_jpg-ca.jpg+catanzaro.jpg)
FRANKSMITHSAYSNB EDITORIAL:
Past reports of his ethical lapses have been reported on this blog and apparently to no avail. During Wednesday's Common Council Meeting the Alderman's appearance of conflicts resurfaced.
The fact that he is an employee of the Parks and Recreation department creates an appearance of conflicts on three issues affecting his own department when the Alderman casted votes on those matters.
The first was an issue regarding the purchase of an Exmark Lazer Mower for the Fairview Cemetery which is under the Parks and Recreation Department. Much discussion occurred with the Democratic side of the aisle noting that we have a 1.5 million dollar budget short fall and they saw difficulty spending $10,000 for this Mower. The Director pointed out that the existing mower was constantly in the repair shop and needs replacing. It was reported that this lazer mower can maneuver around the un-even stones because the cemetery was built without engineering design two hundred years ago. Much was said to not allow this expenditure with Alderman Mark Bernacki pointing out that the funds were approved by the council when they approved the annual budget and that the Director was merely attempting to get the council's approval to spend the money.
The second issue was the request by the parks and recreation department to approve the purchase for liquid propane gas for heating fuel and hot water heaters.
The third issue of appearance of conflict was with the engineering services for the designing for the Veteran's Stadium Grandstand structural remediation and partial roof replacement.
It is a complete mystery why this high vote getter has to resort to these tactics by not removing himself from the council floor, when these type of resolutions are discussed by the council, in order to eliminate any appearance of a conflict.
He has all the reasons he needs. The Democrats' super majority (11 votes) on the Council protects him. But let one of the Rs try the same thing. Then you'll see the sparks fly.
ReplyDeleteAnd what will his fellow Dem's do about? Absolutely nothing, because they think they can do whatever they want. Including badgering department heads relentlessly over pure stupidity and lack of common sense. I really hope people are paying attention so when the time comes we can get these ASSHOLES out of here. I have had it with there BULLSHIT and UTTER Incompetents! YES I am speaking to you PHIL, MIKE, and PAUL you should watch yourselves on TV! You look like Stupid asses the way you conduct yourselves at these meetings. Smarten up before you find yourselves outside looking in!
ReplyDeleteIsn't this the same dude that voted for his own union contract?
ReplyDeleteCan you only imagine if one of the Republicans did this, but you never see that because they have too much integrity to be unethical.
ReplyDeleteAnd, the goose dropping problem too.
ReplyDeleteCantanzaro should choose between the council or his job with Parks & Rec. His blatant in-subordination towards his boss, Bill DiMaio over the years should have swiftly decided that for him.
Crazy politics in this city.
That is why there should be a prohibition on city employees being allowed to run for city office while they are still in the employment of the city. By having a subordinate that is an Alderman, you are creating a situation where the supervisor may be faced with an uncontrollable employee if that Alderman is willing to abuse the so-called power of his office.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why the State of Connecticut prohibits a state employee from serving in the legislature.
Why can't we just send Catanzaro out there every day with a pooper scooper. Isn't his full time job as a garbage picker for the parks dept anyway?
ReplyDeleteInstead of spending the money on a new lawnmower, why don't we just contract out the mowing of the lawn to a lawn service? The state has done this very same thing and as a result, they were able to eliminate hundreds of maintenance positions, so if it is good enough for the state, then why isn't it good enough for New Britain?
ReplyDelete