In a Hartford Courant article referencing her candidacy, the Courant reported that "she did not specify where she works" (New Britain Dems Hope To Hold Power On Council; GOP Hopes To Gain Some, Hartford Courant, October 22, 2009).
Then in a similar article in The Herald, Woodie reportedly identified her occupation as: "advocate for low-income families, and families with disabilities in various communities" but again failed to mention where she works (New Britain Common Council Democratic Candidates, The Herald, October 24, 2009).
It raised red flags with me to read that a candidate for public office was being so evasive about identifying her employer, but could there be a reason for this?
An internet search for Laura Woodie revealed that as late as March of this year, she was identified in a U.S. District Court case as being a representative of the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven and in October 2008, she was also identified in a City of New Haven document as being the Housing Authority's ADA Coordinator with responsibility for assisting persons with disabilities who hold vouchers under HUD's Section 8 program. A call to the Housing Authority of New Haven today confirmed that she still works there, so why could she apparently be afraid that we, as voters, might learn that?
Could it be the Hatch Act?
According to a publication issued by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in December 2005, "The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state or local executive agencies who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants."
One of the specific activities prohibited for covered employees:
Perhaps the U.S. Office of Special Counsel could review this candidacy before the election, so that the people of New Britain can avoid another potential situation whereby badly needed federal funds could be withheld from more vital programs?
FRANK:
ReplyDeleteGood job of sleuthing. Many have had similar feelings about Laura Woodie but nobody has taken the time to try to expose her. Problem is that since Jim Craven is laid up after having had an accident and the Courant is useless, who in the media will pick up this story.
The Dems involved in yet another conflict of interest/law violation/ethical lapse!! Is this the M.O. for the Dems?
Then again, the Dems are good at trying to hide things. How many of them failed to respond in The Herald as to where they are employed?
Ms. Woodie is also a member of NAHRO a national advocacy group that works with providing low income housing as it relates to securing funds with the federal goverment. She did mention at the para-professional debate that one of the programs she has worked on in the New Haven area is converting
ReplyDeletesection 8 rental payments into section 8 mortgage payments for low income homeownership and she would like to bring her experience here to New Britain. This equates to taxpayers paying other persons home mortgages?
This does present a conflict of interest when seeking elected office where Ms. Woodie would be sworn to make decisions on behalf of all taxpayers of New Britain.
Now that is what I call transparency in government--it's a secret where she works.
ReplyDeleteImagine the potential secrets if she were to get elected?
This is a perfect example of the death of journalism in America. What happened to the days when someone avoided a question like "where do you work" and the press would jump all over that, now they don't seem to care about reporting at all. Both the Herald and the Courant seem to have chosen to ignore this story.
ReplyDeleteAnd they wonder why they are failing?
"The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state or local executive agencies who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants."
ReplyDeleteWouldn't this apply to Marie Lausch too!
This was the same law that forced the police chief in Cromwell to withdraw from the election, because they said it violated federal law for him to be a candidate because the police department receives federal funds. Since she works for the police department, wouldn't the same law apply, or does the law only apply to Republicans?
The question is asked -- What about Juan Verdu who is running for tax colletor. He wosrk for HRA
ReplyDeleteMaybe these same federal officials need to look at a police dispatcher in New Britain?
ReplyDeleteCROMWELL — Anthony J. Salvatore has withdrawn from the race for the Democratic nomination for first selectman.
Salvatore, the town’s 58-year-old police chief, made the decision reluctantly on Friday, after federal officials informed him he was in violation of the Hatch Act.
I don't know if the Hatch act would apply in this situation since she is employed in an entirely different municipality. The purpose of the Hatch Act is to eliminate conflict of interest, I'm not sure if there would be such conflicts in this case. Irregardless of whether or not it is a violation of Hatch it is extremely damning that the party of "open government" has so many skeletons in their closet.
ReplyDeleteThe Democratic Town Committee Chair and Tim O'Brien should wake up and stop dealing with people that should not be running for office. At least, Bob Sanchez - appointed by the Council to fill avacancy on the BOE - announced that he is not allowed to run for office because he works at the NB HRA Office and would be "HATCHED" if he did. Bob was asked why Juan Verdu was running and Bob declined to comment. Doe New Britain need to be known as The "Conflict of Interest/Law Breaking City of Connecticut"?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...I don't know if the Hatch act would apply in this situation since she is employed in an entirely different municipality.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the publication put out by the Office of Special Counsel, no employee covered by this act may run as a candidate for public office in a partisan election, which it describes as representing a party whose candidate received votes in the preceding election at which Presidential electors were selected.
It does not seem to matter where the person is running, only that he/she is representing a party that received votes in the last Presidential election. So, according to the publication, if the Democratic party received votes in the Presidential election, you can not run anywhere representing this party, if you are covered by this act.
The only way to find out for sure would be to contact the Office of Special Counsel either by calling 1-800-854-2824, or e-mailing them at: hatchact@osc.gov They can provide a definite opinion.
How can the police chief in one town be ordered by the federal government to withdraw from the race because he works for the police department, and yet a police dispatcher for our city is not braking the same law?
ReplyDeleteSomething is wrong with this picture!
Wouldn't this stuff apply to Catanzaro too, but that would just add to his long list of conflicts, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteIs Julie Swan hatched because
ReplyDeleteshe drives for the senior center?
they receive federal monies
Whatever the problems are a vote for O'Brien and the members of his slate is a vote for radical left liberalism backed by Acorn and the WFP.
ReplyDeleteThis is the last thing the City of New Britain needs.
Vote Row A Team Stewart on November 3rd!
you mean you want Democrats to obey laws? ROFL, ROFL, ROFL
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteStop being the left wing progressive Democratic radical messenger for McNamara that I read about yesterday, and support Team Stewart!
This can be done under many circumstances. As we know the Mayor himself as a firefighter received federal money. Was he hatched?
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor said who he worked for unlike those dems. I will just be sad to see that NRZ's may not get money from the feds if Julie Swan wins like we saw with trulyworthless and HRA. She is a good candidate, might be worth it to lose that federal handout to NB to get a new republican on the council.
I bet the dems have criminal records if there hiding so much. So one should look.
Apparently the Dems either know they are blatantly violating the law, or they are ashamed of where they work.
ReplyDeleteFrank:
ReplyDeleteAnother phone call to New Haven, yesterday (10/27) again corroborated that Laura Woodie does in fact work for that City. The operator did say that the New Haven Housing Authority is where Woodie is employed. She is employed as an ADA Coordinator under HUD's Section 8 Program. HUD is a Federal Agency as is funding from that Agency. If your position with an agency involves HUD funding, you are prohibited by The Hatch Act from running as a candidate for office in a national, state or local partisan election. Woodie should withdraw while she is ahead. The Office of Special Counsel has been notified.
The Democrats were hoping she would simply fly under the radar and so they were evasive about where Ms. Woodie worked. In New Britain it is not un-common for an unknown to be voted in merely because of being a democrat and wala! another tax and spend public servant spending our hard earned money for us.
ReplyDeleteNot this time around. We have 4 days until the election and Ms. Woodie's withdrawal is fully expected.
Ms. Woodie is the Public Housing Supervisor for the City Of New Haven and lists her profession as
ReplyDelete"Government Administration".
Laura Woodie has a letter from the feds in DC signing off on her running.
ReplyDeleteA call down to washington however did not show that the Republican candidate in the 3rd had been given the green light and receives money from the Federal Govt!
OOPS!
Can't wait to read tomorrows paper "republican guilty of hatch act"
It is a shame in the days and times we live that people have so much time to watse on topics and or laws they know little to nothing about. Also to me it is great to utilize the internet and make calls to candidates employers, but why not just approach them?
ReplyDeletePrior to running Laura Woodie did say where and who she is employed by and on her own contacted the office of special counsel. A letter can be provided to show the date which was prior to her announcement to run.
To be honest the war of words is to be desired and slinging at each other is not going to make New Britian a better Community. Also there are 3-5 candidates that are also under the same "Hatch Act" are we asking for them to step down?
Integrity is what Laura Woodie brings to the table can all of the candidates say that?
Frank:
ReplyDeleteIf Laura Woodie has a letter from the Feds showing that she has been given the OK from the Feds to run for office she ought to show it to some official person. In the meantime she and others should know that if it is determined later that she or anyone else should not have run, the fines are severe.
On the other hand NB Democrats have gotten away with it before, e.g., in 2002.
Up front as a candidate? Juan Verdu and Woodie are both hatched. Gibson would need exceptions under the rules just like has been done with others on the council if elected. Smoking gun to thwart republicans from being elected?I think not. Jason poses a credible chance against tow do nothing people from Ward 3 in Cruz and Black. They are mere followers of Sherwood and Truedummy. How about a couple of people with minds of their own who will put the city above their party!
ReplyDeleteAnd no the mayor was never hatched because of the FD never receiving federal monies until Carr took over and actually applied for federal grants unlike the past administration.
The city charter should be opened and put in a prohibition of city employees from running for the legislative body of the city. The d's have Collins,Catanzaro,Lausch,Centeno all working for the city in some capacity with the ability to influence issues that pertain to their respective work environments. In the private sector that would never be allowed to go on. What a joke!
People are wasting their time digging into the backgrounds of candidates that will have the power to effect our local goverment? It is our responsibility as concerned citizens and taxpayers to investigate, take the time and understand exactly who comes before us for our vote.
ReplyDeleteTake for instance the Mattabassett District and William Candelori? The man was guilty of participating in the areas largest ponzi scheme and he now oversees millions of our taxpayer dollars? Who questioned it? Ok, so everyone deserves a second chance but now he is once again involved in a banking scheme in New London
and we are considering appointing him to another term? I suppose it's a waste of time to read the New London Day and to investigate before the appointment what his current affiliations are?
Excuse us here at the blog for rejecting the status quo! Can you imagine if our efforts actually turn over some of the garbage we've
been dealt.
Laura Woodie has made arrangements with her current employer to resign her current position if she was elected .
ReplyDeleteFor this individual to be willing to resign from a position that makes more than 75,000 a year during a recession to be on a city council elected position which pays less than 16,500 a year shows her commitment to the people of the city of new Britain.
Why wouldn’t we want someone who has been trained and learned from the and or mentored by the best business minds in the world.
To take the knowledge and laws that she knows and bring that to the people of New Britain. She has given her time for the residence association at no cost and only objective is to make the town that she is raising her children.
We should be focusing on the good that "our" candidates and what they have done in their positions for other communities and bring this knowledge to NEW BRITAIN.
We forget candidates that were arrested and admitted (plead guilty) to misuse of campaign funds.
So stop taking a persons name who is TRYING to take NEW BRITAIN to another level....
Haaaaa someone is going to leave their 75k job if elected to donate
ReplyDeletetheir time on our city council and this person supports a family! OMG
This is a joke right?
No this is not a joke! She is in high demand in the field she works and there are several employers who are not federally funded who would hire her on the spot.
ReplyDeleteThis was not good sleuthing by Frank nor was anyone hiding anything!
All of this information was discussed prior to her candidacy with the federal goverment, her employer and the Democratic Party.
So the only thing "Hatched" is the immature actions of few who only come out every two year election and take good peoples name and try to harm them.
Take this anger and channel it in the direction on why "as a community" we are suffering and why everyone is moving away and or letting their housing go!
Blog about that!
Take this anger and channel it in the direction on why "as a community" we are suffering and why everyone is moving away and or letting their housing go!
ReplyDeleteBlog about that!
I BELIEVE WE ARE SUFFERING AS A COMMUNITY AT THE HANDS OF A BUNCH OF OUT OF CONTROL RADICALLY LIBERAL EXTREMISTS THAT ARE ON THE CITY COUNCIL PUSHING THEIR RADICAL AGENDA, WHO WILL DO ANYTHING TO DESTROY PROGRESS JUST TO PREVENT THE MAYOR FROM ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING GOOD FOR THE CITY BECAUSE IT MIGHT MAKE HIM LOOK GOOD IN THE PROCESS. THEY ARE NOT THERE TO SERVE THE CITY, BUT INSTEAD TO SERVE THEIR RADICAL EXTREMIST IDEALS INCLUDING THE RADICAL AGENDA OF WORKING FAMILIES PARTY WHICH IS LITTLE MORE THAN A FRONT GROUP FOR ACORN. IF WE DO NOT STOP THIS RADICAL EXTREMISM SOON, WE WILL BE IN THE SAME BOAT AS HARTFORD AND OTHER CITIES WHERE THE AVERAGE PROPERTY TAXES ON A HOME EXCEED $10,000 A YEAR, AS THEY CONTINUE THEIR RADICAL PROTESTS AIMED AT LITTLE MORE THAN DRIVING MORE BUSINESSES OUT OF THE CITY (REMEMBER THEIR PROTESTS FOR MORE SPANISH SPEAKING MANAGERS AT WALMART?)
WAKE-UP OR GET READY TO PAY, PAY, PAY, AS THEY RAISE RAISE RAISE YOUR TAXES TO SUPPORT MORE SOCIALISM!
WHY ELSE DO YOU THINK THEY ARE RUNNING THE MOST RADICAL CANDIDATE EVER FOR MAYOR?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletePeople are wasting their time digging into the backgrounds of candidates that will have the power to effect our local goverment? It is our responsibility as concerned citizens and taxpayers to investigate, take the time and understand exactly who comes before us for our vote.
Take for instance the Mattabassett District and William Candelori? The man was guilty of participating in the areas largest ponzi scheme and he now oversees millions of our taxpayer dollars? Who questioned it? Ok, so everyone deserves a second chance but now he is once again involved in a banking scheme in New London
and we are considering appointing him to another term? I suppose it's a waste of time to read the New London Day and to investigate before the appointment what his current affiliations are?
Excuse us here at the blog for rejecting the status quo! Can you imagine if our efforts actually turn over some of the garbage we've
been dealt.
.
.
.
.
Did anyone on the council look into the pending civil suits in New London?
Employers have become increasingly concerned about knowing if an applicant has a criminal record. More employers are conducting pre-employment background checks for criminal records. Employers have been the subject of large jury verdicts for negligent hiring in cases where they hire a person with a criminal record that harms others, and it could have been avoided by a criminal record check. That is because employers have a legal duty to exercise due diligence in the hiring process, and that duty can be violated if an employer hires someone that they either knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care was dangerous or unfit for a job. The concern from the employer's point of view is that a person with a criminal past may have a propensity to re-offend in the future.
ReplyDeleteI know of 13 of them who wouldn't waste their time looking into pending litigation involving Mr. Candelori in New London.
ReplyDeletePeople are moving away and letting their housing go....
ReplyDeletePerfect then the federal goverment and the democratic party/Acorn can step in and snatch up our houses and turn the entire city into subsidized housing.
And nobody here at the blog is bad-mouthing Ms. Woodie either. Simply
finding out about a candidates political affiliations and ideology
so voters can make an educated vote here in New Britain.
Simply
ReplyDeletefinding out about a candidates political affiliations and ideology
so voters can make an educated vote here in New Britain.
That is the best thing said on this whole blog! If your voters want to get educated them all come to the debates, fund raisers no matter the party lines and then and only then can you or us make an educated decision. A person can be a republican or democrat that does not mean all are this or that. Those are views of the old america that labeled and stereo typed people! Bottom line no law was broken, no action and or fines can be taken against Laura Woodie.If you ask anyone who know her she is a self thinker and does not follow but leads. Please take a look at her body of work and the countless people and communities she has made a difference in. There are a few days to the election and we should state facts not labels, not name calling or what your blogger political views are. You want to know Laura Woodie or her political views then stop her the next time and speak with her.
The last post would lead me to believe that this person has now tipped into "Happy Hour" or just
ReplyDeletecan't write very well.
I can't wait for the response from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel regarding this case!
ReplyDeleteTheirs is the only opinion that matters, and not those of the liberal loons who obviously are trying to cover up for her. If she has done no wrong as so many would like us to believe, why has she been refusing to identify her employer to reporters when asked?
Hopefully the complainant will share the response from the Special Counsel with all of us and that will shed much light on this issue once and for all.
That alone speaks volumes about her candidacy. Who is going to vote for a candidate who so obviously in two separate newspaper articles conceals where so works?
So much for transparency?
The last post would lead me to believe that this person has now tipped into "Happy Hour" or just
ReplyDeletecan't write very well.
Maybe they were overdosing on the Barrack Berry juice?
I am a little surprised that the herald and the courant would both just accept a refusal or failure of a candidate to identify their employer without investigating it.
ReplyDeleteSo much for journalism.
There is a rumor that Robert Sanchez is being primed for the Chairmanship of the Democratic Town Committee...Hope it's soon!!
ReplyDeleteIf she is so "pure as the driven snow" in all of this, then why was she so evasive with the newspapers when they dared to question where she works? That seems like a reasonable question to ask someone seeking elective office.
ReplyDeleteThe city charter should be opened and put in a prohibition of city employees from running for the legislative body of the city. The d's have Collins,Catanzaro,Lausch,Centeno all working for the city in some capacity with the ability to influence issues that pertain to their respective work environments. In the private sector that would never be allowed to go on. What a joke!
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS THE VERY REASON THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT BARS ANY STATE EMPLOYEE FROM SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE.
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!
Maybe the City needs a similar law!
This can be done under many circumstances. As we know the Mayor himself as a firefighter received federal money. Was he hatched?
ReplyDeleteThe web site for the Special Counsel cites "Law Enforcement" as an example, but does not mention fire fighting anywhere that I can find, so how can a police dispatcher not be affected????
Let's lay to rest that at NO time has Laura Woodie refused to disclose her employer to a person and or news paper.On the document and the questions asked by the reporters are 1. What is your occupation and what do you do? So where ever you are getting the information from it is falso and just another attempt by thr regime of Mayor Stewart to stop the progress of New Britain.
ReplyDeleteSent on the behalf of Laura Woodie
ReplyDeleteGood morning
It has come to my attention that many of our residence have questions and concerns about my employment and my intentions to run for the office of Alderman.
I will happily ask all questions and or concerns @ Woodiela@comcast.net
There are too many inconsistencies throughout this blog from positions to dates and my views on party lines.
Laura works with many communities not just the city of New Haven and is currently help right an ARCH grant for the city of New Britain.
In closing we ask that if you want to have your questions and or concerns answered please send an email to Woodiela@comcast.net.
Today's New Britain Herald reports on the interview with Ms. Woodie. For employment it list various work with public and affordable housing. That is evasive if you are the supervisor of the New Haven Housing Authority why wouldn't a person simply say so?
ReplyDeleteThat is a respectable job something to be proud of.... so why not say it?
And, why would voters reading the information have to go the extra step of calling a candidtate or emailing to find out where one works? It seems silly and it evokes a feeling of mis-trust this entire issue.
It's obvious that there are people who are excited to place their confidence and vote with Ms. Woodie. On the other hand others will probably pass. We are looking for new blood on the democratic side but this kind of rhetoric is not helping the situation. I am looking for a democrat on the council who won't vote the party line everytime, a true leader with a conscience. Maybe Ms. Woodie could have been that person but not now.
Once again another false comment and no where in any of the blogs did Laura Woodie say she would only vote through party lines.
ReplyDeleteShe never belonged to a party prior to her nomination. She is a person who would be that person! But New Britain will or will never know is because soem of the views of this BLOG. Get your story straight,She was a supervisor 2 years ago. She has done nothing wrong and it is easy for people to sit behind a computer and talk junk they know nothing about. The LAW STATES YOU CAN NOT HOLD THE SEAT WHEN EMPLOYED. She currently to our knowledge not hot a seat on the board. So you have nothing to hatch!
Maybe you should take a few more community college courses or take a ride to New Haven and see what a person who is not afraid to stand alone or fight a good figth is all about. No one here is sayign she is "pure as the driven snow" as stated in your BLOG. She is a tough buisness woman who has given her self to cause to help people who need a helping hand. She is tough and your last comment is so true, but COME OUT and say your name and not hide behind a desk.
but COME OUT and say your name and not hide behind a desk.
ReplyDeleteCOMMENTS FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY FROM SOMEONE AFRAID TO SAY WHO HE/SHE IS????
You know so much about this issue, why don't come out and tell the rest of us who you are, or are you a coward?
After reading much about how this city council works, I can understand why they might recruit a professional who has much experience at doling out government entitlements.
ReplyDeleteFRANK:
ReplyDeleteThis was a recent blog on this issue:
" Anonymous said...
Laura Woodie has a letter from the feds in DC signing off on her running.
A call down to washington however did not show that the Republican candidate in the 3rd had been given the green light and receives money from the Federal Govt!"
THIS IS INCORRECT! AS A MATTER OF FACT, AN E-MAIL FROM THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS RECEIVED A FEW DAYS THAT SAYS," WE HAVE OPENED UP A FILE ON LAURA WOODIE."
Reminder to the bloggers. Hatch Act fines for violating the laws are substantial, especially for the employer. The employee may also be fined and lose their poisiton. Can Laura Woodie afford this?