The Conflicts of Catanzaro!

In January, the Ethics Commission did find with regard to Catanzaro suggesting to the Council that Parks & Rec employees be used for work, instead of allowing a contractor to perform the work, that Alderman Paul Cantanzaro had indeed violated two provisions of the code of ethics as covered under section 2-449 [A] and 2-449[K]. The ethics violation having to do with his being an employee of the Parks Department while making this recommendation as an Alderman.

The Board’s findings had recommended that the Alderman be reprimanded and forwarded their finding to the Common Council for its action.

At the February Council meeting, Alderman Paul Catanzaro spoke against, and then voted to reject this same Ethics Commission ruling calling for Catanzaro to be reprimanded.

By both speaking on and voting on his own personal reprimand, Catanzaro has apparently violated two separate sections of 4-7 of the city charter which 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.”

Catanzaro reportedly told reporters from both the New Britain Herald and the Hartford Courant that his reason for voting on the matter was because if he was to recuse himself, then he wouldn’t be allowed to speak on the matter, but that is precisely what the city charter dictates; that he not be allowed to speak on his own matter of interest.

The punishment dictated by the same charter for violation of this section: “expulsion.”
As stated in the charter: “Any violation of this provision shall be grounds for expulsion of any member violating the same…”

But not only did his fellow Democrats fail to enforce this section of the Charter by stopping him from speaking on his own matter of interest, the dirty dozen joined him in voting to reject the unanimous, bi-partisan ruling of the Ethics Commission. The conduct of the Council Democrats at this meeting was so outrageous, that former Democratic Mayor William McNamara subsequently resigned as Chairman of the Ethics Commission citing protest to this vote as his reason for his resignation (Ethics chief’s vote protest: quitting, by: James Craven, February 18, 2009).

Then we have the badly needed funds that were withheld from city programs because of the conflicts of interest of Catanzaro, Trueworthy and others. The main issues were that Trueworthy's wife works for HRA and Catanzaro was the President of HRA.
The letter from HUD specifically said: "The fact that Catanzaro has taken no action to remove himself from HRA, forces HUD to deny reconsideration of funding rejections" ("Conflicts of interest stop futher HUD funds" by: Rick Guinness, The Herald, November 21, 2008). Catanzaro did some time later, finally resign from HRA, but not until after badly needed funds were withheld.

Catanzaro has also accepted the endorsement of the radical ACORN front group: Working Families Party. According to the political watchdog web site Discoverthenetworks.org, The Working Families Party is a front group of ACORN, is an outgrowth of the socialist New Party, and acts as a political party in Connecticut and New York to run radical candidates who conceal their extremism beneath a veneer of populist rhetoric, promising bread-and-butter issues designed to appeal to union voters. The site quotes Bertha Lewis, who moonlights as both WFP Co-Chair and New York ACORN Executive Director as saying "Candidates know that when they're on our line, they're committed to certain things."

Here's what Bertha Lewis was quoted as saying about the endorsement: Speaking days before Hillary won her Senate seat in 2000, Lewis noted, “Hillary knows that if she wins, we’re going to be knocking’ on her door. She won’t be able to hide.” (Quoted in the Village Voice, November 1-7, 2000). Do you really want members of your city council beholden to Ms. Lewis when she comes knocking on their doors?

Which leads to the next issue I would like to remind everyone about. In July, Catanzaro joined a host of radicals, including Working Families Party to protest outside the Wal-Mart store in New Britain. Many believe it was similar protests outside this same store that helped to convince Wal-Mart to abandon New Britain, but is this what we want our elected officials doing to local businesses, joining groups of agitators in protests outside their businesses?

When Catanzaro was attending this protest, was he doing so as an Alderman, or was he wearing his ACORN/Working Families hat at the time?

Either way, isn't it time we found Aldermen who will work to bring businesses into New Britain, and Aldermen who will actually obey the law, instead of flaunting their being above it?