FRANKSMITHSAYSNB EDITORIAL:
The sub-committee held a vote on a major issue regarding the Bonding for future purchases required by city departments. The issue was chaired by Alderman Paul Catanzaro, with the usual grandstanding by both the Majority Leader and the President Pro Tempore against the recommendations of the city's Bonding Attorney, Mr. Chudwick.
Many Comments flew back and forth with the Democrats arguing against the recommendations of the bonding attorney in allowing this action to pass which was also supported by the Republican side of the aisle.
Then Alderman Carlozzi shows up extremely late for the meeting and without having heard the discussion that had occurred prior to his arrival and voted with the Democrats--causing a tie vote which was broken with Catanzaro's affirmative vote and caused this issue to go to yet another Sub-committee--causing a further delay in purchasing the much needed police cruiser replacements. This additional delay will end up costing the city much unnecessary expense since the break downs of old cars are costing the city too much for repairs and placing the residents safety in question.
The respect that Alderman Carlozzi had earned with his past representation on the City Council has been lost with his "adverse vote" on a subject for which he wasn't even present to participate in the discussions. Through this action, Alderman Carlozzi has demonstrated that he has become just another rubber stamp for the party leadership and their radical agenda.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Just more childish games from the Democrats.
If the issue is for police cruisers, then why are we not discussing it with the Board of Police Commissioners?
Sec. 7-276. Powers of commissioners. Such boards shall have all of the powers given by the general statutes to boards of police commissioners, shall have general management and supervision of the police department of such town and of the property and equipment used in connection therewith,...
Is the council sticking their noses where it really doesn't belong?
Alderman Carlozzi should not have voted on that issue and Alderman Salvio requested that he refrain but as it goes, the power of the numbers prevailed.
The Bonding Committee is not a subcommittee of the Common Council. It actually has two members from the Board of Finance and Taxation. The vote of these two members counts as to what actions are taken by the Committee. I contend that the vote taken to send this issue to a Council subcommittee is illegal. Alderman Catanzaro was confused and allowed not one, but three votes on the issue. The first two were not to the liking of Sherwood, Trueworthy and Catanzaro because the Republicans, with the additional vote of Sally Eigenramm prevailed on the first two attempts. It was at that point that Carlozzi arrived, very late and was not only allowed to be seated but to vote on an issue in which he took no part in discussing. Since the vote was now tied, Chairman Catanzaro broke the tie and the Ds prevailed.
My feeling that the vote was illegal is because in voting to send the issue to the Council Subcommittee, the Democrats disenfranchised Sally Eigenramms position on the bonding committee. Sally is not a Council member and will no longer be allowed to vote on the issue. My opinion, ILLEGAL! Furthermore Catanzaro probably violated every rule of chairing a committee, Council rules, Roberts Rules, etc.
But, when you have the votes you do what you want - just like Pelosi.
So what, Carlozzi and Catanzaro violated every rule in the book. You can go ahead and make an ethics complaint, so that the ethics commission can issue another bi-partisan unanimous ruling against them, so that the council can once again vote to ignore their unanimous ruling. These Democrats are clearly demonstrating that they are above the law and can freely violate it at will and with impunity. These are some of the reasons that the former 6 term Democratic Mayor gave when he resigned as chairman of the Ethics Commission.
The three votes became so confused and turned around by the democrats even those performing the flim flam couldn't keep it straight and when the votes came down, it was in favor of passing the bonding resolution. When the democrats realized that they had lost the vote, Carlozzi walked in and took his seat, Cantanzaro then took the opportunity to poll again and the vote then tied and he broke the tie sending the bonding resolution to the sub-committee.
The reasons for not passing the prepared resolution were:
Mike Trueworthy, "we used to pay cash for the police cars, why aren't we paying cash now?", "I think I can find the money in another fund to cover all of this"
Phil Sherwood, "We haven't had enough time to review the documents, it was sprung on us" "We will probably approve all of this in the end, after we send it back" Anyone of the members of the council can sit in on the department requests, and all of them know the police and ambulance vehicles are past due.
Hermanowski, no comment, Shirley Black, no comment, Cantanzaro, little or no in-put, Carlo Carlozzi, absent during meeting.
This council is a disgrace.
These childish antics by the Democrats are a perfect example of why so few decent people want to get involved with serving the community. Why would anyone want to deal with the B.S. day after day for a position that is volunteer.
Should Carlozzi not been allowed to cast a vote on the issue since he entirely missed the discussion on the issue? Shouldn't his vote on the matter not be counted?
Something is amiss here!!
Its the socialistic way of the political process in New Britain by showing up late and voting on the issue without having being involved with the prior discussion.
Carlo came in, he looked about and his counterparts signaled him. They began their voting, AGAIN and he just voted blind.
I think deep down Carlo Carlozzi can be thoughtful. He has placed many votes now that he has been pressured into. I'll bet he has never felt so personally bad about himself.
It seems clear enough to me that Carlozzi was absent from the meeting until it became clear that the Democrats needed his vote to make their latest method of obstructionism happen, so they obviously contacted Carlozzi and told him to get his butt to City Hall to vote this issue down in a similar fashion to dragging an Alderman into the meeting in a hospital bed to get her vote while she was recovering from back surgery. These Democrats will stop at nothing to obstruct progress.
The only question I have is why do these Democrats hate the police so much that they don't want them to have such badly needed replacement police cars?
I hope the cops remember who their friends are at election time and that it was the Republicans who did everything they could to deliver the new police cars against the constant obstructionism of these radical Democrats.
" Anonymous said...
Its the socialistic way of the political process in New Britain by showing up late and voting on the issue without having being involved with the prior discussion.
September 11, 2010 10:49 AM"
If you watch the Council meetings on TV you'll notice that most of the time, even those Democrats that show up on time are not discussing issues, they are just there to vote as instructed by the dynamic duo of Sherwood and Trueworthy. They are brain dead/apoplectic during discussions.
Frank:
Somebody asked me today if I read comment #4 on your blog on this issue (Carlozzi". I responded that I had because I wrote it. Did not sign my name and I apologize. Didn't mean to hide.
The comment was:
" Anonymous said...
The Bonding Committee is not a subcommittee of the Common Council. It actually has two members from the Board of Finance and Taxation. The vote of these two members counts as to what actions are taken by the Committee. I contend that the vote taken to send this issue to a Council subcommittee is illegal. Alderman Catanzaro was confused and allowed not one, but three votes on the issue. The first two were not to the liking of Sherwood, Trueworthy and Catanzaro because the Republicans, with the additional vote of Sally Eigenramm prevailed on the first two attempts. It was at that point that Carlozzi arrived, very late and was not only allowed to be seated but to vote on an issue in which he took no part in discussing. Since the vote was now tied, Chairman Catanzaro broke the tie and the Ds prevailed.
My feeling that the vote was illegal is because in voting to send the issue to the Council Subcommittee, the Democrats disenfranchised Sally Eigenramm's position on the bonding committee. Sally is not a Council member and will no longer be allowed to vote on the issue. My opinion, ILLEGAL! Furthermore Catanzaro probably violated every rule of chairing a committee, Council rules, Roberts Rules, etc.
But, when you have the votes you do what you want - just like Pelosi.
September 10, 2010 5:53 PM "
Surely, most people will remember Pelosi's arrogance when she proclaimed that Democrats in Congress could do as they pleased because. " ... we won." So let it be with NB.
The Herald of course never printed the total debacle on the Capital Equipment Bonding Resolution fiasco perpetrated by NB Council Dems lead by Trueworthy and Sherwood.
Could it be payback to the police Department because they wouldn't do what Sherwood wanted when he claimed the mayor threatened him, so now they must be punished in the Democratic way?
anonymous said...If you watch the Council meetings on TV you'll notice that most of the time, even those Democrats that show up on time are not discussing issues, they are just there to vote as instructed by the dynamic duo of Sherwood and Trueworthy. They are brain dead/apoplectic during discussions....
LOOK AROUND THE ROOM AND SEE HOW MANY MUSHROOMS YOU CAN SPOT? WHO CAN NAME 5?
Surely, most people will remember Pelosi's arrogance when she proclaimed that Democrats in Congress could do as they pleased because. " ... we won." So let it be with NB.
It is long overdue to vote these smug elitist Democrats out of office.
What does Mr. Carlozzi have against the fine men and women of the police department? What did they ever do to him?
Don't Democrats hate the police as much as they clearly hate the military???
Carlozzi talked a good game but when the chips were down and the oublic was looking for an honest vote Carlozzi drops the ball.
If a person does not have the brains to listen to all aspects of the problem he should not be pn the council. Unless they need an other RUBBER STAMP.
Michael Trueworthy suggested using LoCip Funds toward this capitol equipment bond. The problem is LoCip funding is for Capital Improvements ie: road work, bridges, building construction and does not include equipment as detailed on the ST of CT web-site.
Maybe he is just confused or knows something that we can't view online?
Additionally, from the web-site, The City of New Britain currently has available $942,982 in LoCip funding as 3/10 in comparison to other inner cities,
Hartford $ 7,694,549
Waterbury $ 2,578,938
Bridgeport $ 5,804,777
Millions of dollars in bonded monies for our other inner city counter-parts, why does New Britain have less than 1 million?
It would be great if Tim O'Brien could lend his expertise and explain this LoCip funding?
Those cities have more money because Tim O'Brien supported giving all the money to them, and when asked why, he said they needed it more than New Britain.
Who does Tim O'Brien really represent????????
Certainly not New Britain!
The Herald reported earlier in the year, "Donald DeFronzo is pleased to announce State LoCip allocation of 880K" Residents thank him and his gang for bringing these dollars back to NB but never look into just how little in comparison
those funds really are. What are these men doing at the Capitol if they aren't fighting for New Britain. 7 million for Hartford, 5 million for bridgeport, 2 million for Waterbury, New Britain 880 thousand? Pitiful.
The Herald reported earlier in the year, "Donald DeFronzo is pleased to announce State LoCip allocation of 880K" Residents thank him and his gang for bringing these dollars back to NB but never look into just how little in comparison
those funds really are. What are these men doing at the Capitol if they aren't fighting for New Britain. 7 million for Hartford, 5 million for bridgeport, 2 million for Waterbury, New Britain 880 thousand? Pitiful.
DeFronzo also supported the train to Bristol over the busway to New Britain because he wanted to please the mayor of Bristol.
These guys have clearly been in office too long and forgot who they were elected to represent. We need to clean house.
Maybe Mr. Carlozzi is opposed to even having a police department?
....eliminating the police department would free up more money for socialist programs, wouldn't it?
Carlozzi has proven himself to be nothing more than another brainless rubber stamp for the lunatic fringe that has hijacked the leadership of this once working man's party that is now the party of socialism and communism called "progressives."
The problem is not how Carlozzi voted, the problem is with him voting at all. He wasn't at the meeting and he didn't know what was happening when the last vote was taken. He just watched the other democrats vote and voted with them site unseen. If he had been at the meeting, and then voted it could be accepted but he voted blind.
Anonymous said...
The problem is not how Carlozzi voted, the problem is with him voting at all. He wasn't at the meeting and he didn't know what was happening when the last vote was taken. He just watched the other democrats vote and voted with them site unseen. If he had been at the meeting, and then voted it could be accepted but he voted blind.
Through this one action, Carlozzi has proven himself to be a rubber stamp for the radicals who have hijacked the party. The last thing this city needed was just another brainless puppet controlled by the socialist strings of Sherwood and Trueworthy.
I guess you can add Carlozzi to the list of mush brains on the council.
.....Through this action, CAlderman Carlozzi has demonstrated that he has become just another rubber stamp for the party leadership and their radical agenda.......
Gee wiz Uncle Frank, why would you expect anything different from Alderman Carlozzi. He is after all a Democrat.
The democratic council members complained that this capitol improvement bond was thrown at them with no time to review it.
The process of preparing the capitol improvement bond began last January and it is documented throughout the departments and at various financial department meetings. If the democrats were doing their jobs and attending meetings with regard to their laison positions, they would have been well prepared to vote.
What they should have said is, we are not prepared to vote because we spend all of our time with political foolishness and very little time and attention to the busines of the City of New Britain.
Therefore we must waste more time and delay so we can brush over some items, make some calls, investigate the matter, try to get state funding that doesn't pertain to the issue, call Tim O'Brien, push this out in a politically timed matter and eventually ride in on the white horse and save the day with police cars.
Idiots. Vote all democrats out in November.
I'm wondering where the head of the Police Commission, Michael Wanik was..did he have any opinions on this subject? Normally, he has much to say on various subjects. Being well spoken, he may have had some positive impressions to bestow on our "esteemed" Common Council.
It is typical for Democrats to vote without reading a bill or even knowing what the issue is about. Remember just vote and we will read the law we passed later? So why would you expect anything different?
From Arizona. Just another reason to leave New Britain!!
Story has is Mike Wanik was ok with delaying the matter. He wears two hats these days, police and CPOA.
I have had some back water conversations and am hopeful that a solution will be found this Weds. Thanks for your support for proper equipment. NBPD had a well designed vehicle rotation plan; however the economy threw a monkey wrench into it. It is time to start a cycle again wherein vehicles are rotated through various levels of work hours (police cars do more hours than miles) and then are ultimately sold for some value; instead of ending up in the city garage for repairs; thus causing us multiple levels of expenditure. - Mike W.
Obviously, some were pressured by the snit of a majority leader who goes around telling people how it's going to be. He's a mean spirited youngster that pressures people with bullying and a "I'm all that attitude". He'll remind you everyday he's got the numbers to do it! Nancy Pelosi in a Pee Wee Herman costume.
Vote all democrats out in November.
The Capital Equipment Bond issue was delayed because people on the Council refuse to call people and ask questions.
Then, they come to a special Bond Committee meeting, do their grandstanding before the public there and send - after some stupid machinations by Trueworthy - the issue to a Council subcommittee. In doing so, they disenfranchised a Bonding Committee members of a vote - she is not a Council member - , cost the city money because bond counsel was there and possibly jeopardize getting current low interest rates on the bonding.
Then the leaders forget to invite the Department Heads affected to the Committee meeting. If it were not for the Mayor's staff none of the department heads would have been been at the meeting to answer questions.
Just another example of Democrat delay tactics to do nothing but delay. How stupid is That?
Mike Wanik has nothing to do with the issue. He wouldn't have been allowed to speak at a bonding meeting or a special meeting anyway.anyway
Lou,
Make sure that Mike Trueworthy comes up with the cash for the police cars like he said he can. He is also seeking locip funding for the equipment, be sure he has the application in for that too.
I think Mike should run for mayor.
He has all the ideas? As wrong as he is, he always has something to contribute.
Funny.
As far as I am concerned, Carlozzi has proven himself to be nothing more than the rubber stamp for the radicals Sherwood and Trueworthy.
If we wanted a rubber stamp, what do we need Carlozzi for?
There are many of us who will remember how Carlozzi is letting us down during election time next year.
I guess it is time for hope and change.
Mr. Carlozzi, a liaison to the Board of Police Commissioners, gave his rationale for not voting for the 6m bond. 30 police cars are about 1.7m of that number, with vehicle delivery being spread over 3 years. Alderman Carlozzi states he has no issue with any of the public safety categories (incl fire/ems); but does with other items - like bonding $8,000 worth of equipment for the Town Clerk; which he feels we should just write a check for. Bottom line; there is a committee mtg Thursday followed by a council meeting two weeks from tonight's. That means 3 weeks from today is the first time this can be approved. If we don't buy in the current state bid we will no doubt be locked out of current favorable rates. Stay tuned-
Mike W., your figures are correct regarding the police vehicles. There are also new vehicles for EMS and other city vehicles on the list. This bond will be taken to cover the city over a three year period at a great interest rate based on our excellent bond rating, (thank you, mayor). We don't have to spend the entire amount or draw down, but we are preparing for the next three years while rates are very low. A good and prudent action. The process of meeting with the departments and assessing the current needs and those items that should be included over three years took several months. The preparation of the bonding resolution is the same as holding a "closing". It takes time and costs money and once the closing is scheduled, unless there is some
out of whack finding, it should proceed on schedule,on time. The delay was proposed because of a couple of things, the amount, lack of time to review and basically a no trust in the mayors actions by the democratic council,surprised?. Each one of the council members has the ability to review, question, and prepare for a bonding resolution. They all knew it was being worked on but show up to the "closing" with opposition. Conversely, Mr. Carlozzi didn't show up to the meeting, AT ALL. Mr. Carlozzi wasn't late for the 6pm vote, he wasn't there. He simply showed up for the council meeting and threw his vote in at his party's direction. So if he thought this was important, he should have come to the "closing". The measure passed and then at the direction of the democrats the vote was re-taken again, and again trying to get it tabled. Several times Phil Sherwood repeated that this resolution will probably be approved as it is written but they just needed time for review. Well they had ample time. They obviously waste time. Mike Trueworthy was quoted as suggesting that the police cars should and probably be paid for in cash or at least we can apply for funding through the state Locip fund. Of course Locip funds don't pertain to capitol equipment, Mike just doesn't know what he is talking about.
Mr. Carlozzi can easily explain away his un-ethical voting process by stating if it was just safety vehichles he wouldn't have a problem with it, he was just repeating what Catanzaro said once the common council meeting was underway. Carlozzi knows he is in the thick of it with his party and can't stand alone on any issue. I wonder if Carlozzi will run for office again.
Mike W., your figures are correct regarding the police vehicles. There are also new vehicles for EMS and other city vehicles on the list. This bond will be taken to cover the city over a three year period at a great interest rate based on our excellent bond rating, (thank you, mayor). We don't have to spend the entire amount or draw down, but we are preparing for the next three years while rates are very low. A good and prudent action. The process of meeting with the departments and assessing the current needs and those items that should be included over three years took several months. The preparation of the bonding resolution is the same as holding a "closing". It takes time and costs money and once the closing is scheduled, unless there is some
out of whack finding, it should proceed on schedule,on time. The delay was proposed because of a couple of things, the amount, lack of time to review and basically a no trust in the mayors actions by the democratic council,surprised?. Each one of the council members has the ability to review, question, and prepare for a bonding resolution. They all knew it was being worked on but show up to the "closing" with opposition. Conversely, Mr. Carlozzi didn't show up to the meeting, AT ALL. Mr. Carlozzi wasn't late for the 6pm vote, he wasn't there. He simply showed up for the council meeting and threw his vote in at his party's direction. So if he thought this was important, he should have come to the "closing". The measure passed and then at the direction of the democrats the vote was re-taken again, and again trying to get it tabled. Several times Phil Sherwood repeated that this resolution will probably be approved as it is written but they just needed time for review. Well they had ample time. They obviously waste time. Mike Trueworthy was quoted as suggesting that the police cars should and probably be paid for in cash or at least we can apply for funding through the state Locip fund. Of course Locip funds don't pertain to capitol equipment, Mike just doesn't know what he is talking about.
Mr. Carlozzi can easily explain away his un-ethical voting process by stating if it was just safety vehichles he wouldn't have a problem with it, he was just repeating what Catanzaro said once the common council meeting was underway. Carlozzi knows he is in the thick of it with his party and can't stand alone on any issue. I wonder if Carlozzi will run for office again.
"he was just repeating what Catanzaro said once the common council meeting was underway."
CARLOZZI-CONFLICTS CATANZARO'S PUPPET!
This should be Carlozzi's campaign slogan for the next election!
Does he sit on the fat man's lap like the dummies we used to watch on the Ed Sullivan Show, or is it all done with wires?
Post a Comment