When leading opposition figures make a fuss about nothing, it means that things must actually be going very well with North Haven’s new administration.
What do I mean by “fuss”? For example, Republican Board of Finance member Timothy Doheny wrote a letter to the editor complaining that he and other Republican members of town boards were not sent formal invitations (not paid for by the town, incidentally) to the inauguration. He accused the Democrats of failing to show they can “lead with sincerity and dignity.”
But all he showed is that he didn’t bother to ask who had actually been sent invitations. He would have discovered that newly elected Republicans and Democrats were invited, but other board and commission members, for the most part, were not. And he might have noted that everyone in town was invited, and that he and many other non-formally-invited people did attend.
At the December 6 Board of Selectmen meeting, Republican Town Committee Chair Elinor Pedalino got bent out of shape over the Board of Selectmen members’ failure to immediately select a replacement for Kevin Kopetz, only four days after they were legally allowed to do so. This is a very serious decision, and First Selectwoman Janet McCarty is in the midst of starting a new job, making a zillion other important decisions and meeting with many people with whom she will be working over the next two years.
But this did not stop the Town Committee chair from accusing Ms. McCarty of hypocrisy, of closing out the Republicans, of giving the town a closed government, and of a lack of due process.
Ms. Pedalino didn’t bother to change her prepared speech when she learned that nothing important was decided at the BoS meeting, other than the appointment of the Town Attorney and an Assistant Town Attorney. And she didn’t bother to note that public comments could be made both before and after the Board discussed this issue.
Two years ago, the Republican majority on the BoS would not let anyone speak at all during the meeting where Mr. Donofrio was appointed Town Attorney, and Ms. Pedalino had nothing to say about that.
The fact is that Ms. McCarty stands for open government, and she has already opened government up enormously and in many ways. She fought for public comments during meetings, and finally won. She has made her home phone number and email address public information. She has gone on TV twice already to share with North Haveners what is going on, and she has offered to answer their questions not alone in an office, but also publicly, where all can hear. She is working to further improve the improved website she worked for, to make everyone at Town Hall more accessible, via email and fax, and to make information accessible to everyone, to help citizens participate in their government.
To say that Ms. McCarty is not giving us open government – the thing I have fought for so hard myself – is the most vicious lie possible. I think Ms. Pedalino should be replaced with someone who can better represent the honest, public-spirited Republicans in this town.
But Ms. Pedalino and Mr. Doheny are not alone in trying to make a fuss out of nothing.
Right there with her is former, long-time Board of Finance Acting Chair (somehow the Democrats managed to elect a Chair at their first Board of Finance meeting) Michael O. Peterson. At the December 12 BoF meeting, he also implied hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats, who spoke of open government, he said, but did not seem to be providing it.
What example of this did he bring up? A fact-finding meeting on November 20, while he was still acting BoF chair, between three BoF members (two Dems and one GOP), our acting finance director, and our special auditor.
This meeting was not noticed as a meeting, and Mr. Peterson said this was illegal because (i) three BoF members is a quorum (this is not true; Section 301D of the Charter says the number is four); (ii) because there were members of both parties present, which makes it a meeting (also not true; Section 1-200(2) of the Freedom of Information Act speaks of a meeting consisting of a quorum, not a mix of parties, because without a quorum nothing can be decided); and (iii) because the meeting was of the audit subcommittee (two of the three BoF members present at the meeting were, indeed, also members of the audit subcommittee, making it a quorum of that subcommittee, but its chair, Republican Timothy Doheny, said that he did not consider it a meeting of the audit subcommittee, that he did not consider the audit subcommittee to be active, and in any event he considered it only a fact-finding get-together, not a meeting to make decisions).
Again, an implication of Democratic hypocrisy (not giving us the open government they promised) was misplaced. And again, the person causing the fuss didn’t bother to check: he thought Janet McCarty was present at the meeting and that she should have been responsible, although she wasn’t present, was not even a member of the BoF at the time, and Peterson himself was its Chair and therefore responsible.
I know, it sounds silly. But that’s the best they could do. The Republican leaders couldn’t wait for Ms. McCarty to make some real mistakes, to really close people out of the town’s decision-making, to actually break laws the way Republican leaders did day in and day out.
And then there’s the fuss the Republican Town Committee Treasurer, Antoinetta Carmody, made at the December 6 Board of Selectmen meeting about the new assistant town attorney. For my views on our new assistant town attorney, click here.
It’s clear that there will be no honeymoon for the Democrats. People with what Mr. Doheny calls “sincerity and dignity” give those who replace them in office a little time to get going before they start attacking them.
But not in North Haven, at least not among North Haven’s Republican leaders. If the Republicans want to get back to respectability, they need leaders who will act respectable and show respect. Not leaders like Ms. Pedalino or her predecessor, Joseph Ierardi, or his predecessor, Gary Johns, who used his position to take a North Haven job for which he did not have qualifications (requiring the town to pay extra for the services of a certified Assessor).
The Republicans lost power because they abused it. If they abuse the open government Janet McCarty and friends have given North Haven, they will deserve to stay where they are.
It’s time to earn back our respect, not play the same old tired, ugly games.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
That whole discussion about getting "competitive bids" on the Town Attorney position was a waste of time. Our former Town Attorney had little or no experience in labor law, where most of the action is. Janet made a great initial move, by hiring a qualified person for that position.
The first meeting of the Board of Finance was a little ragged at times. However, this BOF appears to have the talent and commitment to do an excellent job. I thought most of the questions and comments were aimed at doing what is best for North Haven.
SPEAKING OF DOHENY . . .
Has anyone looked into the apparent conflict of interest between his role on the BOF and his role as a loan officer for Peoples Bank?
In view of the numerous known conflicts of interest within the former nest of Reblicrooks, should Doheny in particular be included within a more extensive forensic audit?
Has he cast any votes or offered any opinions that could have sent business to his bank?
At the very least, it would seem obvious that he offers his bank advanced information about loan opportunities, which could give his bank a competitive advantage. Does anyone else see a conflict?
What we do know about this petulant and arrogant little man is that he's not on the board of finance because of a moral sense of civic responsibility.
More generally, it is obvious from past BOF meetings that Doheny is actually cognitively impaired when it comes to the simple concept of a "conflict of interest". He just doesn't get it.
It is therefore natural to ask, What is Doheny's real motive? Is he simply the stalking horse for Peoples bank? The people have a right to know exactly whose interest Doheny is representing.
In moving forward it will be important scrutinize his every action.
I don't believe that North Haven has an account with or does business with Peoples Bank, but I will ask Mr. Swinkoski, the acting finance director. And I don't think that Mr. Doheny could have influenced anyone due to his position on the BoF, but it is possible.
There is no doubt that Mr. Doheny has shown little sensitivity to conflicts of interest involving others (particularly with respect to the forensic investigation), but he has actually gone far beyond the call of duty (absurdly so) with respect to his own conflicts, most recently deciding not to vote on a school issue that in no way benefited his wife, who is a teacher. To me it seemed to be only for show, but it might just be that he doesn't understand conflicts and hasn't bothered to ask anyone.
At the same BoF meeting, acting chair Michael O. Peterson told Democratic BoF member Gerry Feinberg not to vote on a matter involving Feinberg's wife (then Democratic Registrar), despite the fact that Feinberg has always been very careful not to say a word (and, of course, not vote) on any matter involving his wife. In fact, he recently resigned from the BoF, which he most likely would have chaired, so that there would not be an appearance of conflict with his wife's new position as McCarty's assistant.
Peterson's conduct was inexcusable, simply an attempt to look holier than a Democrat who has consistently recognized his own conflicts and dealt with them responsibly.
There is a conflict of interest with Mr. Doheny, only if he has the ability to steer business to People's United Bank. I don't think he has that power on the new BOF.
Actually, I thought most of his questions were valid. I especially liked his comments regarding the Town's investments. Who is watching the store?
People like Petersen should be offering a hand to the new town leaders for the benefit of the town. Instead, they act with malice and bitterness. (Old Habits)
As for Doheny, he is blinded by his own ego. He made suggestions at the BOF meeting last week but wouldn't write them down. This is a listen to me, I am God attitude. Even God wrote down his/her rules; rules the replublicans put aside for personal gain.
I agree with spacial forces. Mr. Doheny's comments regarding town investments are words of wisdom. We must be wise with the Town's balance of savings. And in these times more vigilant in there monitoring.
Mr Leahy:
I am not sure you see the point about "competitive bids" on the Town Attorney position. The idea is that on May 9, 2007 at a BOF Subcommittee meeting, our first selectperson stated that " Town Counsel was not put out to bid and I voted against that firm for that reason."
Logic would follow that she would put her Town Attorney out to bid if that was her issue with the previous administration's handling of the appointment. I believe that it is a First Selectman's executive privilege to appoint the Town Attorney that he (or she) sees fit, but given the First Selectperson's grandstands during previous meetings, I guess many of us are just disappointed that she didn't keep her word.
Mr. Marenna:
Janet clearly made two points.
1) The Town charter does not require competitive bidding on the hiring of the Town attorney
2) Her earlier opposition to hiring Mr. Donofrio was based on the fact that Mr. Kopetz did not validate that the houly rate being charged by him was "competitive" with the rates charged by other law firms
Mr. Wechsler:
For some time you have shown a lot of concern over potential conflicts in town. Yet, when a legitimate conflict arises and someone takes appropriate action in light of that conflict, he gets criticized? For the record, I did not say my wife was a current teacher in town. What I said was that she was formerly employed as a teacher in town during the period of time covered by the Anthem BC/BC demutualization refund. Since I felt it was an obvious conflict to vote on something which would directly benefit my family, I abstained from the vote. Should I have done otherwise? What would you have said on this website had I not abstained?
Timothy Doheny
Mr. Doheny, I'm sorry, I didn't realize your wife was no longer a North Haven teacher. Fortunately, that's not relevant to this matter.
As I understand it, the decision about the apportionment of the money had already been made. The Board of Finance vote could not, as I understand it, have harmed or benefited your family. If it could have, there is no doubt you should have recused yourself and not participated in dealing with the matter.
Please let me know how the vote could have benefited your family, and I will fully retract my criticism and apologize in a prominent place, not hidden away in a comment.
I forgot to comment on the anonymous posting. I don't need to write suggestions down at the BOF. First, the committee has a Secretary. Secondly, our meeting minutes normally would (and will in this case) include any significant suggestion or request by a member. Thirdly, our meetings are taped by NHTV, so they can be reviewed if need be. Fourth, none of the members, includng Janet, expressed any confusion over the matter raised, there were no questions, no comments, no requests for clarification.
Lastly, since i felt this was an important issue, on Saturday I did post a letter to the First Selectwomen and the Chairman of the BOF on the topic I raised.
Timothy Doheny
Mr. Wechsler,
I think you are referring to the fact that the town lost a lawsuit over the demutualization proceeds. The lawsuit resulted in a partial payment of the demutualization proceeds over to the teachers. As it turns out, by the night of the BOF meeting the checks were already in the mail. We can talk about the effectiveness of the outcome of the BOF vote, but the simple facts are that my wife was eligible for a refund. Knowing that, I recused myself from a vote on the matter. Isn't that a textbook example of how a conflict should be handled?
Guy's wife is going to recieve a check if the motion passes...he doesn't vote...according to you this is not a conflict and you call him absurd..
Another guy's wife is going to be secretary for the first selectperson he vacates his finance position to avoid a conflict...you praise him as always being careful to avoiding a conflict...
Silly double statndard...one guy you like one guy you don't...
Same went with the town attorney..correct answer is that the first selectman should have the right to choose the town attorney without bidding it out to the lowest bidder...problem is Janet just couldn't say I was wrong a few years ago in taking that stance...it was ok then just as it is ok now... just gimme a little honesty without parcing...please.... enough is enough....
No, Mr. Doheny, a textbook example involves some chance of benefit or harm from a matter before one's board.
There are two parts to the process: disclosure and withdrawal.
In this case, it would have been enough to have disclosed what could be seen as a conflict by saying that your wife was benefiting from the refund, and then letting people know that the BoF had no control over whether she and other teachers would get the refund, or the amount any of them would get. Because of this, there was no need for you to withdraw from participation in the matter.
Of course, it is better to withdraw when there is a doubt than to do nothing at all. But it is important to help people understand that every apparent conflict does not require withdrawal, and that disclosure is itself important.
Most people do not even understand that there is nothing wrong with having a conflict, only with not disclosing it and dealing with it responsibly.
Peterson's recusing of Feinberg, on top of your unnecessary recusal, made it look to me like the two of you were trying to look concerned with conflicts after the ongoing criticism I'd made of the BoF's refusal to consider the conflicts of Mr. Swinkoski, Mr. Kopetz, and Mr. Donofrio with respect to the forensic investigation (conflicts that were never publicly discussed). But neither of you, I feel, did anything necessary, and Peterson was rude and completely out of order (what you did was harmless).
In response to Anonymous, the vote of the BoF is not what gave Doheny's wife the check.
Feinberg's situation is entirely different. He would have sat on a board with his wife's boss. There would be an ongoing appearance of impropriety there.
Feinberg's situation is just like the Donofrios'. It was okay for Mrs. Donofrio to sit on a board (Education) her husband, who also effectively worked for the First Selectman, had nothing to do with, but not, say, on the Board of Finance.
For the record, I'd like to add my thanks to Mr. Doheny for his understanding of the current financial issues. It's good to have a banker like him on the BoF, especially in times like this.
Mr. Doheny,
Were any of your letters and/or reponses writen and submited while you were at work. On company time. Us ditch diggers don't understand how you guys at the desks can screw off a portion of the day to your own gain.
Mr. Leahy:
With all due respect, I don't care how she is rationalizing her comment now that she is in office. Pie in the sky. Get the May 9, 2007 BOFS tape from NHTV and you will find her exact quote.
" Town Counsel was not put out to bid and I voted against that firm for that reason." -Janet McCarty (5/9/07)
It's ironic to see the outgoing party now complaining about conflicts of interest and not getting bids on the town attorney's position. The town charter does not require bids in the selection of a town attorney, just like you and I would not go to the lowest bidder to hire a personal attorney. You just want to make sure the hourly rate you are being charged is "competitive."
The Republicans ran morally corrupt administrations, which tolerated several outrageous conflicts of interest. In addition, there were many situations where competitive bids were not solicited, costing us millions of dollars.
That's why they were soundly voted out of office last November.
Ms. Pedalino is looking very foolish in her petty comments. There is absolutely no logic in her comments in the Advisor about the selection of the new town attorney. It's all sour grapes from a party head who lost influence and power.
Robert Crowther has joined the growing group of people on the attack against Democrats, who can’t manage to find anything solid to attack.
His quarry in a letter to the editor of the North Haven Post is Steve Fontana. He presents a good practical case for Fontana not to represent North Haven both in the State House and on the Board of Selectmen. The only problem is that it’s not true.
His Fontana has a full-time job in the private sector, plus the part-time political positions in Hartford and North Haven. That would be tough to handle. But Fontana does not have a full-time job in the private sector; he is a part-time, independent professional.
And the job of majority-party Selectman requires only one meeting a month, along with ongoing consultation with the First Selectman, which can be easily fit into his schedule.
Crowther also says that holding the two positions “raises many ethical issues,” but he doesn’t bother to say what those issues are. I identified those issues way back in July, and responded to them.
Why is it that people such as Crowther can’t get the facts right and can’t actually make concrete accusations, but just say things like “ethical issues” and “arrogant and incompetent”?
I worked hard in opposition to make concrete, accurate accusations. I hope these new dissidents, who seemed to find nothing wrong with the Kopetz Administration, will do the same.
Whats the matter Bobby. You and your buddies at Media Matters and Move On don't like it when someone does the same crap that you guys do constantly.
It's interesting the fantasies people have about me. I don't even know what Media Matters is. I know about Move On, but I find much of their advertising objectionable.
What I do in North Haven has nothing to do with organizations or parties. My allies include Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, all of whom agree on the need for open, participatory government.
More fuss about nothing: Deborah Ward O’Brien wrote a letter to the editors of local weekly newspapers, in which she joined her fellow Republicans in displaying meanspiritedness and little interest in knowing or sharing the facts about what they are saying.
Janet McCarty did screw up. She did not place a sign on the library saying that the Board of Selectmen’s meeting was being held at the Rec Center. This information was generally available, including on the North Haven Info website, but since meetings are usually held at the library, a sign should have been put up. And McCarty admitted as much.
But what does this error have to do with “open, fair and honest government,” which is what led to O’Brien’s “dismay and concern.”
O'Brien moves on to criticize the way she and her friends were greeted (“Mr. Fontana rudely chastised us for being late”). She did not apparently ask why the response to her and her fellows’ entrance was like this.
What happened is that there had been many Republicans out in the hall even after the meeting began, including Michael Freda, who was not present when it came to naming him to the Board of Selectmen. That’s why Fontana was pissed, and there was no reason to believe that O’Brien and friends were not part of the Republican caucus in the hall.
Then O’Brien joined Republican accusations of cronyism, along with favoritism and nepotism, this time because McCarty’s husband and Fontana’s father were reappointed to boards. Fontana’s father has been serving North Haven government for ages, and no one complained when his son got involved. How is his continuing service on the Commission for Aging a sign of favoritism or cronyism?
And McCarty’s been on the Board of Selectmen for some time, while her scientist-husband has been sharing his expertise with the Inland Wetlands Commission. But O’Brien waited until now to complain? Why didn’t Kevin Kopetz and William Mitchell protect the town from McCarty’s horrible cronyism, favoritism, and nepotism?
But most absurd of all is the accusation that Fontana is “guiding” McCarty. It wasn’t long ago that the Republicans were accusing McCarty of guiding the Democratic members of the Board of Finance. Do they really think people will believe that the messy North Haven Democratic Party, where everyone goes his or her own way, is actually run by a clean-cut Rasputin, who has everyone in his power? You’ve got to be kidding.
But O’Brien wasn’t kidding. In fact, it was just her way of segueing into an attack on Fontana’s record as State Representative. Fontana is suddenly “directly responsible for our higher electrical rates.” That’s what he’s really been plotting at: getting our hard-earned bucks into the hands of the evil UI, which is probably giving him kickbacks, right?
Ms. O’Brien ends by mocking McCarty’s campaign slogan. A perfect way to end another vicious, baseless attack on the new administration. North Haven does deserve better: a better opposition to complement a better administration.
The Republicans' habit of making a big fuss about nothing and taking one's complaints straight to the newspapers has sadly rubbed off on North Haven high school students.
In a letter to the editor in today's Courier, basketball captain Christine Warner criticizes Janet McCarty for having scheduled the inauguration when the basketball team was having its jamboree, which had to be held at the Middle School gym.
She says "The team and I are looking for an explanation," but does not indicate that she actually bothered to ask Ms. McCarty before writing her letter to the editor.
Does she even know whether McCarty knew about the jamboree? She starts out criticizing "McCarty and her staff," but then forgets the staff.
She would know if she bothered to ask, but why should she? Adults don't. Board of Finance member Tim Doheny similarly criticized McCarty regarding invitations to the inauguration without asking. Why ask? You might get an answer you don't like.
Of course, the inauguration should have respected the team's plans. Someone should have interceded and worked something out so the two events could both go off as planned. It's too bad this didn't happen, but it doesn't mean that there was any foul play or disrespect.
Post a Comment