Friday, July 9, 2010

New Britain council to host special meeting tonight - The New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com)

Posted by Frank Smith at 9.7.10

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mayor Pro Tempore Michael Trueworhty calls for a special meeting of the Common Council to be held today at 5:15 PM for the purpose to override the Mayor's veto that would have allowed the council to hire outside counsel for the sum of $20,000.

In the event this proclamation should pass it is hopeful that this will force the Mayor to order the city's tax collector to issue a supplemental tax bill to the city's taxpayers, covering the overall expectations this cost to the city that will accrue, and including all the names of each Alderperson that gave his or her affirmative vote.

Additionally, to the CPOA Association please also take notice.

July 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like they are really in a pickle because they had this lawyer do work for them without the legal authority, and now they can't pay him for his services because the mayor vetoed their attempt to hire him.

Truworthy already acknowledges that the council can not override the mayor's veto regarding the $1.5 million for the board of ed, so what other purpose is their for wasting taxpayer dollars on this attorney?

Sounds like there should be an investigation.

July 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM
The Truth Hurts said...

It seems really clear that they committed to spending money they had no right to spend, so now they need to find a way to pay for it with our money.

July 9, 2010 at 3:41 PM
The Thorn said...

State law requires any municipality to submit to competitive bidding for any contract exceeding $7,500, so where is the bid process that was used for this $20,000 contract?

Apparently just another law these Democrats feel they can violate with impunity!


Sec. 7-148v. Requirements for competitive bidding. Notwithstanding the provisions of any municipal charter or any special act to the contrary, any municipality may, by ordinance, establish requirements for competitive bidding for the award of any contract or the purchase of any real or personal property by the municipality. Such ordinance may provide that, except as otherwise required by any provision of the general statutes, sealed bidding shall not be required for contracts or purchases having a value less than or equal to an amount established in the ordinance, which amount shall not be greater than seven thousand five hundred dollars.

July 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...

I'm sure this meeting will be another episode of Sherwood going on endlessly trying to impress everyone with his perceived self importance!

July 9, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...

The "Thorn" wrote: "The Thorn said...
State law requires any municipality to submit to competitive bidding for any contract exceeding $7,500, so where is the bid process that was used for this $20,000 contract?"

While this may be a valid point, nothing stops these Council Democrats from disregarding statutes or legal opinions. Trueworthy and Sherwood have been "...hoisted by their own petard."

July 9, 2010 at 4:52 PM
Anonymous said...

I would suggest that if ten aldermen pass this that it is paid for out of the money they receive for serving as aldermen. Each one of these misguided souls should kick in $2,000 of their own money. I would then call this dedication to the task!

July 9, 2010 at 5:00 PM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I would suggest that if ten aldermen pass this that it is paid for out of the money they receive for serving as aldermen. Each one of these misguided souls should kick in $2,000 of their own money. I would then call this dedication to the task!


VERY GOOD POINT, IF THEY WANT THIS LAWYER BAD ENOUGH, LET THEM SIGN A RELEASE FOR THE CITY TREASURER TO DEDUCT THE COST FROM THEIR $4,500.00 COUNCIL SALARIES. LET'S JUST SEE HOW MANY OF THESE ZEALOTS ARE WILLING TO PUT THEIR OWN MONEY WHERE THEY ENJOY PUTTING OURS.

July 9, 2010 at 6:16 PM
getgary said...

The issue of competitive bidding is exempted for "professional services" so the issue regarding selection is moot.

July 10, 2010 at 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...

Apparently getgary didn't read the statute he is citing, because there is no such exemption for "professional services" as he so eloquently claims. There is only one exemption from the $7,500 bid requirement cited in that stature, and that has to do with the town choosing to make purchases from existing bids already approved by the state Department of Administrative Services.

Just like the Democrats who condemn the Arizona Immigration law without even reading it, maybe you should read the law before citing exemptions that don't exist!

July 10, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Web Tracking
Online Florist