The Republican Town Committee has finally admitted to at least some of the wrongdoing done by Republican town officials during the Kopetz Administration.
Of course, the RTC didn’t just come out and say what happened, or apologize to the people of North Haven about it. But by attacking the two Democratic members of the Board of Selectmen in a letter to the editor, its Chair made it clear that much of what had been done under the Kopetz Administration was wrong.
A party town committee doesn’t attack someone for things it considers acceptable. By attacking, they are admitting that such things are unacceptable. Let’s see what the RTC considers unacceptable. Here’s the letter to the Advisor, which appeared this week. I’ll follow the RTC’s numbering.
Of course, the RTC didn’t just come out and say what happened, or apologize to the people of North Haven about it. But by attacking the two Democratic members of the Board of Selectmen in a letter to the editor, its Chair made it clear that much of what had been done under the Kopetz Administration was wrong.
A party town committee doesn’t attack someone for things it considers acceptable. By attacking, they are admitting that such things are unacceptable. Let’s see what the RTC considers unacceptable. Here’s the letter to the Advisor, which appeared this week. I’ll follow the RTC’s numbering.
1. It is unacceptable not to select a Town Attorney without seeing if the firm’s fees are competitive. I totally agree, but this is what the Kopetz Administration did. It simply selected the old Town Attorney’s partner. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.
On the other hand, McCarty talked to other lawyers and firms and, in fact, did not put all her eggs in one basket. She selected Richard Parrett and his firm; Christopher Duby, a sole practitioner to do a lot of the day-to-day work at a lower rate than North Haven’s been paying; and the former Town Attorney, Mr. Donofrio, who will continue handling the matters he’s been handling, because he’s highly competent and it would cost the town a lot of money to turn the matters over to other lawyers.
2. It is unacceptable to not have every fact and number at your fingertips, even on someone’s crazy first week in office. If this is unacceptable, then it must be even more unacceptable not to even allow the public to ask for facts and numbers at public meetings.
When Mr. Donofrio was up for appointment as Town Attorney, no member of the public was allowed to ask a single question of him or of the Board of Selectmen. Time and time again, top officials of the Kopetz Administration refused to answer questions from the public, either because they didn’t have the answer or because they just didn’t want to bother. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.
3. It is unacceptable not to provide information about officials’ qualifications at the moment that information is requested, even if the request is made at a public meeting. This is rough, but it’s true that town officials should be prepared.
However, when members of the Kopetz Administration were asked questions at town meetings and other meetings, they often did not have the necessary materials, even sometimes when requests were made to bring specific materials with them. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.
4-5. It is unacceptable to hire unqualified people for important jobs. Not only was then RTC Chair Gary Johns not a qualified assessor, he did not even take the examination required by law. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.
However, the RTC got it wrong. Parrett’s firm is full of people with municipal law experience, and he has municipal law experience himself, although it is not his specialty. When you hire a Town Attorney, you are hiring the firm. That’s why Mr. Donofrio was already effectively Town Attorney when he was appointed to the position.
The RTC is also wrong in acting as though all the legal work done for North Haven is strictly municipal law. I myself have been consulted on numerous legal questions involving the town, and I never practiced municipal law. But I know how to read and interpret laws. Duby also has a great deal of municipal administration experience, as does Parrett. Unqualified they are not.
6. It is unacceptable to get into trouble with the Freedom of Information Commission. I agree. When I introduced myself to a Connecticut FOIC official at a government ethics conference last year, his first words to me were, “Your town has a serious FOI problem.” The Kopetz Administration showed little respect for openness and transparency in government, which was the principal reason I started the North Haven Info website. It is unacceptable not to follow the FOI Act, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.
As for Duby, he says that he had nothing to do with the case before the FOIC. It was not his decision to withhold his resume and his resume was not the only document withheld. The case was handled (or, it appears, mishandled) by the City Attorney’s office, and it decided what documents to give the FOIC and what documents to withhold. That is why the City of Bridgeport paid his fine – because Duby was not personally at fault.
7-8. It is unacceptable for someone to be hired by a First Selectman who has been the First Selectman’s campaign manager, who has been elected to the Board of Education, or who has been a member of the Board of Selectmen. Apparently, it is unacceptable for anyone close to a First Selectman to receive an important position, or even be called on to give legal advice.
Joseph Ierardi was Mr. Kopetz’s campaign manager, and yet he was kept on as Director of Community Services, and the result was that Mr. Kopetz refused to investigate allegations made against Mr. Ierardi. It’s good to hear the RTC finally admit that it was unacceptable to even keep Mr. Ierardi on his town position. Maybe the RTC will also finally admit it was unacceptable to elect a department head (Ierardi, that is) to chair the RTC, or to have an RTC Chair given a job with the town (Gary Johns).
Mr. Kopetz worked under the former Town Attorney, Robert Ciulla, at a New Haven law firm, and yet Mr. Kopetz hired him as Town Attorney. Mr. Donofrio also worked at that New Haven law firm, and then again with Mr. Ciulla as partners in their North Haven firm. I don’t think this meant they shouldn’t be hired as town attorneys, but the RTC apparently does. If only it had said something all those years.
9. It is unacceptable for a Town Attorney candidate or his firm to make large campaign contributions to a First Selectman candidate. I agree completely. I think all town contractors (which town attorneys effectively are) should be banned from making campaign contributions.
Jeffrey Donofrio and his wife each gave the Kopetz campaign $1,000 this year, and Mr. Ciulla gave $250. In addition, town contractors gave thousands of dollars to the Kopetz campaign, but not to the McCarty campaign. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.
This is a great first step toward the RTC showing that its values have changed since its party led the town through a period where contracts were not bid out, where department heads were allowed to act with impunity, where citizens were not allowed to speak during public meetings and officials would not answer questions when they were allowed, where town information was extremely difficult to find, and where intimidation was a common practice.
25 comments:
Also in this week’s Register is a letter to the editor from Andrew S. Kipperman, CPA. While the Republican Town Committee complained that McCarty met without including the Republican Selectman, Mr. Kipperman wants McCarty to fire Vincent Palmeri without including the Republican Selectman.
Accountants tend to be conservative and circumspect (my father was one), but Mr. Kipperman wants to ignore the fact that the Board of Selectmen has new people on it, and that they also have a say in what happens in this town. He also seems to think that firing a department head should happen without following the required process.
Can’t people wait and see what McCarty does before attacking her? It’s not like she’s been in office for months, or even weeks. And it’s not as if the Board of Selectmen has been fully constituted for even a week (it had only two members when Mr. Kipperman wrote his letter).
Mr. Kipperman wants McCarty to apologize. He’s the one who should apologize, for implying someone is a hypocrite before she’s had a chance to do much of anything at all.
She hired a guy that was Joe Ganin's chief of staff. I have no problem with it on its face but I think it needed disclosure and the reasons to overlook it needed to be explained. The lack of a resume now seems suspect. Either he hid it from Janet or she hid it from us. My opinion that it was too big and recent an issue not to be even discussed. No reason the guy can't and won't do a good job...but Janet needed to be prepared to discuss and defend the resume and the hire despite it.
The resume was only an issue at the Board of Selectmen meeting: McCarty didn't bring one to it. What's suspect about that?
And who was the resume hidden from? McCarty didn't say she wouldn't make the resume available (I asked for a copy and it was faxed to me), or that she wouldn't talk about Duby's background, at that meeting or any other time. It even says on the Dem Town Committee website that Duby worked in Bridgeport. Doesn't sound like a dark secret.
Did you or anyone else ask to have Duby's resume sent, and McCarty refused to send it? Did anyone ask about Duby's time in Bridgeport, and she refused to answer?
I asked for the resume, and it was sent. If you didn't, then what's the fuss about?
Maybe none...I thought the question at the meeting to Janet was "Did he give you a resume?" and I thought the answer was no....
Thank you, Anonymous, for responding and acknowledging that there might have been a misunderstanding.
The attacks have started, and few of them give McCarty any benefit of the doubt, even in her first weeks.
I truly appreciate your seeing that there might be doubt, and that maybe she didn't do anything so bad.
She's going to fumble the ball, that's for sure, because she's never had the ball in her hands before. She wants to put together a team she can trust, and she means well, I think, and wants to do well by the town. At this point that's what matters most.
My God!!!
Are these Republicans really as unbelievably pathetic as they are making themselves look in these public meetings? They claim they're watching out for the good of the town??? WOW! If ya don't mind, I'll pass on having them watch out for ME Thank you! I can't believe I've actually supported these sad characters on some things in the past. Never again, that's for sure.
Robert,
You make a good point. I have no problem with giving Janet and her team time to get things going before we start to criticize her administration. But when she starts off on the wrong foot by breaking Town Charter Appointment Regulations in her first week, we as citizens have a right to question their actions.
It clearly states in the town charter that "The Board of Selectmen, by majority vote, may appoint and remove, a town attorney and such other assistant town attorneys.." The issue is that no vote ever took place with minority representation. We are absolutely justified in calling her out on this. How much time do you plan on giving her before you start to criticize her actions? 2009?
The RTC is complaining about trivial matters, after their team did a miserable job of running North Haven. Once the truth got out about mismanagement and corruption, the voters reacted by throwing them out of office.
Janet should have refused to accept Mike Freda,put up an unaffiliated candidate, forced a vote and then let the voters kick these crybabies in the butt again!!! Waaa WAAA WAAAA!!~!!!
Mr. Peterson, just about every vote on the Board of Selectmen is to be done by majority vote. There is no special rule in the Charter for minority representation in town attorney appointments.
A majority vote requires a quorum, which there was, and with a quorum of two a unanimous vote is required. There was a unanimous vote. Therefore, the town's laws were followed.
It might have been preferable for the appointments to have been made on the 17th, but they were legally made, they still would have been made on the 17th, and town residents, including Mr. Freda, were free to publicly criticize and oppose the appointments (as they were not when Mr. Donofrio was appointed).
This is more fuss about nothing.
Is Mr. Johns still in the position he was given under Mr. Kopetz? Has he become qualified for that position yet? Mrs. Pedalino is looking mighty petty right about now. So did Mr. Doheny about not receiving his invitation to the inauguration-the whole town was invited. I'm surprised at Mr. Kipperman-he should know better. Ms. McCarty hasn't even been First Selectwoman for 3 weeks and we haven't had a 3rd Selectman until this week. If this is the M.O. for the Republicans for the next 2 years, they're going to alienate many more voters in town. They'd better start searching for their candidate now-it'll take a while to find a perfect human being to run if they plan to hold their own to the same standards they're applying to McCary/Fontana. Sore losers?
In response to Anonymous, Mr. Johns is still Assessor, and I understand he has not yet been certified as an assessor.
He is North Haven's second non-certified assessor in a row. When I spoke with the head of the Connecticut Association of Assessing Officers, back at the time of Mr. Johns' appointment, she told me that it is highly unusual to hire non-certified assessors.
Mr. Wechsler: Do you believe it to be acceptable that the new administration is doing the same things that they criticized the previous administration for in order to be elected? If so, do you still think that it is inappropriate for supporters of the previous administration to criticize those moves? Thanks as always.
Mr. Marenna, please be specific about what it is you are referring to (things to get elected).
Also, keep in mind what is legal and has always been seen as acceptable.
For example, it is legal to accept contributions from prospective town attorneys. I think it's wrong, but I am the only person in this town who has publicly condemned this practice.
For the RTC to say it's wrong now because McCarty does it is not an honest criticism. It is clear that the RTC has supported the practice for many years when its members do it, and that it has no interest in the general concept of taking money from town contractors.
I condemn this practice no matter who does it, but I also recognize (i) that it is perfectly legal and (ii) that no one but me thinks it's wrong, at least in the general sense, that is, with respect to both parties rather than just one.
You want so hard to catch me up. Why is this so important to you?
Robbie,
Does it not say in the Town Charter that the Town Attnorney's must: 1. Practice Law in the State of CT for a period of longer than 5years? Chris Druby has been practicing for 3 years and Peretti isn't even practicing anymore. How do you explain that?
I voted for Chris for Board of Ed, what do you tell the 4,452 citizens whoe voted for him for Board of Ed and now he's already resigned the poisition?
Also any mistakes of McCarty's part was unnacceptable. She's been on the Board of Selectmen for 5 years and has full knowledge of what to do in her new position, she certainly has been critical enough of it.
Please forgive my spelling on the last comment.
Mr. Peterson, Chris Duby is not the Town Attorney. There is only one person covered by this restriction. Other lawyers hired by the town are not covered by the restriction.
As for Mr. Parrett, "Of Counsel" does not mean retired. Of Counsel for Ciulla & Donfrio have worked for the town of North Haven. Parrett clearly isn't retired, because he's representing the town of North Haven.
It is common for newly elected officials to be selected for administrative and professional jobs (or, in this case, work) when a new administration is faced with a number of open positions. It is unfortunate to the extent, as you say, that people voted for Duby to be on the Board of Ed, not for Gerry Feinberg. But at least Feinberg too was elected to an important position, and his Board of Ed experience makes him an excellent choice.
I think it's better that people elected by town voters this election (Feinberg) or in the past (Dean Volain, to the Board of Finance) were chosen to fill important positions than people who were voted out of office by town voters (such as Michael Freda, who was himself an appointee to the Board of Finance).
Mr. Wechsler:
I don't know what gives you the impression that I am trying to catch you up. I am under the impression that you believe that a lot of fuss about nothing is a great sign that the new administration is off to a good start. You titled a recent article similarly. I don't believe the fuss is about nothing.
Take the issue about putting town attorney services out to bid. I believe that those services should not be put out to bid. It is a matter of executive privilege to appoint an attorney who the first selectperson believes will be the best for the job. During the last campaign, the new first selectperson stated at the May 9, 2007 Board of Finance Subcommittee meeting that:
"Town Counsel was not put out to bid and I voted against that firm for that reason." -Janet McCarty (5/9/07)
Now that she's first selectperson, she has appointed a town attorney without putting the service out to bid. In the process of grandstanding against the previous administration, she made a commitment to the people of North Haven that town attorney services should be put out to bid, and she has reneged on that commitment already.
Take another issue: the "slush fund." Here is an emergency contingency line item that was healthily outfitted by previous administrations in case of just that.. an emergency. During the campaign, our new first selectperson sent out at least one mailer (that I have in my possession) which refers to the contingency fund as a slush fund. Again, an issue she grandstanded for to get elected, and now that she is elected, she is pretending it never happened. She was quick to vote for funds to be moved from that line item for repairs to broken boilers in the school system. And on top of that, one of her cohorts on the BOF stated that the contingency fund is not a slush fund at the recent meeting.
Now Mr. Wechsler, I believe the first selectperson should have the right to appoint her town attorney without putting it out to bid and that she should be able to have a contingency line item that she uses for emergencies. My problem is that those are two things she viciously criticized the previous administration for to get elected. And politicians not following through on their campaign commitments, instead going back on them is a very, very serious problem.
I'm not trying to catch you up, just trying to get you to look at the new administration through the eyes of a watchdog. If you are the objectivist that you say you are, then you will see credibility problems and borderline lies already in our new town government that are very disturbing, and that are not by any means "fussing about nothing." And you realizing that is very, very important to me.
Best Regards and Happy Holidays,
Anthony Marenna
Mr. Marenna, Why are you expending so much energy attacking policies you agree with? And making them out to be campaign promises, when they weren’t?
And why do you ignore what McCarty says? She said that she was referring not to a full competitive bidding for lawyers, but to getting competitive prices, talking to other firms so that you know that you’re getting a reasonable fee. This she did, although at the Board of Selectmen meeting she forgot the numbers she had settled on (it’s not just one figure for all the lawyers, you know, and there’s a retainer for the Parrett firm - it’s more complicated than it’s been made out to be).
As for the “slush fund,” after the first budget was rejected this year, and both McCarty and I were calling to have the contingency fund used to top up underfunded budget items, this was done in the second budget. The contingency fund is small and reasonable now. It no longer allows an administration to play games with budget items, the way Mr. Palmeri did.
Neither the bidding of a town attorney nor cutting the contingency fund were McCarty campaign promises. Why? Because she didn’t criticize the formal bidding of the town attorney’s position, and she was satisfied with the second budget’s contingency fund.
If you want to twist, take out of context, and then make a campaign promise of every word McCarty said at a public meeting, go ahead. But it’s not about McCarty, it’s about you.
As for me, I never said I was an objectivist. I have very clearly stated points of view. Talk about "borderline lies"! And I’ve also made it clear that I was giving the McCarty Administration the honeymoon every administration gets, and that every decent person gives new administrations across this country. But you attack me for doing this, too. You’re a hard man to please.
When you start recognizing and telling the truth, focus on policies you oppose rather than ones you support, and stop your partisan posturing about hypocrisy (if you truly want politics with no hypocrisy, then you must be a very disappointed man), then I’ll start taking your words about other people’s misrepresentations as valuable.
This is to Mike Freda, new 3rd selectman:
HEY MIKE FREDA, FEEL FREE TO SPEAK UP AT ANY TIME!!!
I see now that you are back in a position to possibly bring order to the useless nonproductive havoc your Republicrook stooge friends are obviously intent on bringing to EVERY public meeting, You choose to sit silently, ONCE AGAIN,like the spineless party drone that you again have become, and listen to this REPUBLICROOK RHETORIC go on and on. What you people are doing is not good for ANYONE in this town except YOU and you're REPUBLICROOK stooge friends! Christ, Pederson could hardly even keep a straight face the other night while he was trying to throw his nonsense into the mix. This is one of the most disgusting displays I have ever seen in my life and now you're the ICON for it!! I hope they make you really proud to be associated with them and their behavior. And don't think for a SECOND that the blue collar voters in this town aren't finally seeing you people for what you are, and are growing tired of it quickly!!!!
With respect to #6 in the original blog entry above (based on the RTC Chair's letter to the editor), I came across an article that supports Duby's statement that his withholding of his resume (for which he was fined by the FOI Commission) was not his doing. The article says, "[Bridgeport City Attorney Mark] Anastasi said both city officials [Lupkas and Duby] relied on legal counsel from his department on withholding information on the cellular records and the existence of Duby's resume. Anastasi asked the FOI Commission to either revoke their fines or impose them on him instead."
It's interesting that the Republican Town Committee chair found so much on the Internet, but not this article, which I found easily when I did my research.
To read the entire article, click here and search for "Duby."
Mr. Wechsler I don't know who you think you're kidding. I do not care how the first selectperson rationalizes her campaign grandstanding now that she is in office. I can only quote her again.
"Town Counsel was not put out to bid and I voted against that firm for that reason." -Janet McCarty (5/9/07)
I believe that speaks for itself, and that there is no way I can possibly take it out of context. Perhaps it is the quote's author who is taking it out of context. And if a candidate complains about something the incumbent is doing, it had better be a campaign promise. Otherwise it's just a show for the voters and reckless pandering for votes. And for the record Mr. Wechsler, a candidate saying one thing on the campaign trail and doing another in office is an issue I am very much against!
What you are essentially saying to me about the contingency line item is that it was a slush fund under the previous administration, but now that the new administration is in it's back to being a contingency line item. By that logic, there was no change between administrations except that the last administration had a larger slush fund than this one. To be completely honest with you, if money from the slush fund is going to fund emergency boilers to keep kids warm at elementary schools, I want as much money as possible set aside so that we can properly respond in the case of a major emergency.
I am glad you admit to having a slant. I have always been under the impression that you were trying to run an objectivist website. I stand corrected.
Finally, you tell me to "focus on policies you oppose rather than ones you support." I oppose the policy of saying one thing to get elected, and doing another once you get elected. That is simply an unethical tactic, that worked, and I am right to point it out.
Mr. Marenna, a statement made (and yes, that statement can be taken out of context, especially when you don't say where it was said, in response to what, etc., and what were the words before and after it) in May is not a campaign promise.
You want it so bad, you can have it, Mr. Marenna. McCarty is a bad girl because she let you down with a statement six months before the election, even though what she actually did was fine by you. Are you satisfied?
Hey..did you happen to run across any other articles on the Duby/ ganim/ pinto relationship?
Anonymous, I was focused on the resume/FOI matter, and this was the only one I printed out. I don't recall seeing another one that discussed this.
Post a Comment