During April 13 thirteenth's meeting Carlozzi's vicious attack bestowed onto the Finance Director, Robert Carry, extremely was uncalled for. With his bringing up a private report to the city council members was soon to become public with all the childish questions by his demanding who told the director to include the names of the spouses, their annual income, and where they work. His tirade went on for a considerable period of time even subsequent to the Mayor's admission that he had ordered that information to be included within the report. Those in attendance may recall Alderman Pabon's comment erased the tenseness in the council chambers when he exclaimed "I didn't know my wife made that much money."
Phase two surfaces during the Council meeting held on April 27th. when the Finance director decided to speak to the council during Public Participation after he reviewed the city's employment policies. Claiming that he was publicly attacked by Alderman Carlozzi citing that this was a planned assault. He continued with his charges of imitation, schoolyard bullying, and harassment.
Mr. Currey then asked that the council to elaborate what the terms of owned and or operated means. The council passed Mr. Curry's request with one voting nay.
This all stems from Democratic attacks on two local business owners serving on the Republican side of the isle Aldermen Pabon and Bernacki.
After the Council meeting was aired on TV many public comments were in full support for Mr. Curry.
18 comments:
In general, it would be ones opinion that in most cases, ethics rules are applied to any member of a direct family that benefits from doing business with a city, state, whatever. To limit the inquiry as the NB Council has done is absurd; to think that only for-profit entities ought to be pursued is equally absurd.
All ethics rules state that any benefits that accrue to a family, not just the immediate person involved but to the immediate family, are worthy of disclosure and scrutiny.
If one is advocating that Mr. Bernacki, or Mr. Pabon, put their respective businesses in their wives' names, that would make all the difference and there would no longer be a conflict - we don't think so.
In general, it would be ones opinion that in most cases, ethics rules are applied to any member of a direct family that benefits from doing business with a city, state, whatever. To limit the inquiry as the NB Council has done is absurd; to think that only for-profit entities ought to be pursued is equally absurd.
All ethics rules state that any benefits that accrue to a family, not just the immediate person involved but to the immediate family, are worthy of disclosure and scrutiny.
If one is advocating that Mr. Bernacki, or Mr. Pabon, put their respective businesses in their wives' names, that would make all the difference and there would no longer be a conflict - we don't think so.
In general, it would be ones opinion that in most cases, ethics rules are applied to any member of a direct family that benefits from doing business with a city, state, whatever. To limit the inquiry as the NB Council has done is absurd; to think that only for-profit entities ought to be pursued is equally absurd.
All ethics rules state that any benefits that accrue to a family, not just the immediate person involved but to the immediate family, are worthy of disclosure and scrutiny.
If one is advocating that Mr. Bernacki, or Mr. Pabon, put their respective businesses in their wives' names, that would make all the difference and there would no longer be a conflict - we don't think so.
In general, it would be ones opinion that in most cases, ethics rules are applied to any member of a direct family that benefits from doing business with a city, state, whatever. To limit the inquiry as the NB Council has done is absurd; to think that only for-profit entities ought to be pursued is equally absurd.
All ethics rules state that any benefits that accrue to a family, not just the immediate person involved but to the immediate family, are worthy of disclosure and scrutiny.
If one is advocating that Mr. Bernacki, or Mr. Pabon, put their respective businesses in their wives' names, that would make all the difference and there would no longer be a conflict - we don't think so.
This situation just exemplifies how childish these Democrats really are!
Frank:
I don't know why this comment had to be printed three times
Frank:
I was the no vote because, DeFronzo's definitions changed nothing; the original intent of attacking Berancki and Pabon was and is still there. Dirty trick!
However, I feel that Mr. Curry should include Larry Hermanowski in the next report because the city pays him an additional $1000 for his being given a "plum" job of assitiant registrar of voters by his friend Ed Dzwonkowski.
What about it Larry? Shouldn't therehave been at least 3 bids for this "job?"
This Carlozzi character is turning out to be an even bigger dufus than Sherwood was!
...sounds like Carlozzi is attempting to fill Sherwood's shoes!
Sadly Alderman Carlozzi is a big disappointment.
Carlozzi is like Obama, he came in promising hope and change, but is just more of the socialist games!
Democrats in New Britain, Gum on the bottom of one's shoe which is a
real PITA.
And Carlo Carlozzi, agreed big let down.
I would agree that the Democrats on the council and in the legislature are an irritant like gum on the bottom of one's shoe. I never heard them likened to something so irritating but the shoe fits and it certainly fits for Carlozzi too.
This Alderman has been supporting all the socialistic demands of his party Chairman.
Alderman Carlozzi has disappointed those who elected him.
Carlozzi's attack on the finance director was a display for the camera for the TV shoring of the council proceedings on channel 96.
I'm starting to believe that we would be better off with Sherwood. Maybe we could swap one radical extremist for the other?
Kudos to Mr. Curry for standing up to these bullies.
Nw Britain Residents need to start asking why the language of this ordinance is so narrowly crafted to only affect two people. Why don’t they want to disclose all direct and indirect payments made by the City to all Aldermen and their immediate family members?
Why does it only target private business owners? What about non-profits? What about salaries or consulting fees?
Seriously, does anyone think this really about transparency anymore? "
Post a Comment