action. This is stupidity at its best especially for the Democrats who won't censure their own for Charter violations,comflict of interest breaches and non payment of taxes.
Bernacki said it was time for some members of the council to “take their ACORN agitator hat off and become a community leader.”
DIDDO! it is about time ACORN no longer controlled the city council, isn't it?
That's a great Letter to the Editor by Paul Carver.
Other bloggers here also have some valid points to make regarding Tim O'Brien that should be made more public...these bloggers should also write a letter to the editor stating their facts and opinions.
It would help get the point across about what a do-nothing that O'Brien is.
Post a Comment