Frank: Trueworthy has been play-acting for years as an attorney, financial expert or simply, the omniscient expert du jour. He can't dazzle anyone with brilliance so he tries to baffle with b@*&^%$t. Such was the case at the July Council meeting. As he has done constatntly since he was first elected, he ignored a ruling of the Corporation Counsel and voted while serving as Mayor Pro Tem of the 7/13 meeting. Mayor Stewart is correct, it was a childish display of hubris reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi - " ... we won so we can do what we want."
The bigger sin on this issue that night? The other ten Democrats supported his decision to be childish! Now just suppose Mayor Stewart were to try voting on an issue at any meeting; can you hear the objections?
Trueworthy forgets a situation where, years ago, a Democrat vacancy existed on the Council; the candidate SUPPORTED BY THE GOP MEMBERS WAS, THE LATE, ED KIREJCZYK (D). At the time, Suzanne Bielinski was Mayor ProTem . A vote was taken and a tie resulted, 7 to 7. Mayor Stewart left the Chair ( Mayor did not want to be involved); Bielinski took over, then she left the Chair because she didn't want to cast the tie breaking vote, so, I became Mayor for about 1 minute, voted to break the tie and Ed Kirejczyk became the alderman. Stewart wouldn't vote, Bieliski wouldn't vote so I did. Now according to Trueworthy's interpretation of the rules, Stewart and Bielinski could have chaired the meeting and voted! Can you guess what Mike would have said?
As Walter Cronkite would have said, " ... And that's the way it is" - with NB Council Democrats, anyway.
With all due respect to his background and experience, Attorney Bazzaro made a serious mistake in his opinion:
Mr. Bazarro was incorrect when he gave Trueworthy credit for acting like a 5 year old. Trueworthy is such a baby, his conduct usually reflects that of a 2 year old.
I seriously hope Mr. Bazarro doesn't mind my pointing out the obvious flaw in his opinion.
If Bizzaro spent five minutes looking at case law he would see he is wrong. CT Courts have ruled that when the presiding officer is also a regular voting member of a legislative body that there is no instance in which their votes can not be counted. Latest case involved Enfield just 2 years ago. This is what happens when you have a political and legal hack with little regard for the public interest acting as Corp. Counsel to the City. Obviously his job is to represent the interest of the Mayor but it is unfortunate that he seems to deliberately disregarded his legal responsibility to represent the City Council and instead puts politics before all else. I find Bizzaro's vitriol and lack of integrity in this case stunning.
Hey Phil very different situation in NB idiot. The presiding officer by Charter is the Mayor and in his absence the Mayor Pro Tempore who assumes all power and authority in his absence. Therefore he cannot vote unlike Enfield where the presiding officer, Mayor is elected just as the others on his council are. I don't believe that he runs as mayor in the general elections. It amazes me at how you consistently twist the rules to your way of thinking when you disagree with someone from the other party Phil. Your childishness just like Mikes knows no boundaries! Someone needs to teach you a lesson kid! Maybe Mr. Canty or his minions will soon!
We have reviewed Robert's Rules, and Mr. Trueworthy is correct in that he is allowed to cast a vote while presiding because he normally is a voting member of the New Britain Common Council.
What Mr. Trueworthy DIDN'T read is the next paragraph which says that he should decline voting in order to maintain the impartiality of the chair.
As another poster said, Mr. Trueworthy is choosing what laws to follow and what not, just like when he jeopardized the city's funding with HUD by voting on grants for HRA .
We have reviewed Robert's Rules, and Mr. Trueworthy is correct in that he is allowed to cast a vote while presiding because he normally is a voting member of the New Britain Common Council.
What Mr. Trueworthy DIDN'T read is the next paragraph which says that he should decline voting in order to maintain the impartiality of the chair.
As another poster said, Mr. Trueworthy is choosing what laws to follow and what not, just like when he jeopardized the city's funding with HUD by voting on grants for HRA .
What all the arm chair parliamentarians have failed to read carefully is, that the standing rules of the Council provide that Roberts Rules may be used only when there are no provisions in the Charter, City Ordinances or the Standing rules that obtain covering any procedural matter.
Thus, Roberts Rules do not matter in this situation.
Lou Salvio said... Frank: Trueworthy has been play-acting for years as an attorney, financial expert or simply, the omniscient expert du jour. He can't dazzle anyone with brilliance so he tries to baffle with b@*&^%$t. Such was the case at the July Council meeting. As he has done constatntly since he was first elected, he ignored a ruling of the Corporation Counsel and voted while serving as Mayor Pro Tem of the 7/13 meeting. Mayor Stewart is correct, it was a childish display of hubris reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi - " ... we won so we can do what we want."
The bigger sin on this issue that night? The other ten Democrats supported his decision to be childish! Now just suppose Mayor Stewart were to try voting on an issue at any meeting; can you hear the objections?
Trueworthy forgets a situation where, years ago, a Democrat vacancy existed on the Council; the candidate SUPPORTED BY THE GOP MEMBERS WAS, THE LATE, ED KIREJCZYK (D). At the time, Suzanne Bielinski was Mayor ProTem . A vote was taken and a tie resulted, 7 to 7. Mayor Stewart left the Chair ( Mayor did not want to be involved); Bielinski took over, then she left the Chair because she didn't want to cast the tie breaking vote, so, I became Mayor for about 1 minute, voted to break the tie and Ed Kirejczyk became the alderman. Stewart wouldn't vote, Bieliski wouldn't vote so I did. Now according to Trueworthy's interpretation of the rules, Stewart and Bielinski could have chaired the meeting and voted! Can you guess what Mike would have said?
As Walter Cronkite would have said, " ... And that's the way it is" - with NB Council Democrats, anyway.
Lest we forget Phil, you are a self proclaimed attorney, judge, jury, etc. It is impossible for someone with an ego like yours to be wrong on any subject and even when proven wrong have you ever apologized to the people you have injured with your behavior? Never! Your continued arrogance will catch up to you someday! Good luck in Hartford, there are more stupid voters there for you to bamboozle, typical liberal, praying on the weak and uninformed.
Trueworthy should be brought before the Ethics committee. If they find Trueworthy in violation of the rules, he should be publicly reprimanded.
ReplyDeleteTrueworthy should be brought before the Ethics committee. If they find Trueworthy in violation of the rules, he should be publicly reprimanded.
ReplyDeleteFrank:
ReplyDeleteTrueworthy has been play-acting for years as an attorney, financial expert or simply, the omniscient expert du jour. He can't dazzle anyone with brilliance so he tries to baffle with b@*&^%$t. Such was the case at the July Council meeting. As he has done constatntly since he was first elected, he ignored a ruling of the Corporation Counsel and voted while serving as Mayor Pro Tem of the 7/13 meeting. Mayor Stewart is correct, it was a childish display of hubris reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi - " ... we won so we can do what we want."
The bigger sin on this issue that night? The other ten Democrats supported his decision to be childish! Now just suppose Mayor Stewart were to try voting on an issue at any meeting; can you hear the objections?
Trueworthy forgets a situation where, years ago, a Democrat vacancy existed on the Council; the candidate SUPPORTED BY THE GOP MEMBERS WAS, THE LATE, ED KIREJCZYK (D). At the time, Suzanne Bielinski was Mayor ProTem . A vote was taken and a tie resulted, 7 to 7. Mayor Stewart left the Chair ( Mayor did not want to be involved); Bielinski took over, then she left the Chair because she didn't want to cast the tie breaking vote, so, I became Mayor for about 1 minute, voted to break the tie and Ed Kirejczyk became the alderman.
Stewart wouldn't vote, Bieliski wouldn't vote so I did. Now according to Trueworthy's interpretation of the rules, Stewart and Bielinski could have chaired the meeting and voted! Can you guess what Mike would have said?
As Walter Cronkite would have said, " ... And that's the way it is" - with NB Council Democrats, anyway.
With all due respect to his background and experience, Attorney Bazzaro made a serious mistake in his opinion:
ReplyDeleteMr. Bazarro was incorrect when he gave Trueworthy credit for acting like a 5 year old. Trueworthy is such a baby, his conduct usually reflects that of a 2 year old.
I seriously hope Mr. Bazarro doesn't mind my pointing out the obvious flaw in his opinion.
If Bizzaro spent five minutes looking at case law he would see he is wrong. CT Courts have ruled that when the presiding officer is also a regular voting member of a legislative body that there is no instance in which their votes can not be counted. Latest case involved Enfield just 2 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when you have a political and legal hack with little regard for the public interest acting as Corp. Counsel to the City.
Obviously his job is to represent the interest of the Mayor but it is unfortunate that he seems to deliberately disregarded his legal responsibility to represent the City Council and instead puts politics before all else.
I find Bizzaro's vitriol and lack of integrity in this case stunning.
Phil Sherwood
Phil sir, You are a political hack. He refered to our cities charter. Which is what we govern by as you know.
ReplyDeleteRespectfuly
HZ
Mr. Sherwood: From what I hear you have your handful causing trouble in Hartford.
ReplyDeleteNow you have a need to try your old tricks in New Britain?
Maybe Sherwood should stick to his duties serving the queer Mayor and leave New Britain rabble rousing to his past.
ReplyDeleteHey Phil very different situation in NB idiot. The presiding officer by Charter is the Mayor and in his absence the Mayor Pro Tempore who assumes all power and authority in his absence. Therefore he cannot vote unlike Enfield where the presiding officer, Mayor is elected just as the others on his council are. I don't believe that he runs as mayor in the general elections.
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me at how you consistently twist the rules to your way of thinking when you disagree with someone from the other party Phil. Your childishness just like Mikes knows no boundaries! Someone needs to teach you a lesson kid! Maybe Mr. Canty or his minions will soon!
We have an Ethics Committee?
ReplyDeleteHey Phil go back to servicing your new master and leave us alone.
ReplyDeleteWe have reviewed Robert's Rules, and Mr. Trueworthy is correct in that he is allowed to cast a vote while presiding because he normally is a voting member of the New Britain Common Council.
ReplyDeleteWhat Mr. Trueworthy DIDN'T read is the next paragraph which says that he should decline voting in order to maintain the impartiality of the chair.
As another poster said, Mr. Trueworthy is choosing what laws to follow and what not, just like when he jeopardized the city's funding with HUD by voting on grants for HRA .
We have reviewed Robert's Rules, and Mr. Trueworthy is correct in that he is allowed to cast a vote while presiding because he normally is a voting member of the New Britain Common Council.
ReplyDeleteWhat Mr. Trueworthy DIDN'T read is the next paragraph which says that he should decline voting in order to maintain the impartiality of the chair.
As another poster said, Mr. Trueworthy is choosing what laws to follow and what not, just like when he jeopardized the city's funding with HUD by voting on grants for HRA .
Frank:
ReplyDeleteWhat all the arm chair parliamentarians have failed to read carefully is, that the standing rules of the Council provide that Roberts Rules may be used only when there are no provisions in the Charter, City Ordinances or the Standing rules that obtain covering any procedural matter.
Thus, Roberts Rules do not matter in this situation.
Lou Salvio said...
ReplyDeleteFrank:
Trueworthy has been play-acting for years as an attorney, financial expert or simply, the omniscient expert du jour. He can't dazzle anyone with brilliance so he tries to baffle with b@*&^%$t. Such was the case at the July Council meeting. As he has done constatntly since he was first elected, he ignored a ruling of the Corporation Counsel and voted while serving as Mayor Pro Tem of the 7/13 meeting. Mayor Stewart is correct, it was a childish display of hubris reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi - " ... we won so we can do what we want."
The bigger sin on this issue that night? The other ten Democrats supported his decision to be childish! Now just suppose Mayor Stewart were to try voting on an issue at any meeting; can you hear the objections?
Trueworthy forgets a situation where, years ago, a Democrat vacancy existed on the Council; the candidate SUPPORTED BY THE GOP MEMBERS WAS, THE LATE, ED KIREJCZYK (D). At the time, Suzanne Bielinski was Mayor ProTem . A vote was taken and a tie resulted, 7 to 7. Mayor Stewart left the Chair ( Mayor did not want to be involved); Bielinski took over, then she left the Chair because she didn't want to cast the tie breaking vote, so, I became Mayor for about 1 minute, voted to break the tie and Ed Kirejczyk became the alderman.
Stewart wouldn't vote, Bieliski wouldn't vote so I did. Now according to Trueworthy's interpretation of the rules, Stewart and Bielinski could have chaired the meeting and voted! Can you guess what Mike would have said?
As Walter Cronkite would have said, " ... And that's the way it is" - with NB Council Democrats, anyway.
August 3, 2011 7:36 AM
Lest we forget Phil, you are a self proclaimed attorney, judge, jury, etc. It is impossible for someone with an ego like yours to be wrong on any subject and even when proven wrong have you ever apologized to the people you have injured with your behavior? Never! Your continued arrogance will catch up to you someday! Good luck in Hartford, there are more stupid voters there for you to bamboozle, typical liberal, praying on the weak and uninformed.
ReplyDeleteHere's hoping that Phil Sherwood has finally moved out of New Britain.
ReplyDelete