The news in today’s Register that Kopetz has cut off Palmeri’s sick pay is hardly worthy of note.
Once again, attorney Kevin Kopetz is hiding behind "legal advice" when his decision to pay sick leave, against the town’s own policies, was illegal (see page 15 of the Personnel Policies Manual for Department Heads). Nothing has changed, except that it is even more embarrassing than before for him to be paying tax dollars to Palmeri.
Kopetz’s decision should be a managerial one. It’s not about whether Palmeri may be guilty. He is no more guilty today than he was a week ago, he has simply been accused of something new.
It’s about whether having Palmeri working for North Haven is in the town’s best interests. And it is clear that it is not, as I have detailed in my recent blog entry. And yet Kopetz has had nothing bad to say about Palmeri’s actions as an employee. Why? Because Palmeri has never been Kopetz’s subordinate, but Kopetz’s master.
All that happened this week is that Palmeri has become a political liability for Kopetz, who is seeking re-election. And yet Kopetz is quoted as saying, “I will not mix politics with the business of the town.”
Bull.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Palmeri Makes News, Kopetz Makes Silence: A Press Release from Selectwoman Janet McCarty
More on Vincent Palmeri - a press release from Selectwoman Janet McCarty. For me, the most important part of this release is its emphasis on First Selectman Kevin Kopetz's silence. Despite all that Palmeri has done to hurt this town and help himself and his friends, despite the laws he has broken, the arrogance he has displayed, and the lies he has told, there has not been a word of criticism from Palmeri's boss and our town's chief executive officer.
It is clear that the town's best interests are not primary in Kopetz's actions. He simply cannot admit that he allowed the town to be harmed by leaving Palmeri in office not since Palmeri was arrested, but since Kopetz was named (not elected, remember) to office and given the power to fire Palmeri. Even if this gun offense forces Kopetz's hand, it is not the right reason to fire Palmeri. It is one of the least harmful things he has done.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – from Selectwoman Janet McCarty
McCarty Calls On Kopetz To Fire Vincent Palmeri Now
After learning of the latest State Police warrant issued for former North Haven Finance Director Vincent Palmeri (New Haven Register, 9/27/07), North Haven Selectwoman Janet McCarty called on First Selectman Kevin Kopetz to fire Mr. Palmeri immediately. “Each week seems to bring a new, even more disturbing revelation of corruption in Mr. Kopetz’s administration. By now it should be clear, even to Mr. Kopetz, that Mr. Palmeri’s employment with the town must be terminated,” she said.
McCarty also repeated her demand that Mr. Kopetz stop paying Palmeri at once. Said McCarty, “For the past five weeks, Mr. Kopetz appears to have been violating the town’s Personnel Policies Manual by paying Mr. Palmeri for ‘sick days,’ without providing any evidence that Mr. Palmeri is sick or on medical leave.” McCarty added, “The new allegations against Mr. Palmeri only serve to increase the outrage and sense of betrayal felt by North Haven residents. Clearly, there are more than sufficient grounds for Mr. Kopetz to dismiss Mr. Palmeri immediately, under Chapters 11 and 12 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual.”
Chapter 11 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual states,“A Department Head is prohibited from engaging in any conduct which could reflect unfavorably on the Town. Department Heads must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using public office for private gain or giving preferential treatment to any person.”
Chapter 12 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual states, “From time to time, certain offenses or circumstances may occur which are of such seriousness that immediate dismissal of a Department Head may be necessary. The First Selectman may dismiss a Department Head for just cause upon giving the Department Head written notice of the reasons for the discharge and the effective date hereof.”
McCarty concluded, “As inexplicable as Mr. Palmeri’s alleged actions in this latest warrant are, Mr. Kopetz’s indecision is even more incomprehensible. For the good of the people in the town in which he lives, Mr. Kopetz needs to break his silence, explain his inaction, and take steps to remove Mr. Palmeri immediately from town employ.”
It is clear that the town's best interests are not primary in Kopetz's actions. He simply cannot admit that he allowed the town to be harmed by leaving Palmeri in office not since Palmeri was arrested, but since Kopetz was named (not elected, remember) to office and given the power to fire Palmeri. Even if this gun offense forces Kopetz's hand, it is not the right reason to fire Palmeri. It is one of the least harmful things he has done.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – from Selectwoman Janet McCarty
McCarty Calls On Kopetz To Fire Vincent Palmeri Now
After learning of the latest State Police warrant issued for former North Haven Finance Director Vincent Palmeri (New Haven Register, 9/27/07), North Haven Selectwoman Janet McCarty called on First Selectman Kevin Kopetz to fire Mr. Palmeri immediately. “Each week seems to bring a new, even more disturbing revelation of corruption in Mr. Kopetz’s administration. By now it should be clear, even to Mr. Kopetz, that Mr. Palmeri’s employment with the town must be terminated,” she said.
McCarty also repeated her demand that Mr. Kopetz stop paying Palmeri at once. Said McCarty, “For the past five weeks, Mr. Kopetz appears to have been violating the town’s Personnel Policies Manual by paying Mr. Palmeri for ‘sick days,’ without providing any evidence that Mr. Palmeri is sick or on medical leave.” McCarty added, “The new allegations against Mr. Palmeri only serve to increase the outrage and sense of betrayal felt by North Haven residents. Clearly, there are more than sufficient grounds for Mr. Kopetz to dismiss Mr. Palmeri immediately, under Chapters 11 and 12 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual.”
Chapter 11 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual states,“A Department Head is prohibited from engaging in any conduct which could reflect unfavorably on the Town. Department Heads must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using public office for private gain or giving preferential treatment to any person.”
Chapter 12 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual states, “From time to time, certain offenses or circumstances may occur which are of such seriousness that immediate dismissal of a Department Head may be necessary. The First Selectman may dismiss a Department Head for just cause upon giving the Department Head written notice of the reasons for the discharge and the effective date hereof.”
McCarty concluded, “As inexplicable as Mr. Palmeri’s alleged actions in this latest warrant are, Mr. Kopetz’s indecision is even more incomprehensible. For the good of the people in the town in which he lives, Mr. Kopetz needs to break his silence, explain his inaction, and take steps to remove Mr. Palmeri immediately from town employ.”
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Vincent Palmeri, Public Master
Vincent Palmeri. The first words he spoke to me -- four years ago it was -- were a threat. At a Town Meeting I had asked if we could vote separately on a number of special appropriations. After the meeting, when I was speaking with the First Selectman, Palmeri came up to me and said I would be responsible if any of the appropriations were voted down. He said it loud and literally in my face.
Public servants do not treat citizens this way. But then, Vincent Palmeri was never a public servant. He was a public master.
During the discussion about a forensic investigation, I and several others insisted that because Palmeri was the Director of Finance, and effectively the town administrator (in charge of personnel, procurement, and more), the investigation should not be limited to the Community Services department. Palmeri had access to, and power over, every department.
But the Board of Finance ignored this argument, showing more concern for the costs of the examination than for the cost to North Haven taxpayers of what Palmeri and his associates had stolen from us, in the form of cash, goods, and no-bid and insufficiently bid contracts (probably millions of dollars).
That decision has been clearly supported by the news today. You can read about it in the article Ann DeMatteo wrote in today’s New Haven Register.
Now Palmeri has been accused of purchasing two semiautomatic pistols with town money, money taken from the capital improvement fund, saying it was for “facilities.” One of these guns was found in a locker in the finance department, the other in Palmeri’s home.
Vincent Palmeri had access to, and control over, everything in North Haven’s government. Everything he touched is tainted, anything he had access to its questionable. And this includes the Board of Finance, which did everything he asked it to do, no matter whether it was legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. And the Board of Finance, of course, includes Mr. Kopetz, who has never stood up to Palmeri, never protected the town from his unethical and illegal acts.
This week’s Town Meeting showed the continuing power of Palmeri. He ignored the law with respect to budget transfer approval by the Town Meeting. The Town Attorney defended his breaking of the law by misrepresenting the law. The First Selectman said nothing one way or the other about the legality of the transfers, nor did any other member of the Board of Finance. Still, no one will publicly criticize Palmeri's putting himself above the law.
Palmeri has been North Haven’s town government for years. And he openly had a hands-off policy in his management. In paragraph 38 of the Joseph Ierardi arrest warrant affidavit, when the investigator asked Palmeri if he ever questioned any of Mrs. Ierardi’s overtime requests, he said, "you don’t question another department head." The investigator pointed out to him that this was his job. If only Kopetz had told Palmeri this!
Who knows what Palmeri and his associates have taken us for. All we know is that his associates have worked hard to make sure that we don’t find out. Why should we? It's only our tax dollars, after all!
For more on Palmeri, here is the op-ed piece I wrote, which appeared in the North Haven Post a few weeks ago:
There has been much talk recently about firing Finance Director Vincent Palmeri on the grounds that he was arrested for helping to hide some of what the authorities say the Ierardis were doing.
I don’t think that this is more than a small part of the reasons that Mr. Palmeri should be fired.
Firing Palmeri is not a radical idea. Even the Republican acting chair of the Board of Finance, Michael Peterson, has said publicly that he does not want to see Palmeri back at his job.
What has Palmeri done, beside running a tight ship in the finance department? Everything that people objected to about this last year’s budget process is his doing. It is Palmeri who year in and year out gave us an unrealistic budget by presenting seriously underestimated budget items to the Board of Finance. It is Palmeri who wanted an oversized contingent fund and who left out of the budget various sources of revenue, so that he had extra funds to work with. It is Palmeri who insisted that the town did not need to bid out several of its contracts, costing North Haven probably millions of dollars over the years. It is Palmeri who chose not to allow CIRMA to bid for our non-health insurance contract, and we know now that this cost us a lot. It is Palmeri who devised a sneaky way to get around the Town Meeting having to approve budget transfers over $20,000, by creating 37 budget transfers in the sum of $19,999 each. It is Palmeri who had to be forced to put the budget on-line and who did not put any Board of Finance meeting minutes in the library. It is Palmeri who arranged for the hiring of the Republican Town Committee chair as our Assessor, despite the fact that he was unqualified and did not take the test required by town ordinance.
In short, Palmeri had no respect for facts or laws or the Town Meeting or anything else that stood in the way of getting his budget passed as easily as possible. And that is why he should be fired.
Of course, the Board of Finance Republicans, including First Selectman Kevin Kopetz, went along with nearly everything he recommended (and the Democratic members questioned far too little of what he said). But they can all be thrown out by North Haven’s voters. Only Kevin Kopetz can fire Palmeri, and he should do it immediately, making it clear that the reasons go far beyond his arrest.
Public servants do not treat citizens this way. But then, Vincent Palmeri was never a public servant. He was a public master.
During the discussion about a forensic investigation, I and several others insisted that because Palmeri was the Director of Finance, and effectively the town administrator (in charge of personnel, procurement, and more), the investigation should not be limited to the Community Services department. Palmeri had access to, and power over, every department.
But the Board of Finance ignored this argument, showing more concern for the costs of the examination than for the cost to North Haven taxpayers of what Palmeri and his associates had stolen from us, in the form of cash, goods, and no-bid and insufficiently bid contracts (probably millions of dollars).
That decision has been clearly supported by the news today. You can read about it in the article Ann DeMatteo wrote in today’s New Haven Register.
Now Palmeri has been accused of purchasing two semiautomatic pistols with town money, money taken from the capital improvement fund, saying it was for “facilities.” One of these guns was found in a locker in the finance department, the other in Palmeri’s home.
Vincent Palmeri had access to, and control over, everything in North Haven’s government. Everything he touched is tainted, anything he had access to its questionable. And this includes the Board of Finance, which did everything he asked it to do, no matter whether it was legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. And the Board of Finance, of course, includes Mr. Kopetz, who has never stood up to Palmeri, never protected the town from his unethical and illegal acts.
This week’s Town Meeting showed the continuing power of Palmeri. He ignored the law with respect to budget transfer approval by the Town Meeting. The Town Attorney defended his breaking of the law by misrepresenting the law. The First Selectman said nothing one way or the other about the legality of the transfers, nor did any other member of the Board of Finance. Still, no one will publicly criticize Palmeri's putting himself above the law.
Palmeri has been North Haven’s town government for years. And he openly had a hands-off policy in his management. In paragraph 38 of the Joseph Ierardi arrest warrant affidavit, when the investigator asked Palmeri if he ever questioned any of Mrs. Ierardi’s overtime requests, he said, "you don’t question another department head." The investigator pointed out to him that this was his job. If only Kopetz had told Palmeri this!
Who knows what Palmeri and his associates have taken us for. All we know is that his associates have worked hard to make sure that we don’t find out. Why should we? It's only our tax dollars, after all!
For more on Palmeri, here is the op-ed piece I wrote, which appeared in the North Haven Post a few weeks ago:
There has been much talk recently about firing Finance Director Vincent Palmeri on the grounds that he was arrested for helping to hide some of what the authorities say the Ierardis were doing.
I don’t think that this is more than a small part of the reasons that Mr. Palmeri should be fired.
Firing Palmeri is not a radical idea. Even the Republican acting chair of the Board of Finance, Michael Peterson, has said publicly that he does not want to see Palmeri back at his job.
What has Palmeri done, beside running a tight ship in the finance department? Everything that people objected to about this last year’s budget process is his doing. It is Palmeri who year in and year out gave us an unrealistic budget by presenting seriously underestimated budget items to the Board of Finance. It is Palmeri who wanted an oversized contingent fund and who left out of the budget various sources of revenue, so that he had extra funds to work with. It is Palmeri who insisted that the town did not need to bid out several of its contracts, costing North Haven probably millions of dollars over the years. It is Palmeri who chose not to allow CIRMA to bid for our non-health insurance contract, and we know now that this cost us a lot. It is Palmeri who devised a sneaky way to get around the Town Meeting having to approve budget transfers over $20,000, by creating 37 budget transfers in the sum of $19,999 each. It is Palmeri who had to be forced to put the budget on-line and who did not put any Board of Finance meeting minutes in the library. It is Palmeri who arranged for the hiring of the Republican Town Committee chair as our Assessor, despite the fact that he was unqualified and did not take the test required by town ordinance.
In short, Palmeri had no respect for facts or laws or the Town Meeting or anything else that stood in the way of getting his budget passed as easily as possible. And that is why he should be fired.
Of course, the Board of Finance Republicans, including First Selectman Kevin Kopetz, went along with nearly everything he recommended (and the Democratic members questioned far too little of what he said). But they can all be thrown out by North Haven’s voters. Only Kevin Kopetz can fire Palmeri, and he should do it immediately, making it clear that the reasons go far beyond his arrest.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
A Truly Embarrassing Town Meeting
After last night’s Town Meeting, I introduced myself to the new North Haven Citizen reporter, Michael Russo, and I found myself deeply embarrassed about our town’s government. I put myself into the position of this outsider – an outsider who has covered other towns and understood what had happened – and I was ashamed for the leadership our town has to offer, and the arrogance that allows our leaders to put themselves and their political futures above the law.
In short, there was very little integrity to be seen in the high school auditorium. Nearly everyone was thinking more about himself or herself than about the public interest. It was all about winning and losing.
The principal issue raised at the meeting (by me) was the illegality of many of the budget transfers we were asked to vote on (illegal because, by law, the should have been approved by the Town Meeting months earlier) and the Town Meeting’s right to approve transfers taken from the Contingent Fund. The essential issue is that before the government may spend our tax dollars seriously beyond what we approved by voting for the budget, the Town Meeting is supposed to approve such expenditures. It’s not supposed to happen months later, when all we can do is rubber stamp illegal actions.
Not exciting stuff, certainly, but breaking a law is breaking a law, and the few powers given to the Town Meeting are worth protecting, I think.
The most embarrassing individual was our Town Attorney, Jeffrey Donofrio, who selectively quoted the state law provision (Sec. 7-348) that applies to the Town Meeting’s role in budget transfers, thereby misrepresenting it. And he did everything he could to muddy the waters, for example, quoting a section (7-347) that simply gives the Board of Finance the right to make transfers, before the rights of the Town Meeting with respect to these transfers are discussed in the following section. He acted as if this section meant that the Board of Finance can make the transfers all by itself.
He also mentioned a state supreme court case, without bothering to give the name of the case, so that people like me and you could not read it for ourselves.
It is clear that Mr. Donofrio was not acting as a lawyer for the Town, but rather as a lawyer protecting the illegal acts of First Selectman Kevin Kopetz and the rest of the Board of Finance. It was a devious, shameful, completely partisan performance.
Two members of the Board of Finance, Mr. Kopetz and Michael Freda, spoke without showing any concern for the possible illegality of their acts. And the other five members of the Board did not speak at all. This shows how much Board of Finance members care about whether what they do is legal or not.
Neither First Selectman candidate (both spoke) showed any interest in the illegality of the budget transfers. It’s a complicated issue, and they clearly did not think it would help them get elected. Neither Selectman candidate spoke, even Steve Fontana, a legislator who could have assured the Town Meeting that my interpretation of the statute was correct, or not.
This is the sort of lack of leadership that makes this town government so unethical and its citizens so uninvolved. When the people in our town who are responsible, people we elect to represent us and the people they appoint, do not show any concern about illegal actions, when lawyers hear another lawyer misrepresenting the law and say nothing, when candidates think of their candidacy rather than the obligations they will have if they win (or already have), our community is in trouble.
But it is not only those we elect who are the problem. We are part of the problem, too. Last night’s turnout was very small, and primarily town officials, employees, and Republican loyalists who always vote with the Kopetz Administration, right or wrong. Very few ordinary people turned out. One reason was the lack of preparation for the meeting by the town’s newspapers and leaders – people didn’t know why this meeting was important.
But the primary reason was indifference to participatory democracy. Parents of school-age children, fire fighters, and other groups come out in large numbers when they have a special stake in what happens, but rarely come out when only the whole town has a stake. They too think of themselves rather than the public good.
Perhaps the town leaders are right to ignore state laws and the Town Meeting’s rights. Perhaps the Town Meeting (that is, us) does not deserve the rights given to it, because it makes no attempt to protect them.
For more information about the budget transfer issue, click here.
In short, there was very little integrity to be seen in the high school auditorium. Nearly everyone was thinking more about himself or herself than about the public interest. It was all about winning and losing.
The principal issue raised at the meeting (by me) was the illegality of many of the budget transfers we were asked to vote on (illegal because, by law, the should have been approved by the Town Meeting months earlier) and the Town Meeting’s right to approve transfers taken from the Contingent Fund. The essential issue is that before the government may spend our tax dollars seriously beyond what we approved by voting for the budget, the Town Meeting is supposed to approve such expenditures. It’s not supposed to happen months later, when all we can do is rubber stamp illegal actions.
Not exciting stuff, certainly, but breaking a law is breaking a law, and the few powers given to the Town Meeting are worth protecting, I think.
The most embarrassing individual was our Town Attorney, Jeffrey Donofrio, who selectively quoted the state law provision (Sec. 7-348) that applies to the Town Meeting’s role in budget transfers, thereby misrepresenting it. And he did everything he could to muddy the waters, for example, quoting a section (7-347) that simply gives the Board of Finance the right to make transfers, before the rights of the Town Meeting with respect to these transfers are discussed in the following section. He acted as if this section meant that the Board of Finance can make the transfers all by itself.
He also mentioned a state supreme court case, without bothering to give the name of the case, so that people like me and you could not read it for ourselves.
It is clear that Mr. Donofrio was not acting as a lawyer for the Town, but rather as a lawyer protecting the illegal acts of First Selectman Kevin Kopetz and the rest of the Board of Finance. It was a devious, shameful, completely partisan performance.
Two members of the Board of Finance, Mr. Kopetz and Michael Freda, spoke without showing any concern for the possible illegality of their acts. And the other five members of the Board did not speak at all. This shows how much Board of Finance members care about whether what they do is legal or not.
Neither First Selectman candidate (both spoke) showed any interest in the illegality of the budget transfers. It’s a complicated issue, and they clearly did not think it would help them get elected. Neither Selectman candidate spoke, even Steve Fontana, a legislator who could have assured the Town Meeting that my interpretation of the statute was correct, or not.
This is the sort of lack of leadership that makes this town government so unethical and its citizens so uninvolved. When the people in our town who are responsible, people we elect to represent us and the people they appoint, do not show any concern about illegal actions, when lawyers hear another lawyer misrepresenting the law and say nothing, when candidates think of their candidacy rather than the obligations they will have if they win (or already have), our community is in trouble.
But it is not only those we elect who are the problem. We are part of the problem, too. Last night’s turnout was very small, and primarily town officials, employees, and Republican loyalists who always vote with the Kopetz Administration, right or wrong. Very few ordinary people turned out. One reason was the lack of preparation for the meeting by the town’s newspapers and leaders – people didn’t know why this meeting was important.
But the primary reason was indifference to participatory democracy. Parents of school-age children, fire fighters, and other groups come out in large numbers when they have a special stake in what happens, but rarely come out when only the whole town has a stake. They too think of themselves rather than the public good.
Perhaps the town leaders are right to ignore state laws and the Town Meeting’s rights. Perhaps the Town Meeting (that is, us) does not deserve the rights given to it, because it makes no attempt to protect them.
For more information about the budget transfer issue, click here.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Recent Articles: Forensic Audit, State Education Funds, Charter Revision, and Pensions
During the last week, there have been a few articles in the New Haven Register that indirectly apply to North Haven, and one today that directly applies to us.
In Madison, representatives of the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance, and the Board of Education met publicly to decide how to spend the extra state funds for education received by the town this year. Madison received only an extra $326,000; North Haven received over $900,000, but in North Haven there was no public discussion about what to do with that money (despite my request at a Budget Town Meeting). So much for transparency in North Haven.
Another article concerns Guilford’s Charter Revision Commission, which is considering changes in Guilford’s form of government. Like other Town Meeting towns our size in Connecticut, Guilford takes a great deal of interest in its Charter, its most important law. And so should North Haven.
Another article deals with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s support for a New Haven resolution calling for a review of the city’s ability to reduce or revoke pensions of municipal employees or officials who used their positions to break the law.
We need to deal with this problem in North Haven, and consider not only actual acts, but also aiding and abetting such acts, and knowingly doing nothing about them. Remember that, when he was secretly recorded, Mr. Ierardi said that Mr. Kopetz, Mr. Donofrio, and Mr. Palmeri knew about his travel expenses game. If he was not lying, should there be no consequences when top officials, any of whom could have stopped a crime being committed, chose to do nothing?
And then there’s today’s article in the Register about North Haven’s recent Board of Finance meeting. It appears that the draft report from the forensic examiner, Kostin, Ruffkess & Co., has been sent to the Chief State’s Attorney office, without the Board of Finance members being able to see it. They’re trying to get it back, so they can discuss it at an October 1 meeting.
This sort of gambit has been used before, and I already let people in on it way back in June in a blog entry.
One example of this gambit involved an embezzlement case in Ledyard where, in November 2005, the water pollution control authority executive administrator, who had worked for the town for nearly 20 years, was suspected of having taken town funds. This was discovered by the town’s regular, annual auditor (unlike North Haven’s, which found no discrepancies). In March 2006, she was charged with first-degree larceny and tampering with physical evidence.
Ten months later, nothing. Even members of the town council were given almost no information. One executive session on the matter was held in December 2006. At that meeting, council members were provided with the results of the forensic report on the water pollution control authority’s financial records (completed in February 2006), but at the end of the session copies of the report were taken back. A local newspaper requested a copy of the forensic report, but this was denied. The mayor said that the audit had been sent to the Chief State’s Attorney "as part of an ongoing investigation" and that the town did not retain a copy. Why not?
When the council was asked to vote on a request for a second forensic examination, it had not yet seen the results of the first report. The minority party on the council complained about wanting to get to the bottom of what happened, and the majority party insisted that the case was being dealt with properly. Does this sound familiar?
Do we want to be kept in the dark here in North Haven, too?
In Madison, representatives of the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance, and the Board of Education met publicly to decide how to spend the extra state funds for education received by the town this year. Madison received only an extra $326,000; North Haven received over $900,000, but in North Haven there was no public discussion about what to do with that money (despite my request at a Budget Town Meeting). So much for transparency in North Haven.
Another article concerns Guilford’s Charter Revision Commission, which is considering changes in Guilford’s form of government. Like other Town Meeting towns our size in Connecticut, Guilford takes a great deal of interest in its Charter, its most important law. And so should North Haven.
Another article deals with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s support for a New Haven resolution calling for a review of the city’s ability to reduce or revoke pensions of municipal employees or officials who used their positions to break the law.
We need to deal with this problem in North Haven, and consider not only actual acts, but also aiding and abetting such acts, and knowingly doing nothing about them. Remember that, when he was secretly recorded, Mr. Ierardi said that Mr. Kopetz, Mr. Donofrio, and Mr. Palmeri knew about his travel expenses game. If he was not lying, should there be no consequences when top officials, any of whom could have stopped a crime being committed, chose to do nothing?
And then there’s today’s article in the Register about North Haven’s recent Board of Finance meeting. It appears that the draft report from the forensic examiner, Kostin, Ruffkess & Co., has been sent to the Chief State’s Attorney office, without the Board of Finance members being able to see it. They’re trying to get it back, so they can discuss it at an October 1 meeting.
This sort of gambit has been used before, and I already let people in on it way back in June in a blog entry.
One example of this gambit involved an embezzlement case in Ledyard where, in November 2005, the water pollution control authority executive administrator, who had worked for the town for nearly 20 years, was suspected of having taken town funds. This was discovered by the town’s regular, annual auditor (unlike North Haven’s, which found no discrepancies). In March 2006, she was charged with first-degree larceny and tampering with physical evidence.
Ten months later, nothing. Even members of the town council were given almost no information. One executive session on the matter was held in December 2006. At that meeting, council members were provided with the results of the forensic report on the water pollution control authority’s financial records (completed in February 2006), but at the end of the session copies of the report were taken back. A local newspaper requested a copy of the forensic report, but this was denied. The mayor said that the audit had been sent to the Chief State’s Attorney "as part of an ongoing investigation" and that the town did not retain a copy. Why not?
When the council was asked to vote on a request for a second forensic examination, it had not yet seen the results of the first report. The minority party on the council complained about wanting to get to the bottom of what happened, and the majority party insisted that the case was being dealt with properly. Does this sound familiar?
Do we want to be kept in the dark here in North Haven, too?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Vote "No" on Budget Transfers at the September 25, 2007 Town Meeting
On September 25, the North Haven Town Meeting will be asked to vote on certain transfers (due to underestimated budget items) over $20,000. This year, the Town Meeting is being asked to approve 17 of these budget item transfers totaling $830,000.
Below is a summary of the issues. And on the new Budget Transfers page of the North Haven Info website, you can find all the information you’ll need to decide how to vote, and arguments for why you should vote “No” on this resolution.
The Problem in a Nutshell
1. The majority of these budget items (“budget items” are the categories by which the finance department divides up town expenditures, within each area or department, such as overtime or building maintenance) have been underestimated year after year. If our town budget had honest numbers, very few transfers over $20,000 would be required. This would happen only when there were truly unexpected occurrences.
2. Town officials, including the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance, and the Finance Director, did not follow state or town law regarding Board of Finance and Town Meeting approval of budget transfers. Most important, the Town Meeting is supposed to approve department overexpenditures over $20,000 before they are made, not three months after the end of the fiscal year.
3. Budget item transfers over $20,000 between departments or from the Contingent Fund for the fiscal year 2006-2007 totaled $1.8 million, but the Town Meeting is only being asked to approve $830,000 of these transfers. The rest came from the Contingent Fund, but according to state and town law, these transfers also require Town Meeting approval.
What a “No” Vote Will Accomplish
By voting against the budget transfers, the Town Meeting will tell town officials to follow the law. A vote against the budget transfers will force town officials to acknowledge that they did not follow the law. Otherwise they will keep breaking the law and putting the Town Meeting in a position where it can only rubber stamp irresponsible decisions made long before. A vote against the budget transfers will also force town officials to come back and request Town Meeting approval of all transfers over $20,000 (the timing of the request for approval cannot be corrected this year).
Below is a summary of the issues. And on the new Budget Transfers page of the North Haven Info website, you can find all the information you’ll need to decide how to vote, and arguments for why you should vote “No” on this resolution.
The Problem in a Nutshell
1. The majority of these budget items (“budget items” are the categories by which the finance department divides up town expenditures, within each area or department, such as overtime or building maintenance) have been underestimated year after year. If our town budget had honest numbers, very few transfers over $20,000 would be required. This would happen only when there were truly unexpected occurrences.
2. Town officials, including the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance, and the Finance Director, did not follow state or town law regarding Board of Finance and Town Meeting approval of budget transfers. Most important, the Town Meeting is supposed to approve department overexpenditures over $20,000 before they are made, not three months after the end of the fiscal year.
3. Budget item transfers over $20,000 between departments or from the Contingent Fund for the fiscal year 2006-2007 totaled $1.8 million, but the Town Meeting is only being asked to approve $830,000 of these transfers. The rest came from the Contingent Fund, but according to state and town law, these transfers also require Town Meeting approval.
What a “No” Vote Will Accomplish
By voting against the budget transfers, the Town Meeting will tell town officials to follow the law. A vote against the budget transfers will force town officials to acknowledge that they did not follow the law. Otherwise they will keep breaking the law and putting the Town Meeting in a position where it can only rubber stamp irresponsible decisions made long before. A vote against the budget transfers will also force town officials to come back and request Town Meeting approval of all transfers over $20,000 (the timing of the request for approval cannot be corrected this year).
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Another View on Competitively Bidding Contracts
Theresa Ranciato-Viele, former Democratic Selectwoman, wrote an excellent letter to the editor of the Courier this week. It concerns the pre-election decision of First Selectman Kevin Kopetz to finally comply with the Town Charter and send out service contracts for competitive bidding (the First Selectman has sole responsibility for competitively bidding contracts). Click here to read the article, for those who missed it in the newspaper.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
How Not to Balance a Budget
I would like to share with you Janet McCarty's excellent Selections column from last week, in case you were away and missed it in the newspapers. This is a continuation of North Haven Info's attempt to present to the people of North Haven a true picture of their government's budget, despite our town leaders' continuing attempt to fool us. The goal is a honest budget that will allow us to have the necessary knowledge to exercise our votes, no matter what our political positions.
The headline of a recent New Haven Register article suggested that Town Hall’s budget is tight and true ("North Haven finds itself with a small budget surplus"), but a look at the numbers reveals that the process is still as flawed as ever.
The end-of-the-year report reveals that $1 million of contingency funds were spent and another $1.5 million was transferred among various accounts. And that’s not all. As usual, Town Hall underestimated revenues—this time by $2.7 million. These corrections total $5.2 million – a far cry from the $109,000 surplus headlined in the Register.
The budget is full of items that confuse rather than illuminate how the town has spent your money. Two arresting examples are the $85,000 appropriation intended to pay for implementing the property tax revaluation (reval) phase-in, and the mysteriously missing insurance file that should have accompanied the $991,421 "refund" from the town’s insurance contractor.
At the last Board of Finance meeting, we learned that only $2,800 of the $85,000 appropriated for implementing the reval phase-in was needed. Some have dismissed this as a minor mistake. I respectfully disagree. The $85,000 appropriation was made only five months ago at a Special Town Meeting. At that time, Town Hall insisted that it needed the money to pay for computer technology, because implementing phase-in would be "a nightmare." In reality, the money wasn’t needed; the extra $82,200 was folded into the general fund. (You may recall that Town Hall used the "high cost" of implementation as a scare tactic to try to defeat the phase-in referendum.)
The mystery of the $1 million insurance refund is even more disturbing. At the last Board of Finance meeting,it was revealed that Town Hall had known for months that there was no documentation accompanying the nearly $1 million refund. One might think that, following the arrests and allegations of misappropriation of funds, Town Hall would do everything possible to clear up any and all suspect findings. But apparently Town Hall didn’t think it was important to inquire about the $1 million refund until Finance Board member Gerry Feinberg pushed for an explanation. Last week, at Mr. Feinberg’s insistence, a letter of inquiry was sent to the insurer.
Town Hall needs to do better job managing taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. We keep paying more but we are getting less for our money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
