One fact that North Haven Republicans don't want known is that people who follow North Haven politics and have no personal interest in what goes in here feel that a change in government is needed.
The latest is the New Haven Register's editors, who in today's editorial, called for what this blog entry's title says. Read the Register's endorsement of Janet McCarty for yourself. Nothing I could say could add to this outside perspective.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
What the Republicans Mean When They Say "Negativity"
There it is again in the Republican Town Committee’s ad in the new Advisor: “the constant negativity, criticism and rhetoric that is permeating our community from our political opposition.”
Is speaking in favor of open, ethical government “negative”?
Is asking town officials to follow laws “negative”?
And what’s wrong with “criticism”? Criticism is what people do in a free, democratic society, and what people can’t do in an authoritarian society.
Criticism is nothing more than analysis. It's not negative, except when people who don't like to have their actions analyzed use it in a negative manner.
And rhetoric? Rhetoric is how one expresses one’s political opinions. It’s certainly how the Republicans express theirs. Why is it bad when Democrats and Independents do it?
Nothing is more negative than attacking people for their “negativity.” What it means is that the Republican Town Committee wants us to be silent, to not express our views, to not criticize them. If you don’t want to be criticized, get out of politics.
"Negativity" is the sound a machine makes when it's low on oil, and the metal's losing its mettle.
Is speaking in favor of open, ethical government “negative”?
Is asking town officials to follow laws “negative”?
And what’s wrong with “criticism”? Criticism is what people do in a free, democratic society, and what people can’t do in an authoritarian society.
Criticism is nothing more than analysis. It's not negative, except when people who don't like to have their actions analyzed use it in a negative manner.
And rhetoric? Rhetoric is how one expresses one’s political opinions. It’s certainly how the Republicans express theirs. Why is it bad when Democrats and Independents do it?
Nothing is more negative than attacking people for their “negativity.” What it means is that the Republican Town Committee wants us to be silent, to not express our views, to not criticize them. If you don’t want to be criticized, get out of politics.
"Negativity" is the sound a machine makes when it's low on oil, and the metal's losing its mettle.
How Does North Haven Differ from Chicago?
Ma-chine'. My dictionary defines it as: “A highly organized political group under the leadership of a boss or a small clique.” And also as: “An assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner.”
I don’t know why this word is so rarely used in North Haven. It has hardly been used in this blog. Maybe people think that only cities have political machines.
It’s ironic that Republicans accuse Janet McCarty of bringing big-city politics to our small town. The Democrats are the furthest thing from a machine. All their faults are small-town faults. They are as smooth as a plowed field, as united as an oxen pull.
North Haven’s Republican Party has it down. It knows exactly when to attack, and when to plead innocence. Its leaders exhibit the arrogance of city ward bosses. Its parts move together as one.
Machines exist to retain and employ power. That is all they’re for. To do this, they do a lot of good for their communities. That’s an easy way to stay in power. Look at Chicago. The government did a good job reviving the city, but it also recently pulled the biggest patronage fraud in American history (sham job interviews, falsified job ratings, rigged test scores, the destruction of files).
The question to ask ourselves is, Is it worth it? Is it worth the fear, is it worth the embarrassment, is it worth the cover-ups and the law-breaking and the lack of participation? The ethical, emotional, human cost of a machine is high, but it can’t be put into numbers, so the Republicans act as if their machine doesn’t exist. Maybe people won’t notice, maybe people won’t say that ugly word or believe it when others do.
Would the Democrats’ human faults truly do harm to North Haven? There is no reason to believe this, and there is not much to lose giving them a chance to prove themselves. There are some very smart, decent people on the Democratic line, although they have not shown much interest in campaigning. Smart people, not clever people.
We’ve seen what cleverness has done. It’s convinced us that a magazine none of us reads has something extremely important to say about our town. It’s broken laws regarding the bidding of contracts, the making of budget transfers, the testing of assessors, and convinced us that those laws don’t say what they say (at least until the New Haven Register says otherwise).
The Democrats aren’t very clever. Thank goodness. We need accountability, not cleverness. We need openness, not cleverness. We need respect for citizens, not cleverness. We need a party that barely hangs together, not a machine whose parts move together as one.
I don’t know why this word is so rarely used in North Haven. It has hardly been used in this blog. Maybe people think that only cities have political machines.
It’s ironic that Republicans accuse Janet McCarty of bringing big-city politics to our small town. The Democrats are the furthest thing from a machine. All their faults are small-town faults. They are as smooth as a plowed field, as united as an oxen pull.
North Haven’s Republican Party has it down. It knows exactly when to attack, and when to plead innocence. Its leaders exhibit the arrogance of city ward bosses. Its parts move together as one.
Machines exist to retain and employ power. That is all they’re for. To do this, they do a lot of good for their communities. That’s an easy way to stay in power. Look at Chicago. The government did a good job reviving the city, but it also recently pulled the biggest patronage fraud in American history (sham job interviews, falsified job ratings, rigged test scores, the destruction of files).
The question to ask ourselves is, Is it worth it? Is it worth the fear, is it worth the embarrassment, is it worth the cover-ups and the law-breaking and the lack of participation? The ethical, emotional, human cost of a machine is high, but it can’t be put into numbers, so the Republicans act as if their machine doesn’t exist. Maybe people won’t notice, maybe people won’t say that ugly word or believe it when others do.
Would the Democrats’ human faults truly do harm to North Haven? There is no reason to believe this, and there is not much to lose giving them a chance to prove themselves. There are some very smart, decent people on the Democratic line, although they have not shown much interest in campaigning. Smart people, not clever people.
We’ve seen what cleverness has done. It’s convinced us that a magazine none of us reads has something extremely important to say about our town. It’s broken laws regarding the bidding of contracts, the making of budget transfers, the testing of assessors, and convinced us that those laws don’t say what they say (at least until the New Haven Register says otherwise).
The Democrats aren’t very clever. Thank goodness. We need accountability, not cleverness. We need openness, not cleverness. We need respect for citizens, not cleverness. We need a party that barely hangs together, not a machine whose parts move together as one.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Timing Is Everything: The Ierardis Finally Speak
Since the news came out about the Ierardis’ arrest, I have said two things. One, the Ierardis have done an enormous amount of good for North Haven. Two, the Ierardis, as public servants, have an obligation to tell the people of North Haven what actually happened (they also have a right to remain silent, creating a classic conflict of interest that everyone has ignored).
Finally, months later, a week before the election, they finally spoke not to the people of North Haven, but to the New Haven Register.
They said they have done an enormous amount of good for North Haven, which was not at issue. However, they only gave us a taste of what actually happened with respect to the charges against them. Not a whisper of admission. They both talked and remained silent. We still don’t know the truth.
The timing of the interview – six months after the investigation became public – is clearly partisan, that is, intended to affect the election. And yet they insisted that they’re nonpartisan.
Joe Ierardi claimed to feel violated and crucified, but said nothing about the way he intimidated his subordinates and, in political situations, citizens and Democratic officeholders. Others’ feelings don’t seem to matter to him. He and his wife are the only victims.
Public administrators and elected officials who do a lot of good for their town often feel they have an entitlement to act in ways others are not allowed to act. That’s why they feel victimized when their unethical conduct comes to light. This scenario plays out across the country every day. As the author of the country’s only municipal ethics blog, I follow these events and write about them. Click here to read my blog entry on this phenomenon.
It might seem like a new dramatic series to you, but to me it’s like watching the latest version of a movie remade again and again with different actors and actresses (the difference is that they have attorneys instead of agents). It’s a show, and it always closes on Election Day.
You can review the show here, if you like, but what may decide the election is how many people believe it’s a documentary and how many think it’s just another twist in a melodrama.
Finally, months later, a week before the election, they finally spoke not to the people of North Haven, but to the New Haven Register.
They said they have done an enormous amount of good for North Haven, which was not at issue. However, they only gave us a taste of what actually happened with respect to the charges against them. Not a whisper of admission. They both talked and remained silent. We still don’t know the truth.
The timing of the interview – six months after the investigation became public – is clearly partisan, that is, intended to affect the election. And yet they insisted that they’re nonpartisan.
Joe Ierardi claimed to feel violated and crucified, but said nothing about the way he intimidated his subordinates and, in political situations, citizens and Democratic officeholders. Others’ feelings don’t seem to matter to him. He and his wife are the only victims.
Public administrators and elected officials who do a lot of good for their town often feel they have an entitlement to act in ways others are not allowed to act. That’s why they feel victimized when their unethical conduct comes to light. This scenario plays out across the country every day. As the author of the country’s only municipal ethics blog, I follow these events and write about them. Click here to read my blog entry on this phenomenon.
It might seem like a new dramatic series to you, but to me it’s like watching the latest version of a movie remade again and again with different actors and actresses (the difference is that they have attorneys instead of agents). It’s a show, and it always closes on Election Day.
You can review the show here, if you like, but what may decide the election is how many people believe it’s a documentary and how many think it’s just another twist in a melodrama.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Ten Positive Reasons to Vote for Janet McCarty
1. She has been a leader on many important policies that have been instituted, and many which were rejected by the Republican majority. For example, she took a stand on delaying revaluation to save residential taxpayers money, and when that was rejected by the Republicans, she alone pushed for phasing in revaluation, and won, since state law fortunately allows the Town Meeting to vote on this. For years, on the Board of Finance and the Board of Selectmen, she tried (but failed until the partial successes this year) to change the way the town budgets and deals with budget transfers.
2. She is incredibly energetic and, because of that, very knowledgeable about what happens in North Haven. For years she has attended hundreds of meetings of boards and commissions she hasn’t sat on, including the Board of Education. She has visited nearly every home in North Haven over the past few months, listening to what people have to say. She doesn’t wait for them to come to her. She also publishes her home phone number and e-mail address, and responds to everyone.
3. She has an open mind and knows how to listen. Because she wants to hear a range of views, she has no problem listening to people who disagree with her. I disagree with her, and that’s fine. That’s not fine with the people who currently run this town.
4. She is accountable and believes that accountability is central to democracy. For example, were she in Mr. Kopetz’s position, I have no doubt that she would have volunteered to be interviewed by the forensic investigator.
5. She believes in transparency. She wants town information available on-line, 24 hours a day, at home or at the library. She believes in upholding the letter and the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, which is that an open government is an honest government and a government in which people can effectively participate.
6. She is ethical. She does not believe in allowing people with conflicts of interest to make town decisions. For a long time, she has been demanding major changes to our town’s Code of Ethics.
7. She is honest, for a politician. Yes, she uses spin and makes campaign promises. But she means what she says and does not falsely attack people or ignore them because they disagree with or oppose her.
8. She is a warm person. Don’t underestimate warmth. It is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. Compassion is a valuable asset for any organization. It humanizes, it dignifies. This quality is not one that comes out at public meetings, where she is trying to rally the opposition. But it comes out strongly in her everyday interactions with people.
9. She is an intelligent person. She’s not great on her feet, speaking extemporaneously, but that is only one form of intelligence. She is excellent at pulling together ideas and applying them. She is thoughtful, not the rash person the Republicans portray her as. For example, her position on the Ierardis’ pensions was reached only after talking with experts in the field, who apparently gave her different opinions than the lawyer hired by Mr. Kopetz. As in medicine, there is also a need for second opinions in law.
10. She does not have a circle of cronies she will put into power. She has advisers (I too give her advice, for what it’s worth), but they are not interested in power, they are interested in getting this town back on track, on giving power back to the people who live here. Notice that Michael Mele, Gary Amato, and I are not on the ballot, nor will we end up on the payroll. Janet McCarty will not abuse the power given to her, and she will not let others abuse it, either.
Only comments with substance will be posted to this blog entry. Take your vitriol elsewhere.
2. She is incredibly energetic and, because of that, very knowledgeable about what happens in North Haven. For years she has attended hundreds of meetings of boards and commissions she hasn’t sat on, including the Board of Education. She has visited nearly every home in North Haven over the past few months, listening to what people have to say. She doesn’t wait for them to come to her. She also publishes her home phone number and e-mail address, and responds to everyone.
3. She has an open mind and knows how to listen. Because she wants to hear a range of views, she has no problem listening to people who disagree with her. I disagree with her, and that’s fine. That’s not fine with the people who currently run this town.
4. She is accountable and believes that accountability is central to democracy. For example, were she in Mr. Kopetz’s position, I have no doubt that she would have volunteered to be interviewed by the forensic investigator.
5. She believes in transparency. She wants town information available on-line, 24 hours a day, at home or at the library. She believes in upholding the letter and the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, which is that an open government is an honest government and a government in which people can effectively participate.
6. She is ethical. She does not believe in allowing people with conflicts of interest to make town decisions. For a long time, she has been demanding major changes to our town’s Code of Ethics.
7. She is honest, for a politician. Yes, she uses spin and makes campaign promises. But she means what she says and does not falsely attack people or ignore them because they disagree with or oppose her.
8. She is a warm person. Don’t underestimate warmth. It is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. Compassion is a valuable asset for any organization. It humanizes, it dignifies. This quality is not one that comes out at public meetings, where she is trying to rally the opposition. But it comes out strongly in her everyday interactions with people.
9. She is an intelligent person. She’s not great on her feet, speaking extemporaneously, but that is only one form of intelligence. She is excellent at pulling together ideas and applying them. She is thoughtful, not the rash person the Republicans portray her as. For example, her position on the Ierardis’ pensions was reached only after talking with experts in the field, who apparently gave her different opinions than the lawyer hired by Mr. Kopetz. As in medicine, there is also a need for second opinions in law.
10. She does not have a circle of cronies she will put into power. She has advisers (I too give her advice, for what it’s worth), but they are not interested in power, they are interested in getting this town back on track, on giving power back to the people who live here. Notice that Michael Mele, Gary Amato, and I are not on the ballot, nor will we end up on the payroll. Janet McCarty will not abuse the power given to her, and she will not let others abuse it, either.
Only comments with substance will be posted to this blog entry. Take your vitriol elsewhere.
Michael O. Peterson, Our Very Own Big Brother
Departing acting Board of Finance chair Michael O. Peterson surprised everyone with his farewell speech at last week’s Board of Finance meeting. Here’s what he said once he departed from the usual thanks and goodbye:
"I have also seen this community suffer from a lack of political leadership. No longer do leaders put aside their differences to solve problems or unite to help the community grow. While we can all have differing opinions, we expect elected officials to put aside petty partisan differences to make our community a better place. Indeed, over the past few years, I have witnessed a litany of degrading comments, mean-spirited personal attacks by a group of people often filled with inaccurate and false facts. We have seen people who claimed to be trusted do some allegedly bad acts, which have confused and angered us all.
"We’re living in Orwellian times, where we have a governmental bureau which can spend millions of dollars to secretly investigate people based on anonymous written letters or verbal accusations. We have people who claim to be ethicists, who in writing and verbally label people liars or insinuate dishonest behavior if you dare disagree or do not follow their prescribed procedure. These could be pages out of our history books, but sadly they are not. They are happening right here today.
"North Haven stands at a crossroad. Do we move forward together to create a better community for future generations, or do we succumb to petty partisan bickering and allow these opportunities to fall by the wayside? The choice rests with each one of us."
What I found most appalling about this speech was Peterson’s attack on the Public Integrity Bureau of the Chief State’s Attorney’s office (the "governmental bureau" in the second paragraph). Does he believe that accusations of the misappropriation of public funds should be ignored by our law enforcement bodies? Should our police officers ignore the tips they get? Should they demand to have everything in writing and notarized?
It’s interesting that, according to Peterson, what the Ierardis were accused of is only “alleged,” but what he accuses me of doing ("people who claim to be ethicists" in the second sentence of the second paragraph) does not get any presumption of innocence.
He doesn’t seem to recognize that he is as much a government official as members of the Public Integrity Bureau. But he is more irresponsible, because he doesn’t even bother investigating, much less doing it secretly, before making public accusations against citizens of his town.
He considers the Public Integrity Bureau an Orwellian Big Brother, but what is he? How are his unfounded personal attacks superior to the Public Integrity Bureau’s warrant of arrest after a long investigation? Where is his documentation, whom did he interview?
Search for “lie” in this blog (the word “liar” does not appear) and you will find that I only use the term with respect to a budget full of lies, and with respect to one individual: Michael O. Peterson. Fancy that.
I do not call him a liar, but point out two very specific public lies he told. Nothing about disagreement or any “prescribed procedure.”
What is he talking about? Nothing. He’s just doing what he accuses others of: being petty and partisan and personal. And a poor leader.
"I have also seen this community suffer from a lack of political leadership. No longer do leaders put aside their differences to solve problems or unite to help the community grow. While we can all have differing opinions, we expect elected officials to put aside petty partisan differences to make our community a better place. Indeed, over the past few years, I have witnessed a litany of degrading comments, mean-spirited personal attacks by a group of people often filled with inaccurate and false facts. We have seen people who claimed to be trusted do some allegedly bad acts, which have confused and angered us all.
"We’re living in Orwellian times, where we have a governmental bureau which can spend millions of dollars to secretly investigate people based on anonymous written letters or verbal accusations. We have people who claim to be ethicists, who in writing and verbally label people liars or insinuate dishonest behavior if you dare disagree or do not follow their prescribed procedure. These could be pages out of our history books, but sadly they are not. They are happening right here today.
"North Haven stands at a crossroad. Do we move forward together to create a better community for future generations, or do we succumb to petty partisan bickering and allow these opportunities to fall by the wayside? The choice rests with each one of us."
What I found most appalling about this speech was Peterson’s attack on the Public Integrity Bureau of the Chief State’s Attorney’s office (the "governmental bureau" in the second paragraph). Does he believe that accusations of the misappropriation of public funds should be ignored by our law enforcement bodies? Should our police officers ignore the tips they get? Should they demand to have everything in writing and notarized?
It’s interesting that, according to Peterson, what the Ierardis were accused of is only “alleged,” but what he accuses me of doing ("people who claim to be ethicists" in the second sentence of the second paragraph) does not get any presumption of innocence.
He doesn’t seem to recognize that he is as much a government official as members of the Public Integrity Bureau. But he is more irresponsible, because he doesn’t even bother investigating, much less doing it secretly, before making public accusations against citizens of his town.
He considers the Public Integrity Bureau an Orwellian Big Brother, but what is he? How are his unfounded personal attacks superior to the Public Integrity Bureau’s warrant of arrest after a long investigation? Where is his documentation, whom did he interview?
Search for “lie” in this blog (the word “liar” does not appear) and you will find that I only use the term with respect to a budget full of lies, and with respect to one individual: Michael O. Peterson. Fancy that.
I do not call him a liar, but point out two very specific public lies he told. Nothing about disagreement or any “prescribed procedure.”
What is he talking about? Nothing. He’s just doing what he accuses others of: being petty and partisan and personal. And a poor leader.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Forensic Report Part 2 - No-Bid Contracts
On pages 8-9 of the forensic examination report, Kostin Ruffkess & Co. lists, as one of the “methods and schemes” by which town assets were allegedly “misappropriated,” the circumvention of and failure to follow the town’s bidding requirements.
Kostin Ruffkess & Co. looked at just three contracts, in the Community Services area, but the circumvention of and failure to follow the town’s bidding requirements was a problem throughout the town’s departments. It had little or nothing to do with the Ierardis.
Section 406(A) of the Charter makes it clear that the First Selectman is solely responsible for bidding out Town contracts (the Board of Education is responsible for education-related contracts).
Kopetz is now bidding out contracts, but why is he not responsible, as our forensic auditor says in its report, for the misappropriation of town assets by not following the Charter requirements in the past? Kopetz himself said publicly that the Town saved $1.4 million by fully bidding out the non-medical insurance contract. Why are we talking about how can we proceed against the Ierardis for misappropriation of town funds, but not against Kevin Kopetz?
When I raised this issue at this week’s Board of Finance meeting, there was, needless to say, no discussion. Acting chair Michael Peterson said that it wasn’t the bidding out of the insurance contract that saved us money, but the new bidder’s different plan. I responded that it was the open bidding of the contract that gave the town the opportunity to consider the new bidder’s different plan. He immediately said that I’d run out of time, although there was no time period specified and not many people left to ask questions or make statements.
Kopetz wants credit for the big savings in insurance, but not the blame for effectively giving away taxpayers’ money by not fully bidding out contracts in the past. This is misappropriation of funds not to put it into his own pocket, but into others’ pockets. From the taxpayer’s point of view, it doesn’t really matter where the money ends up.
There is also the issue of kickbacks. Unbid contracts often lead to payments to those who arranged the contracts, essentially rewards for a job well done. Kostin Ruffkess knows this, but does not seem concerned enough to look for possible kickbacks in North Haven. Or perhaps they’re not being asked to. Finding kickbacks outside the Community Services would be more embarrassing than what the Ierardis have been charged with doing.
Kostin Ruffkess & Co. looked at just three contracts, in the Community Services area, but the circumvention of and failure to follow the town’s bidding requirements was a problem throughout the town’s departments. It had little or nothing to do with the Ierardis.
Section 406(A) of the Charter makes it clear that the First Selectman is solely responsible for bidding out Town contracts (the Board of Education is responsible for education-related contracts).
Kopetz is now bidding out contracts, but why is he not responsible, as our forensic auditor says in its report, for the misappropriation of town assets by not following the Charter requirements in the past? Kopetz himself said publicly that the Town saved $1.4 million by fully bidding out the non-medical insurance contract. Why are we talking about how can we proceed against the Ierardis for misappropriation of town funds, but not against Kevin Kopetz?
When I raised this issue at this week’s Board of Finance meeting, there was, needless to say, no discussion. Acting chair Michael Peterson said that it wasn’t the bidding out of the insurance contract that saved us money, but the new bidder’s different plan. I responded that it was the open bidding of the contract that gave the town the opportunity to consider the new bidder’s different plan. He immediately said that I’d run out of time, although there was no time period specified and not many people left to ask questions or make statements.
Kopetz wants credit for the big savings in insurance, but not the blame for effectively giving away taxpayers’ money by not fully bidding out contracts in the past. This is misappropriation of funds not to put it into his own pocket, but into others’ pockets. From the taxpayer’s point of view, it doesn’t really matter where the money ends up.
There is also the issue of kickbacks. Unbid contracts often lead to payments to those who arranged the contracts, essentially rewards for a job well done. Kostin Ruffkess knows this, but does not seem concerned enough to look for possible kickbacks in North Haven. Or perhaps they’re not being asked to. Finding kickbacks outside the Community Services would be more embarrassing than what the Ierardis have been charged with doing.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Biting the Bullet and Moving On
It’s usually hard to sum up one of these three-plus-hour Board of Finance meetings, but the exiting acting chair, Michael O. Peterson, did it for me: “At some point,” he said, “we have to bite the bullet and move on.”
One bites a bullet when one is in extreme pain. No anesthetic is available, and the job’s just gotta be done. Your life depends on it.
But you can’t move on until the operation is over.
There was a great deal of anesthetic available at last night’s Board of Finance meeting. In fact, it was the deadening of the pain that was so painful.
There were two camps on the Board of Finance with respect to further forensic examination.
1. The people who talked about a cost-benefit analysis, focusing on the recovery we might get from the insurance company (ignoring other avenues, such as restitution from a criminal court, or a civil suit). This camp consisted of the five Republicans and the leader of the forensic examination, Joseph Centofanti.
2. The people who talked about the need to regain the people’s trust and confidence, and to get to the bottom of what happened. This camp consisted of the two Democrats and most of the people who spoke during public comments.
The town is certainly in pain. But it’s not the pain of an operation. So far, all there’s been is anesthesia. The “forensic-operations audit” hasn’t even broken the skin.
The Republicans seem to want the forensic examiner to decide where to go next, and even then only after he finishes the operations audit, that is, his recommendation of new accounting procedures and controls. These are important, but many of them have already been instituted due to the scandal. And the ones that existed before the scandal were often ignored, as the new ones might be, depending on who is in charge.
Nothing was decided at the meeting. We go into the election with no new information. All we know is that if there was anything to hide, the Board of Finance Republicans have successfully allowed it to stay hidden. And hiding doesn’t do anything for public trust and confidence.
If we move on, without taking out the shrapnel, this town will never get better. Our life depends on knowing what happened and who was responsible.
One bites a bullet when one is in extreme pain. No anesthetic is available, and the job’s just gotta be done. Your life depends on it.
But you can’t move on until the operation is over.
There was a great deal of anesthetic available at last night’s Board of Finance meeting. In fact, it was the deadening of the pain that was so painful.
There were two camps on the Board of Finance with respect to further forensic examination.
1. The people who talked about a cost-benefit analysis, focusing on the recovery we might get from the insurance company (ignoring other avenues, such as restitution from a criminal court, or a civil suit). This camp consisted of the five Republicans and the leader of the forensic examination, Joseph Centofanti.
2. The people who talked about the need to regain the people’s trust and confidence, and to get to the bottom of what happened. This camp consisted of the two Democrats and most of the people who spoke during public comments.
The town is certainly in pain. But it’s not the pain of an operation. So far, all there’s been is anesthesia. The “forensic-operations audit” hasn’t even broken the skin.
The Republicans seem to want the forensic examiner to decide where to go next, and even then only after he finishes the operations audit, that is, his recommendation of new accounting procedures and controls. These are important, but many of them have already been instituted due to the scandal. And the ones that existed before the scandal were often ignored, as the new ones might be, depending on who is in charge.
Nothing was decided at the meeting. We go into the election with no new information. All we know is that if there was anything to hide, the Board of Finance Republicans have successfully allowed it to stay hidden. And hiding doesn’t do anything for public trust and confidence.
If we move on, without taking out the shrapnel, this town will never get better. Our life depends on knowing what happened and who was responsible.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Two North Haven Government Contractors In Trouble with the Law
You’d think that North Haven’s town government would have enough of scandals, that it would steer clear of doing business with contractors who are in trouble with the law.
In early May, I wrote a blog entry about the Maguire Group, which has been sued by the CT Attorney General for not doing the inspection work the state contracted it to do on Interstate 84, and allowing enormous cost overruns. The incident was so serious, it led to a reorganization of the Department of Transportation.
But in North Haven, it’s business as usual. As usual. Not only is the Maguire Group involved with the Sackett Point Bridge project, but now (according to yesterday's Register) it’s been hired by North Haven as the sewer consultant on the Pratt and Whitney/Rabina project (Maguire Group was engaged through the North Haven firm that has been providing general engineering services to the town, Diversified Technology Services, and will be reimbursed by Rabina Properties, but these are technicalties: it is the town's consultant).
It just so happens that four Maguire Group employees donated to the Kopetz for First Selectman campaign this year: John Treichel (VP, but listed as "engineer"), Alan Asikainen (VP of the water resources division, but listed as "engineer"), James Fritz (executive VP, but listed as "engineer"), and Sebastian Amenta (VP, but listed as "engineer"). None lives in North Haven. Each gave $250, a sizeable amount for a local candidate.
And a court found, many years ago, that Sebastian Amenta, one of the contributing Maguire VPs, had bribed the Meriden City Manager, who was convicted (see U.S. v Aldi, No. 95-1446 (2d Cir.)).
What was involved? Here’s what the court said: "Aldi [the city manager] was given these payments by Sebastian Amenta of the Maguire Group, an engineering company. In return, Aldi awarded contracts to the Maguire Group in violation of city procedures for selecting contractors." Not what we want here in North Haven, that's for sure.
So, four out-of-town vice presidents gave to the Kopetz campaign and, despite the serious scandal at the state level that has been featured on the front page of the Register several times (like the Ierardis), the Maguire Group got another contract with North Haven.
Was it competitively bid? Was the hiring of Maguire Group through another company a way to get around the Charter's bidding requirements? Did the procurement chief – Kevin Kopetz – take into account the company’s failure to do its work on the I-84 project? Did he think we'd never learn that he was taking a contribution from someone who had bribed in order to get contracts?
And then there’s John’s Refuse Service. I have no reason to believe that our recycling contractor has done anything short of an excellent job in North Haven and elsewhere. But almost a year ago, according to an FBI press release, its principal, Dennis Bozzuto, pleaded guilty to a racketeering charge: "he conspired to perpetuate a system, commonly called the ‘property rights system.’ Carters engaged in the property rights system would not service or compete for other carters’ customers. The property rights system essentially destroys free enterprise, allowing the participating carters to artificially inflate their prices and leaving waste removal customers with no other options."
Artificial inflation of prices. That means North Haven was probably paying more than we should have. According to the Register, the state has decided not to work with John’s Refuse anymore. Has North Haven even put the contract out to bid again, to make sure we’re getting a good price (even from John's Refuse), not an artificially inflated price?
I would like to be able to say that Kevin Kopetz is just asleep at the wheel. But he has taken so many contributions from contractors, that it doesn’t look good for him. It looks like his personal interest in getting re-elected takes precedence over the town’s interests in getting the best prices from its contractors.
In early May, I wrote a blog entry about the Maguire Group, which has been sued by the CT Attorney General for not doing the inspection work the state contracted it to do on Interstate 84, and allowing enormous cost overruns. The incident was so serious, it led to a reorganization of the Department of Transportation.
But in North Haven, it’s business as usual. As usual. Not only is the Maguire Group involved with the Sackett Point Bridge project, but now (according to yesterday's Register) it’s been hired by North Haven as the sewer consultant on the Pratt and Whitney/Rabina project (Maguire Group was engaged through the North Haven firm that has been providing general engineering services to the town, Diversified Technology Services, and will be reimbursed by Rabina Properties, but these are technicalties: it is the town's consultant).
It just so happens that four Maguire Group employees donated to the Kopetz for First Selectman campaign this year: John Treichel (VP, but listed as "engineer"), Alan Asikainen (VP of the water resources division, but listed as "engineer"), James Fritz (executive VP, but listed as "engineer"), and Sebastian Amenta (VP, but listed as "engineer"). None lives in North Haven. Each gave $250, a sizeable amount for a local candidate.
And a court found, many years ago, that Sebastian Amenta, one of the contributing Maguire VPs, had bribed the Meriden City Manager, who was convicted (see U.S. v Aldi, No. 95-1446 (2d Cir.)).
What was involved? Here’s what the court said: "Aldi [the city manager] was given these payments by Sebastian Amenta of the Maguire Group, an engineering company. In return, Aldi awarded contracts to the Maguire Group in violation of city procedures for selecting contractors." Not what we want here in North Haven, that's for sure.
So, four out-of-town vice presidents gave to the Kopetz campaign and, despite the serious scandal at the state level that has been featured on the front page of the Register several times (like the Ierardis), the Maguire Group got another contract with North Haven.
Was it competitively bid? Was the hiring of Maguire Group through another company a way to get around the Charter's bidding requirements? Did the procurement chief – Kevin Kopetz – take into account the company’s failure to do its work on the I-84 project? Did he think we'd never learn that he was taking a contribution from someone who had bribed in order to get contracts?
And then there’s John’s Refuse Service. I have no reason to believe that our recycling contractor has done anything short of an excellent job in North Haven and elsewhere. But almost a year ago, according to an FBI press release, its principal, Dennis Bozzuto, pleaded guilty to a racketeering charge: "he conspired to perpetuate a system, commonly called the ‘property rights system.’ Carters engaged in the property rights system would not service or compete for other carters’ customers. The property rights system essentially destroys free enterprise, allowing the participating carters to artificially inflate their prices and leaving waste removal customers with no other options."
Artificial inflation of prices. That means North Haven was probably paying more than we should have. According to the Register, the state has decided not to work with John’s Refuse anymore. Has North Haven even put the contract out to bid again, to make sure we’re getting a good price (even from John's Refuse), not an artificially inflated price?
I would like to be able to say that Kevin Kopetz is just asleep at the wheel. But he has taken so many contributions from contractors, that it doesn’t look good for him. It looks like his personal interest in getting re-elected takes precedence over the town’s interests in getting the best prices from its contractors.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Where's Waldo? - The North Haven Edition
Today, North Haveners all received a special gift in their Advisor: the North Haven Edition of Where’s Waldo?
And who better to play Waldo in North Haven but our very own Kevin Kopetz.
In the photos in the Civic Calendar that’s inside each of our Advisors, I found Kevin Kopetz 11 whole times.
But maybe you can find him more. Whoever can find him the most gets a signed photograph of ... well, you know who.
And whoever thinks it’s right for a candidate to use town money for such a bald campaign ploy, you can have two signed photographs of ... who else.
And who better to play Waldo in North Haven but our very own Kevin Kopetz.
In the photos in the Civic Calendar that’s inside each of our Advisors, I found Kevin Kopetz 11 whole times.
But maybe you can find him more. Whoever can find him the most gets a signed photograph of ... well, you know who.
And whoever thinks it’s right for a candidate to use town money for such a bald campaign ploy, you can have two signed photographs of ... who else.
Friday, October 12, 2007
First Selectman Debate - Part 4
I finally finished watching the debate, and it changed my view of Kevin Kopetz.
I have criticized him as silent, unwilling to stand up to people who were doing wrong. I knew he had been corrupted morally, although not financially, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt when it came to active treachery.
No longer. What he did at the end of the debate is inexcusable: Janet McCarty made a passing comment about the Ierardis using their position to increase their pocketbooks, and Kopetz acted as if it had been directed at him.
When he did this, McCarty said, "That's not what I said!" and he ignored her. He could have misunderstood her, but once she protested, he had a responsibility to at least consider what he was saying. But he didn't miss a beat, because he knew what he was doing from the start.
Even if McCarty had hard evidence to prove that Kopetz had taken money under the table, this is not how she would have accused him. Kopetz knew this, and knew the reference was to the Ierardis. But it helped him look holier than thou – and McCarty look evil – to misconstrue what she had said and to show offense.
Poor Kopetz, victimized by a woman's negativity and false accusations. No, disgusting Kopetz, taking advantage of the false image he has created of himself as a man of integrity in order to destroy a woman who stood in his way.
Mr. Kopetz, I take back the defenses I have made of your character. You have been deeply corrupted. You will do anything to win. You are not only sad and desperate, you not only lack moral courage, you have become a deeply unethical person.
I have criticized him as silent, unwilling to stand up to people who were doing wrong. I knew he had been corrupted morally, although not financially, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt when it came to active treachery.
No longer. What he did at the end of the debate is inexcusable: Janet McCarty made a passing comment about the Ierardis using their position to increase their pocketbooks, and Kopetz acted as if it had been directed at him.
When he did this, McCarty said, "That's not what I said!" and he ignored her. He could have misunderstood her, but once she protested, he had a responsibility to at least consider what he was saying. But he didn't miss a beat, because he knew what he was doing from the start.
Even if McCarty had hard evidence to prove that Kopetz had taken money under the table, this is not how she would have accused him. Kopetz knew this, and knew the reference was to the Ierardis. But it helped him look holier than thou – and McCarty look evil – to misconstrue what she had said and to show offense.
Poor Kopetz, victimized by a woman's negativity and false accusations. No, disgusting Kopetz, taking advantage of the false image he has created of himself as a man of integrity in order to destroy a woman who stood in his way.
Mr. Kopetz, I take back the defenses I have made of your character. You have been deeply corrupted. You will do anything to win. You are not only sad and desperate, you not only lack moral courage, you have become a deeply unethical person.
First Selectman Debate - Part 3
“My father gave me freedom. He taught me that to make a moral choice means taking a risk, even as it means losing status within the institutions you work for, or losing status within your community. It can mean suffering the censure of people you care about.
"But when we care too much about our image and our status, when we need the label of the institutions we work for, including the church [the author’s father was a Presbyterian minister], to define our worth and identity, when we allow these things to become the ultimate source of meaning in our lives, we worship idols. We allow idols to determine what we say and how we act, how we make moral choices, how we live. Fearing the wrath of the idol we remain silent in the face of injustice or perhaps carry out injustice. We give up our freedom.”
– Chris Hedges, Losing Moses on the Freeway: The 10 Commandments in America (2005)
Over the last seven years, Kevin Kopetz worked on many matters, including economic development, but he did not so much run the town, as let it be run. He was not a great manager, because he didn’t have to be. He was a bad manager to the extent that he did not take control, but let things go their ways, and let laws be broken right and left without insisting they be followed.
At no time did he show any moral courage, at no time did he take a risk. Whenever a crisis arose, he chose to protect his image and his status.
And he continued to do this in the debate, looking certain and in charge, but actually he was concerned only with his image and his status, and with not taking responsibility for what happened when he was supposed to be in charge. He so fears losing everything he has worked for, including his pension, that he has given up his freedom.
Kevin Kopetz is a prisoner of the image he has constructed for himself, and of the people who help him preserve it. The image determines how he acts, what he does, but most of all what he doesn't do. He is as shackled to that image as he was to the words on the sheets before him in the debate. He made no missteps because he took no risks.
Janet McCarty is a free woman. She says what she knows and what she believes. And she makes enemies, she takes missteps, she even sometimes looks foolish. Thank goodness! She is a free woman who can lead herself. A man imprisoned within himself can lead no one.
"But when we care too much about our image and our status, when we need the label of the institutions we work for, including the church [the author’s father was a Presbyterian minister], to define our worth and identity, when we allow these things to become the ultimate source of meaning in our lives, we worship idols. We allow idols to determine what we say and how we act, how we make moral choices, how we live. Fearing the wrath of the idol we remain silent in the face of injustice or perhaps carry out injustice. We give up our freedom.”
– Chris Hedges, Losing Moses on the Freeway: The 10 Commandments in America (2005)
Over the last seven years, Kevin Kopetz worked on many matters, including economic development, but he did not so much run the town, as let it be run. He was not a great manager, because he didn’t have to be. He was a bad manager to the extent that he did not take control, but let things go their ways, and let laws be broken right and left without insisting they be followed.
At no time did he show any moral courage, at no time did he take a risk. Whenever a crisis arose, he chose to protect his image and his status.
And he continued to do this in the debate, looking certain and in charge, but actually he was concerned only with his image and his status, and with not taking responsibility for what happened when he was supposed to be in charge. He so fears losing everything he has worked for, including his pension, that he has given up his freedom.
Kevin Kopetz is a prisoner of the image he has constructed for himself, and of the people who help him preserve it. The image determines how he acts, what he does, but most of all what he doesn't do. He is as shackled to that image as he was to the words on the sheets before him in the debate. He made no missteps because he took no risks.
Janet McCarty is a free woman. She says what she knows and what she believes. And she makes enemies, she takes missteps, she even sometimes looks foolish. Thank goodness! She is a free woman who can lead herself. A man imprisoned within himself can lead no one.
First Selectman Debate - Part 2
During the debate, Kevin Kopetz implied that Janet McCarty diminishes those who work for the town, and he defended them and praised them. He and Public Works Director Richard Branigan often insist at public meetings, with a tone of blame against those who say otherwise, that North Haven town employees are the best there is.
No group of people that large is the best there is. There are excellent people and good people, incompetent people and bad people, but mostly people in between, like all of us.
Anyone who says different is treating town employees as if they were children, which they certainly are not. Anyone who says different is trying to make others look bad, usually Janet McCarty, who never says disparaging things about town employees, but is treated as if she does. Anyone who says different is trying to create a false solidarity among town employees, a feeling that they are being attacked and must stand united (against people who do not exist).
No one is attacking them, everyone appreciates the work they do, but that does not make them all good and kind and everything else children are told to make them feel good. They are men and women like other men and women, and that is all they are and all they should ever want to be.
No group of people that large is the best there is. There are excellent people and good people, incompetent people and bad people, but mostly people in between, like all of us.
Anyone who says different is treating town employees as if they were children, which they certainly are not. Anyone who says different is trying to make others look bad, usually Janet McCarty, who never says disparaging things about town employees, but is treated as if she does. Anyone who says different is trying to create a false solidarity among town employees, a feeling that they are being attacked and must stand united (against people who do not exist).
No one is attacking them, everyone appreciates the work they do, but that does not make them all good and kind and everything else children are told to make them feel good. They are men and women like other men and women, and that is all they are and all they should ever want to be.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
First Selectman Debate - Part 1
In his first rebuttal in the first First Selectman debate, Kevin Kopetz said that the Ierardis and Vincent Palmeri were Janet McCarty’s employees, too.
This is not true. Section 502(A) of the Town Charter clearly states, "the First Selectman shall administer all the offices and agencies in charge of persons appointed by the Board of Selectmen and shall supervise and direct the same."
The First Selectman is the "chief executive officer" of North Haven. He and only he is the boss to all department heads. He and only he oversees the town’s departments and agencies.
Kopetz misrepresented our Charter in order to make McCarty share responsibility for his poor management.
Then he criticized her for making statements about department heads which, he said, might "disqualify" her from making decisions regarding them down the road.
He argues that someone who speaks out about problems with department heads may be disqualified from making decisions regarding them, but that he, who has been implicated in the conspiracy, by Joseph Ierardi himself (for more on this, see the middle of this earlier blog entry), may make one decision after another about them.
That’s a very self-serving view of conflicts of interest and disqualification.
In one short speech, Mr. Kopetz misrepresented his and Ms. McCarty’s powers under the Town Charter, and gave our town a distorted view of what conflicts of interest are.
If that’s what he feels he has to do to hold on to his position, he is a very sad, desperate man.
This is not true. Section 502(A) of the Town Charter clearly states, "the First Selectman shall administer all the offices and agencies in charge of persons appointed by the Board of Selectmen and shall supervise and direct the same."
The First Selectman is the "chief executive officer" of North Haven. He and only he is the boss to all department heads. He and only he oversees the town’s departments and agencies.
Kopetz misrepresented our Charter in order to make McCarty share responsibility for his poor management.
Then he criticized her for making statements about department heads which, he said, might "disqualify" her from making decisions regarding them down the road.
He argues that someone who speaks out about problems with department heads may be disqualified from making decisions regarding them, but that he, who has been implicated in the conspiracy, by Joseph Ierardi himself (for more on this, see the middle of this earlier blog entry), may make one decision after another about them.
That’s a very self-serving view of conflicts of interest and disqualification.
In one short speech, Mr. Kopetz misrepresented his and Ms. McCarty’s powers under the Town Charter, and gave our town a distorted view of what conflicts of interest are.
If that’s what he feels he has to do to hold on to his position, he is a very sad, desperate man.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Interests Opposed to Ours: How Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio Fooled the Town Meeting
It is a serious thing to say that a Town Attorney, or any attorney for that matter, has misrepresented a court decision. What makes it especially serious in the case of a Town Attorney is that the Town Attorney’s client is the town, that is, us. Were he representing a client whose interest is in fooling us, someone whose interests were opposed to ours, then we would just say, "A job well done. You fooled the Annual Town Meeting and won the vote."
But who could the Town Attorney be representing whose interests are opposed to the town’s, who’d want to fool the town into voting a certain way? That is the central question, I think, in the upcoming election.
The town of North Haven’s interest with respect to the legality of the budget transfer process is knowing whether it's legal or not. Mr. Donofrio told us it was legal, but to do that he had to depend on a court decision that doesn’t say this. This is the best he could do.
He won the debate and won the vote, but we lost, because we didn’t know the truth when we voted, and those who watched the meeting on television were given a false impression of the court decision.
I owe it to Mr. Donofrio not simply to criticize him (as I did in a recent blog entry on the Annual Town Meeting), but to show in great detail where, how, and why he was wrong, and to allow him to respond in a comment to my blog entry.
I would not have spent so much time on this had I thought that Mr. Donofrio was simply incompetent. I know how intelligent and experienced a lawyer he is, and therefore I cannot believe that he was simply incapable of understanding the decision he presented to the Annual Town Meeting on September 25. No, he knew what he was doing. And he knew that if the budget transfers were seen as illegal, it would undermine the respect given to Republican management of the town and would jeopardize their re-election and, therefore, his own position as Town Attorney.
I believe that, due to Mr. Donofrio’s misrepresentations of the law, the budget transfers should be brought before the Town Meeting again. But I don't think it's likely this will happen. This is not the way the Kopetz Administration works, not unless it is forced to. I also believe that Mr. Donofrio should apologize to the town for not being frank with us.
Click here to read further about the Supreme Court decision, what Mr. Donofrio said about it (there is a transcript of his speech, as well as mine), what the court decision really says, and how it relates to the rights of the Town Meeting.
But who could the Town Attorney be representing whose interests are opposed to the town’s, who’d want to fool the town into voting a certain way? That is the central question, I think, in the upcoming election.
The town of North Haven’s interest with respect to the legality of the budget transfer process is knowing whether it's legal or not. Mr. Donofrio told us it was legal, but to do that he had to depend on a court decision that doesn’t say this. This is the best he could do.
He won the debate and won the vote, but we lost, because we didn’t know the truth when we voted, and those who watched the meeting on television were given a false impression of the court decision.
I owe it to Mr. Donofrio not simply to criticize him (as I did in a recent blog entry on the Annual Town Meeting), but to show in great detail where, how, and why he was wrong, and to allow him to respond in a comment to my blog entry.
I would not have spent so much time on this had I thought that Mr. Donofrio was simply incompetent. I know how intelligent and experienced a lawyer he is, and therefore I cannot believe that he was simply incapable of understanding the decision he presented to the Annual Town Meeting on September 25. No, he knew what he was doing. And he knew that if the budget transfers were seen as illegal, it would undermine the respect given to Republican management of the town and would jeopardize their re-election and, therefore, his own position as Town Attorney.
I believe that, due to Mr. Donofrio’s misrepresentations of the law, the budget transfers should be brought before the Town Meeting again. But I don't think it's likely this will happen. This is not the way the Kopetz Administration works, not unless it is forced to. I also believe that Mr. Donofrio should apologize to the town for not being frank with us.
Click here to read further about the Supreme Court decision, what Mr. Donofrio said about it (there is a transcript of his speech, as well as mine), what the court decision really says, and how it relates to the rights of the Town Meeting.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Recent Letters to the Editor
Former First Selectmen Speak
Two former first selectmen, Mr. Gawrych and Mr. Rescigno, wrote a letter this week supporting Mr. Kopetz. But from their letter, all they seem to care about is development. Development is important, especially since we have been losing some of our largest corporate taxpayers, something the Kopetz Administration has taken no blame for. But development is not what makes North Haven a good place to live.
More important than development is an open government that reflects an open community, an ethical government that reflects an ethical community.
It is easy for former Republican first selectmen to praise their fellow Republican. What has been very hard for them is to offer useful criticism, to get involved in public discussions of issues, to help the town deal with the accusations against Joseph Ierardi, a man who worked under them, as well. Where has their leadership been? What development can make this town trust its government again?
Pratt and Whitney Site - Why No Students?
Charles Wicklein wrote about the fact that the development plan for the Pratt and Whitney site contains 700-800 units of housing, but provides for only 8 additional students to the school system. Doesn’t sound like fair advertising to me, and it makes you wonder about the entire project. Is it for real? Or are the developers assuming that no one with children would live on a piece of former industrial property that is said to have serious pollution problems.
A Sober Look at Town Management
Democratic Board of Finance member Gerald Feinberg is a lawyer who I consider to be overly cautious. But in a letter to the editor this week, Feinberg noted the first forensic report’s description of “long-standing patterns or practices of abuse.” He felt that “these abuses could not have persisted without the knowledge of, or approval of, or deliberate disregard of these practices by the finance director... and by implication, the first selectman.” When Feinberg says this, it has much more authority and sobriety attached to it than when a muckraker like me says it.
Feinberg notes that we have the opportunity to clean house on November 7. The alternative, he says, is a continuation of business as usual. I would go further: the alternative would be worse than business as usual. If the Republicans win this year, after all that’s happened, with all the good Democratic candidates running against them, they will be more sure of themselves and make this town more closed and more based on fear.
Why It Came as a Shock
Howard Luppi writes in favor of Mr. Kopetz’s re-election, saying that the Ierardi scandal “came as a total shock to all North Haven citizens,” and that Kopetz handled it well.
The only reason it came as a shock was that the Kopetz Administration did not respond to what was happening, and was so successful at keeping its problems under wraps. People had been complaining about the Ierardis for years, and Ierardi himself said that Mr. Kopetz knew about the games he was playing with travel reimbursements. Palmeri had done everything he could to keep town government closed and information inaccessible, and his boss had done nothing to stop him, voting consistently to prevent questions from being asked of himself or Palmeri at town meetings.
Kopetz handled the problem only when he had no other choice not, as a good manager does, before it became a big scandal. The only reason the news came as a shock is that everyone was doing his best to keep the facts hidden, and when people spoke up, they were ignored. Thank goodness the Chief State’s Attorney didn’t ignore people, as well.
Janet McCarty
Todd Depino wrote a letter to the editor this week attacking Janet McCarty for using negative, anti-administration rhetoric as a smokescreen to hide her lack of qualifications and experience. I had already planned to do a blog entry listing Ms. McCarty’s many positive features and accomplishments, which are too often overlooked, so I won’t mention them here.
What I will say is that, although always accused of being negative, she has been behind almost every positive policy that has become law in North Haven over the last few years (including phasing in revaluation and budget reform), not to mention many policies that were rejected by town Republicans.
It should also be noted that (1) Ms. McCarty (as a former PTA President and Board of Finance member, as well as long-serving Selectwoman) knows this town better than anyone else running for any office, other than Mr. Kopetz, and (2) Mr. Kopetz has a record of horrible management, including the failure to give us competitively bid contracts until forced to by Ms. McCarty and newspaper editorials; the failure to control his department heads, as well as taxes; and the failure to give us an open, ethical government.
Ms. McCarty has more management experience than Mr. Kopetz did when he was first appointed First Selectman, and no record of failure (to get elected, yes, but not as a manager).
Two former first selectmen, Mr. Gawrych and Mr. Rescigno, wrote a letter this week supporting Mr. Kopetz. But from their letter, all they seem to care about is development. Development is important, especially since we have been losing some of our largest corporate taxpayers, something the Kopetz Administration has taken no blame for. But development is not what makes North Haven a good place to live.
More important than development is an open government that reflects an open community, an ethical government that reflects an ethical community.
It is easy for former Republican first selectmen to praise their fellow Republican. What has been very hard for them is to offer useful criticism, to get involved in public discussions of issues, to help the town deal with the accusations against Joseph Ierardi, a man who worked under them, as well. Where has their leadership been? What development can make this town trust its government again?
Pratt and Whitney Site - Why No Students?
Charles Wicklein wrote about the fact that the development plan for the Pratt and Whitney site contains 700-800 units of housing, but provides for only 8 additional students to the school system. Doesn’t sound like fair advertising to me, and it makes you wonder about the entire project. Is it for real? Or are the developers assuming that no one with children would live on a piece of former industrial property that is said to have serious pollution problems.
A Sober Look at Town Management
Democratic Board of Finance member Gerald Feinberg is a lawyer who I consider to be overly cautious. But in a letter to the editor this week, Feinberg noted the first forensic report’s description of “long-standing patterns or practices of abuse.” He felt that “these abuses could not have persisted without the knowledge of, or approval of, or deliberate disregard of these practices by the finance director... and by implication, the first selectman.” When Feinberg says this, it has much more authority and sobriety attached to it than when a muckraker like me says it.
Feinberg notes that we have the opportunity to clean house on November 7. The alternative, he says, is a continuation of business as usual. I would go further: the alternative would be worse than business as usual. If the Republicans win this year, after all that’s happened, with all the good Democratic candidates running against them, they will be more sure of themselves and make this town more closed and more based on fear.
Why It Came as a Shock
Howard Luppi writes in favor of Mr. Kopetz’s re-election, saying that the Ierardi scandal “came as a total shock to all North Haven citizens,” and that Kopetz handled it well.
The only reason it came as a shock was that the Kopetz Administration did not respond to what was happening, and was so successful at keeping its problems under wraps. People had been complaining about the Ierardis for years, and Ierardi himself said that Mr. Kopetz knew about the games he was playing with travel reimbursements. Palmeri had done everything he could to keep town government closed and information inaccessible, and his boss had done nothing to stop him, voting consistently to prevent questions from being asked of himself or Palmeri at town meetings.
Kopetz handled the problem only when he had no other choice not, as a good manager does, before it became a big scandal. The only reason the news came as a shock is that everyone was doing his best to keep the facts hidden, and when people spoke up, they were ignored. Thank goodness the Chief State’s Attorney didn’t ignore people, as well.
Janet McCarty
Todd Depino wrote a letter to the editor this week attacking Janet McCarty for using negative, anti-administration rhetoric as a smokescreen to hide her lack of qualifications and experience. I had already planned to do a blog entry listing Ms. McCarty’s many positive features and accomplishments, which are too often overlooked, so I won’t mention them here.
What I will say is that, although always accused of being negative, she has been behind almost every positive policy that has become law in North Haven over the last few years (including phasing in revaluation and budget reform), not to mention many policies that were rejected by town Republicans.
It should also be noted that (1) Ms. McCarty (as a former PTA President and Board of Finance member, as well as long-serving Selectwoman) knows this town better than anyone else running for any office, other than Mr. Kopetz, and (2) Mr. Kopetz has a record of horrible management, including the failure to give us competitively bid contracts until forced to by Ms. McCarty and newspaper editorials; the failure to control his department heads, as well as taxes; and the failure to give us an open, ethical government.
Ms. McCarty has more management experience than Mr. Kopetz did when he was first appointed First Selectman, and no record of failure (to get elected, yes, but not as a manager).
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Personal Attacks: What They Are, Why They're Done, and What You Can Do About Them
During the public comments section of the October 1 Board of Finance meeting, after I raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest of a Board of Finance member, a man later identified to me as a Republican North Haven Police Commissioner whose name is neither Joseph nor David (he asked me to remove his name so that this didn't come up when he was googled, and I felt sorry for him) rose to question my authority to make comments regarding ethics, because I falsely claim to be an attorney. The evidence he gave for this statement was an unidentified newspaper article.
I do not intend this blog entry to be a personal defense. I intend it to be instructive, to allow you to better understand personal attacks on people who are making arguments, so that you can know their true value and know how to deal with them, whether the attacks are directed toward you or toward others.
For those of you pressed for time or not interested in the details, here's a quick summary of what I say:
1. Personal attacks are a way of undermining an argument without actually making an argument yourself or even responding to the other's argument. A personal attack is effectively an admission that someone's argument is valid, and there's no honest way to counter it. A personal attack hurts, but it's the ultimate compliment.
2. Even hypocrites and other imperfect people have legitimate things to say.
3. When someone making an argument is personally attacked, someone not associated with that person should say that this is not a legitimate response. When people do this, personal attacks are no longer made.
4. Someone who attacks another's reputation should spend at least five minutes finding out if what he is saying is true. There is legitimate criticism of individuals, but only when people care about learning the facts.
First, I will make the assumption that the accusation was true.
In my municipal ethics blog on http://www.cityethics.org/, I have been writing a series about the use of logical fallacies in the context of municipal government. A logical fallacy is a statement that on its face seems like an argument, but is actually no argument at all. People who have nothing to say in response to someone else’s assertion frequently turn to logical fallacies to make it look like they have a response.
Can What an Imperfect Person Says Be True?
The first in my series on logical fallacies dealt with the most frequent type, which is the one this Police Commissioner chose: the ad hominem attack. Don’t let the Latin get to you; the concepts behind the Latin are simple.
Here is an edited version of what I wrote in my blog entry:
A common form of the ad hominem ("to the person") fallacy, or attack, is known as the tu quoque ("and you are another") fallacy. Here the speaker refers to someone’s actions (and their supposed hypocrisy) rather than their argument.
For example, recently Al Gore has been attacked for the unusually high energy usage of his home in Tennessee, his own inconvenient truth. This makes his argument about climate change look illegitimate without ever responding directly to the argument itself.
Ask yourself: does a smoker saying it is unhealthy to smoke mean that smoking may not be unhealthy? Was even Mahatma Gandhi a perfect man? Does anyone have to be perfect to be listened to? Should hypocrites be ignored? There would quickly be an end to discussion.
No, an ad hominem attack is just a way of undermining someone's argument without speaking to the argument itself. It is easier and more effective to attack the person making the argument.
What can we do when ad hominem attacks are made? The target of the attack has the most interest in responding, but is in the worst position to respond. Therefore, others should respond, and if possible, not close associates of the target.
I assure you: when unrelated people criticize ad hominem attacks, people stop using them. But this is rarely done, because most people don't recognize them when they are made, and if they do, they are afraid they'll be the target of the next attack. This is why ad hominem attacks undermine citizen participation in government, one of the reasons they are so frequently used.
Can an Honorable Person Do Something Dishonorable?
The ad hominem fallacy is also often employed in the positive sense. Officials appeal to how devoted they are to their town, how hard they and their colleagues have worked on, say, a development project. They praise their personal legitimacy in order to give legitimacy to their arguments. This is harder to respond to, because no one has been attacked, and it seems disrespectful to say anything.
This is exactly what acting Board of Finance chair Michael Peterson did. He said that the person whose potential conflict of interest I raised was "an honorable man." I responded that there is nothing dishonorable about having a conflict of interest, that there is only something dishonorable about not acknowledging a potential conflict of interest and dealing with it responsibly.
The point here is that even if I were going around telling people I am a lawyer, rather than the former lawyer I am, it would only show that I sometimes act unethically, not that my request for a discussion of a potential conflict of interest is without merit.
Making an Ad Hominem Attack Is an Admission That an Argument Is Valid
As it was, my request for a discussion led only to two ad hominem fallacies, one attack on me, and one defense of the person I was referring to. This is essentially an admission that there was a conflict of interest, and that therefore no official was going to discuss it responsibly.
And since no one came to my defense, their strategy worked. It is a strategy that has been so often used by North Haven Republicans, they knew it would work again. And it will continue to work until people understand it and speak out against it.
Why Hearsay Is Not Admissible
Now I would like to look at the validity of the accusation, and the care given to making it.
The Police Commissioner said that he learned about my unethical behavior in a newspaper. This is hearsay. He never actually heard me say that I was an attorney, and he wasn’t even told by someone else that I had presented myself as an attorney, the usual form of hearsay. He simply saw me described as one.
There is a good reason hearsay is not admissible: because it is not dependable. So many errors and misunderstandings can occur even when someone experiences something directly. Getting others involved makes those errors and misunderstandings increasingly likely.
Considering the constant little errors that appear in newspaper articles, especially weeklies, where one reporter has to write so much, no one can accuse anyone of anything based simply on what it says in such a newspaper, without any corroborating evidence.
This is especially true when the individual knows that the individual is a former attorney and frequently deals publicly with legal issues. A misunderstanding about whether I am currently a member of a bar association would hardly be surprising. But it would certainly not say anything about whether I was misrepresenting myself.
How Easily the Police Commissioner Could Have Checked Me Out
In this day and age, it is easy to corroborate such information. One way is to go on-line and see how I present myself. In less than five minutes, the Police Commissioner (by googling the way he apparently googles himself) would have found that I only once present myself in my North Haven Info blog even as a former lawyer. He would have found that in my Profile, I don’t even mention having ever been a lawyer.
The Police Commissioner would also have discovered that in my profile on the City Ethics website (my position there is mentioned in the same newspaper article), I am referred to as a "former lawyer." These are instances where I completely control how I am presented, and I did not present myself as a lawyer.
The Police Commissioner could have googled me and found at least four instances where I am referred to as a former lawyer (including one in the New York Times), and none where I am referred to as a lawyer. Someone named Robert Wechsler (there are many of us, believe it or not) did appear in 1999 before a lawyers grievance committee in Connecticut, but that wasn’t me and, even if it was me, there’s no evidence that I appeared under false pretences.
Five minutes, and the Police Commissioner would have had reason to believe that I present myself as a former lawyer (and even rarely as that) and that the article erred in referring to me as an attorney. But he did not care enough to do this. If you attack someone’s reputation as an ethics professional, I think you owe the victim at least five minutes of effort.
It’s a Great Compliment
Nothing is a greater compliment than having one’s arguments answered by ad hominem fallacies, especially by people who know what they are doing. I realize that most people don’t understand what’s happening, which is why they are effective, but the attacker and I both know, and although my first reaction is anger at being falsely attacked, I soon calm down and realize that I’ve been complimented by someone who despises me [note: he told me he doesn't despise me, but he appeared to have no intention of apologizing to me personally or publicly), but has no legitimate response to what I say.
They are saying, effectively, "You’re right." They just can’t be honest and civil about it, because they’re only concerned with winning. If they can’t get the ball by you, they just kick you in the groin and hope no one sees. It hurts, but it’s still a great compliment.
I do not intend this blog entry to be a personal defense. I intend it to be instructive, to allow you to better understand personal attacks on people who are making arguments, so that you can know their true value and know how to deal with them, whether the attacks are directed toward you or toward others.
For those of you pressed for time or not interested in the details, here's a quick summary of what I say:
1. Personal attacks are a way of undermining an argument without actually making an argument yourself or even responding to the other's argument. A personal attack is effectively an admission that someone's argument is valid, and there's no honest way to counter it. A personal attack hurts, but it's the ultimate compliment.
2. Even hypocrites and other imperfect people have legitimate things to say.
3. When someone making an argument is personally attacked, someone not associated with that person should say that this is not a legitimate response. When people do this, personal attacks are no longer made.
4. Someone who attacks another's reputation should spend at least five minutes finding out if what he is saying is true. There is legitimate criticism of individuals, but only when people care about learning the facts.
First, I will make the assumption that the accusation was true.
In my municipal ethics blog on http://www.cityethics.org/, I have been writing a series about the use of logical fallacies in the context of municipal government. A logical fallacy is a statement that on its face seems like an argument, but is actually no argument at all. People who have nothing to say in response to someone else’s assertion frequently turn to logical fallacies to make it look like they have a response.
Can What an Imperfect Person Says Be True?
The first in my series on logical fallacies dealt with the most frequent type, which is the one this Police Commissioner chose: the ad hominem attack. Don’t let the Latin get to you; the concepts behind the Latin are simple.
Here is an edited version of what I wrote in my blog entry:
A common form of the ad hominem ("to the person") fallacy, or attack, is known as the tu quoque ("and you are another") fallacy. Here the speaker refers to someone’s actions (and their supposed hypocrisy) rather than their argument.
For example, recently Al Gore has been attacked for the unusually high energy usage of his home in Tennessee, his own inconvenient truth. This makes his argument about climate change look illegitimate without ever responding directly to the argument itself.
Ask yourself: does a smoker saying it is unhealthy to smoke mean that smoking may not be unhealthy? Was even Mahatma Gandhi a perfect man? Does anyone have to be perfect to be listened to? Should hypocrites be ignored? There would quickly be an end to discussion.
No, an ad hominem attack is just a way of undermining someone's argument without speaking to the argument itself. It is easier and more effective to attack the person making the argument.
What can we do when ad hominem attacks are made? The target of the attack has the most interest in responding, but is in the worst position to respond. Therefore, others should respond, and if possible, not close associates of the target.
I assure you: when unrelated people criticize ad hominem attacks, people stop using them. But this is rarely done, because most people don't recognize them when they are made, and if they do, they are afraid they'll be the target of the next attack. This is why ad hominem attacks undermine citizen participation in government, one of the reasons they are so frequently used.
Can an Honorable Person Do Something Dishonorable?
The ad hominem fallacy is also often employed in the positive sense. Officials appeal to how devoted they are to their town, how hard they and their colleagues have worked on, say, a development project. They praise their personal legitimacy in order to give legitimacy to their arguments. This is harder to respond to, because no one has been attacked, and it seems disrespectful to say anything.
This is exactly what acting Board of Finance chair Michael Peterson did. He said that the person whose potential conflict of interest I raised was "an honorable man." I responded that there is nothing dishonorable about having a conflict of interest, that there is only something dishonorable about not acknowledging a potential conflict of interest and dealing with it responsibly.
The point here is that even if I were going around telling people I am a lawyer, rather than the former lawyer I am, it would only show that I sometimes act unethically, not that my request for a discussion of a potential conflict of interest is without merit.
Making an Ad Hominem Attack Is an Admission That an Argument Is Valid
As it was, my request for a discussion led only to two ad hominem fallacies, one attack on me, and one defense of the person I was referring to. This is essentially an admission that there was a conflict of interest, and that therefore no official was going to discuss it responsibly.
And since no one came to my defense, their strategy worked. It is a strategy that has been so often used by North Haven Republicans, they knew it would work again. And it will continue to work until people understand it and speak out against it.
Why Hearsay Is Not Admissible
Now I would like to look at the validity of the accusation, and the care given to making it.
The Police Commissioner said that he learned about my unethical behavior in a newspaper. This is hearsay. He never actually heard me say that I was an attorney, and he wasn’t even told by someone else that I had presented myself as an attorney, the usual form of hearsay. He simply saw me described as one.
There is a good reason hearsay is not admissible: because it is not dependable. So many errors and misunderstandings can occur even when someone experiences something directly. Getting others involved makes those errors and misunderstandings increasingly likely.
Considering the constant little errors that appear in newspaper articles, especially weeklies, where one reporter has to write so much, no one can accuse anyone of anything based simply on what it says in such a newspaper, without any corroborating evidence.
This is especially true when the individual knows that the individual is a former attorney and frequently deals publicly with legal issues. A misunderstanding about whether I am currently a member of a bar association would hardly be surprising. But it would certainly not say anything about whether I was misrepresenting myself.
How Easily the Police Commissioner Could Have Checked Me Out
In this day and age, it is easy to corroborate such information. One way is to go on-line and see how I present myself. In less than five minutes, the Police Commissioner (by googling the way he apparently googles himself) would have found that I only once present myself in my North Haven Info blog even as a former lawyer. He would have found that in my Profile, I don’t even mention having ever been a lawyer.
The Police Commissioner would also have discovered that in my profile on the City Ethics website (my position there is mentioned in the same newspaper article), I am referred to as a "former lawyer." These are instances where I completely control how I am presented, and I did not present myself as a lawyer.
The Police Commissioner could have googled me and found at least four instances where I am referred to as a former lawyer (including one in the New York Times), and none where I am referred to as a lawyer. Someone named Robert Wechsler (there are many of us, believe it or not) did appear in 1999 before a lawyers grievance committee in Connecticut, but that wasn’t me and, even if it was me, there’s no evidence that I appeared under false pretences.
Five minutes, and the Police Commissioner would have had reason to believe that I present myself as a former lawyer (and even rarely as that) and that the article erred in referring to me as an attorney. But he did not care enough to do this. If you attack someone’s reputation as an ethics professional, I think you owe the victim at least five minutes of effort.
It’s a Great Compliment
Nothing is a greater compliment than having one’s arguments answered by ad hominem fallacies, especially by people who know what they are doing. I realize that most people don’t understand what’s happening, which is why they are effective, but the attacker and I both know, and although my first reaction is anger at being falsely attacked, I soon calm down and realize that I’ve been complimented by someone who despises me [note: he told me he doesn't despise me, but he appeared to have no intention of apologizing to me personally or publicly), but has no legitimate response to what I say.
They are saying, effectively, "You’re right." They just can’t be honest and civil about it, because they’re only concerned with winning. If they can’t get the ball by you, they just kick you in the groin and hope no one sees. It hurts, but it’s still a great compliment.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Getting to the Top of What Happened
There are few surprises in the report by Kostin, Ruffkess & Co. based on its investigation of the Community Services department (the main additions related to unbid contracts, but the New Haven Register had already reported on this before the report came out). We don't seem to have gotten near to the bottom of what happened. There are three potential explanations for this:
1. The Chief State’s Attorney’s office found everything there was to find;
2. The scope of the investigation was too narrow: from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2007, limited to the Community Services Department alone, and even then limited so that the firm says it needs to do further investigation outside the department's records just to deal with this limited scope of activities.
3. The Board of Finance cut any surprises from the draft report.
Some early comments leaned toward the third explanation. I don’t believe this is the problem, but the way it was presented by the Board of Finance certainly supports people’s suspicions. Not only did they close the meeting in which they discussed the draft report, but after the closed meeting there were contradictory descriptions of the changes the Board had made. At first the changes were called “minor” and “editorial,” but then there was talk about concerns relating to possible litigation if changes weren’t made, and the changes were said to relate to the protection of certain people’s identities. That’s a far cry from minor, editorial changes. So people are right to feel suspicious.
As it turns out, we’ll never know. The Chief State’s Attorney’s office does not want to give out the draft report, and neither does the town. Distrust and suspicion are important results of secrecy, especially when employed by people whom one feels have something to hide.
This is where the second explanation comes into play: why did the Board of Finance limit the investigation only to what had already been investigated by the state? Many of us asked for a much broader investigation, and the Board of Finance is still promising one, but of course it will not happen before the election. So why are people supposed to be anything other than suspicious that the investigation, so far, was just a ploy and waste of money?
Many of us insisted that, when the Finance Director is involved, the finances of all departments and funds need to be investigated (especially when our Finance Director insisted that he did not question other department heads' requests for disbursements). We also insisted that questionable activities had been going on for a long time (there was even documentation of this). Ierardi and Palmeri were hardly new employees.
Palmeri has now been investigated by the state for purchasing semi-automatic weapons with town funds 12 years ago. The money came from a capital account. If this did actually occur, was it an isolated incident? It’s hard to believe it was.
No one believes the first explanation. The silence of the accused, who as public servants had an obligation to be honest with the people of North Haven, but chose to protect themselves instead; the silence of the implicated, that is, First Selectmen Kevin Kopetz and Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio, who have not told us what they know; the battle between the Democrats and Republicans on the Board of Finance, which began with the Republicans’ refusal to even consider a forensic investigation, and ended with the approval of a very limited one – all of this leads people reasonably to believe that there is something being hidden, and that we don’t know the half of what happened, or maybe not even 10%.
I don't feel better. I don't feel like we've taken more than a tiny step toward getting to the bottom of what happened. The report is drowned out by all the silence and secrecy.
1. The Chief State’s Attorney’s office found everything there was to find;
2. The scope of the investigation was too narrow: from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2007, limited to the Community Services Department alone, and even then limited so that the firm says it needs to do further investigation outside the department's records just to deal with this limited scope of activities.
3. The Board of Finance cut any surprises from the draft report.
Some early comments leaned toward the third explanation. I don’t believe this is the problem, but the way it was presented by the Board of Finance certainly supports people’s suspicions. Not only did they close the meeting in which they discussed the draft report, but after the closed meeting there were contradictory descriptions of the changes the Board had made. At first the changes were called “minor” and “editorial,” but then there was talk about concerns relating to possible litigation if changes weren’t made, and the changes were said to relate to the protection of certain people’s identities. That’s a far cry from minor, editorial changes. So people are right to feel suspicious.
As it turns out, we’ll never know. The Chief State’s Attorney’s office does not want to give out the draft report, and neither does the town. Distrust and suspicion are important results of secrecy, especially when employed by people whom one feels have something to hide.
This is where the second explanation comes into play: why did the Board of Finance limit the investigation only to what had already been investigated by the state? Many of us asked for a much broader investigation, and the Board of Finance is still promising one, but of course it will not happen before the election. So why are people supposed to be anything other than suspicious that the investigation, so far, was just a ploy and waste of money?
Many of us insisted that, when the Finance Director is involved, the finances of all departments and funds need to be investigated (especially when our Finance Director insisted that he did not question other department heads' requests for disbursements). We also insisted that questionable activities had been going on for a long time (there was even documentation of this). Ierardi and Palmeri were hardly new employees.
Palmeri has now been investigated by the state for purchasing semi-automatic weapons with town funds 12 years ago. The money came from a capital account. If this did actually occur, was it an isolated incident? It’s hard to believe it was.
No one believes the first explanation. The silence of the accused, who as public servants had an obligation to be honest with the people of North Haven, but chose to protect themselves instead; the silence of the implicated, that is, First Selectmen Kevin Kopetz and Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio, who have not told us what they know; the battle between the Democrats and Republicans on the Board of Finance, which began with the Republicans’ refusal to even consider a forensic investigation, and ended with the approval of a very limited one – all of this leads people reasonably to believe that there is something being hidden, and that we don’t know the half of what happened, or maybe not even 10%.
I don't feel better. I don't feel like we've taken more than a tiny step toward getting to the bottom of what happened. The report is drowned out by all the silence and secrecy.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Forensic Report on the Community Services Dept.
There's no reason anyone should wait for me to comment on the first forensic examination report (about the Community Services Department alone).
Add your comments to this. But please try to deal with the report responsibly, if not in deference to those accused, then in deference to having a civil townwide discussion about the report and what it means to the town.
Add your comments to this. But please try to deal with the report responsibly, if not in deference to those accused, then in deference to having a civil townwide discussion about the report and what it means to the town.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The Board of Finance Gives the Town a Devil's Civics Lesson
During last night’s Board of Finance meeting, the majority Republicans twisted the most important concepts involved in the issues that are most important to me: transparency (open government) and ethics (conflicts of interest). Essentially, they taught a devil’s civics course. (By "devil" I don't mean anything religious. I mean it in the sense of contrary, in this case not to the spirit of God, but the spirit of our laws and the spirit of our civics courses.)
The Board of Finance was meeting to discuss the draft report of the "forensic operations auditor" Kostin Ruffkess about the Community Services Department, the department over which Joseph Ierardi presided (he was also the chair of the Republican Town Committee and campaign manager to Kevin Kopetz).
The Days of Smoke-Filled Rooms Are Over
The principal reason the Board of Finance Republicans gave for going into an executive (that is, closed) session to discuss the report is that it would allow for a free and candid discussion. This is certainly true. Any discussion behind closed doors will be more free and candid than one in front of the public, especially at election time.
But the days of government in smoke-filled rooms are over. The principal reason that sunshine laws (laws requiring meetings to be open to the public and documents to be freely available) were passed is because government in smoke-filled rooms is not democratic. And in a participatory democracy like North Haven, with a legislature made up of the people of the town, government in smoke-filled rooms – even without the smoke – is especially unacceptable, and illegal.
Legislators all over the United States have decided that the ease of discussion is less important than the openness of discussion. This is a civics lesson that all of our elected officials should be giving us day in and day out. But our Board of Finance’s Republican majority told us the opposite.
The Board’s two Democrats, Michael Hallahan and Gerry Feinberg, did an excellent job of presenting the reasons why the discussion should have been held publicly, although they stuck more to the law than to the basic civics concepts.
They emphasized the balancing required by Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act, our state’s sunshine law. The relevant section of the Act is Section 1-210(b)(1): "Nothing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed to require disclosure of: (1) Preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure."
The Republican majority focused on the word "drafts" while the Democrats focused on the balancing test described in the phrase "provided a public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure." The word emphasized by the Democrats was "clearly."
The Presumption That Meetings Are Open
"Clearly outweighs" is the way the legislature stated the presumption that all government documents are public, as are all meetings to discuss them. Only when there is an overwhelming need to withhold a government document can such a document be kept secret and meetings about such documents be kept closed. For example, meetings about security issues and employee evaluations are generally closed.
In this case, the purpose for doing the forensic examination was to let the people of North Haven know what had happened, what had been stolen from them. It was all about regaining the public trust. Keeping documents and meetings secret undermines the public trust.
A Lesson in Sneakiness
The forensic report was not a "preliminary draft," the full phrase in the state law. The Republicans left out the word "preliminary" when they referred to the "draft" report, so that the report, which was certainly not preliminary, would seem to fit the exception to the open meeting rule.
This was a lesson in sneakiness that would corrupt a high school civics class, would start them thinking how to slyly misrepresent laws to favor their goal rather than honestly debating an issue and trying to decide what is right under the circumstances, what is in the public interest.
Making a Mockery of Our Political System
Democracy is not easy. It makes people uncomfortable. It means a lot of work. Nothing is easier than being ruled.
Majority votes do not make a democracy. What makes a democracy is openness and inclusion and respect for citizens and their rights and best interests.
The lesson the Board of Finance taught us was that all you need is a majority vote, and that if you have that, anything goes. You do not have to respect the spirit of the law, or even the law itself. You do what comes easiest. When in doubt, keep government closed.
These are horrible civics lessons. They distort our laws and political system and take advantage of people’s lack of understanding of complex issues. Any teacher who taught these lessons in our high school would be fired.
Just before the vote on going into executive session, Gerry Feinberg said it would be a travesty, a mockery of the process to do this. He was ignored. But he was right. The Board of Finance made a mockery of our nation’s commitment to open government.
Walking Out on a Conflict of Interest
The Board of Finance made even more of a mockery of our town’s Code of Ethics. Just after the Board voted to go into a closed session, I rose and said what I had said at the most recent Board of Selectmen meeting:
"Because they have been implicated in the alleged conspiracy that is the intended subject of the forensic investigation report, both Kevin Kopetz and Jeffrey Donofrio have a conflict of interest with respect to discussions and decisions concerning that report.
"They were implicated by Joseph Ierardi when he was secretly taped by the Chief State’s Attorney’s office, as stated in his Arrest Warrant Affidavit. On p 7 of the Affidavit, Ierardi is quoted as saying, "they over there have been told my whole history on travel, Palmeri, Kevin, Jeff," that is, our finance director, first selectman, and town attorney knew about Ierardi’s false travel reimbursement scheme, which consisted of Ierardi not traveling, but being paid travel expenses.
"What Ierardi said may not be true, but it is not in any way an admission of guilt for Mr. Kopetz or Mr. Donofrio to acknowledge that people reasonably believe that in advising, discussing, and making decisions regarding this report, they may be acting to protect themselves, because they too might be prosecuted or sued. Nor is it in any way an accusation for the Board of Finance to ask these two men to recuse themselves, that is, to withdraw from participation in any discussions or decisions regarding this report.
"The Code of Ethics says, in Sect. 3-3(A), "No officer... or official... shall have an interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of his official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair his independent judgment or action in the performance of his official duties."
"The fact that these two men stand to lose money, position, reputation, and even potentially freedom if it turns out that Mr. Ierardi was telling the truth is definitely something that might impair their independent judgment and be incompatible with their acting in the public interest."
This is a serious issue. And how did the Board of Finance deal with it? Its Republican members walked out of the room as I spoke. The TV camera wasn’t running, so they didn’t even have to act like they cared.
Ethics Requires Leadership
During the public comments period, at the very end of the meeting (after waiting around for nearly three hours), I raised the issue again. This time I focused on the need for discussion of conflicts of interest matters. I said that the Ethics Review Committee, charged with recommending changes to our Code of Ethics, is having its first meeting on Thursday, and that the Board of Finance was sending the wrong message: that when one of their colleagues is involved, conflicts of interest questions need not even be discussed. I said that a code of ethics is meaningless without leaders who take ethical issues seriously and discuss them publicly.
The acting chair, Michael O. Peterson, said that Mr. Kopetz is an honorable man. I responded that I did not question his honor, that there is nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest. The only dishonorable thing is refusing to acknowledge a conflict of interest, and refusing to allow it to be discussed responsibly and professionally.
Once again, there was no discussion. Once again, the Board of Finance gave North Haven a devil’s civics lesson: do not acknowledge your conflicts of interest, do not discuss them, and when a citizen raises a conflict of interest issue (even a government ethics professional), falsely accuse him of questioning the official’s honor.
This is exactly the response that Joseph Ierardi made when I brought up the conflict of interest between his obligations as a department head and his obligations as the chair of the Republican Town Committee at a Board of Selectmen meeting. He accused me of questioning his integrity, and cut off any discussion of the issue.
No civics lesson could be worse than this.
Is it that the Board of Finance Republicans do not understand these issues? Or do they simply not care? Do they put themselves above our state’s Freedom of Information Act and our town’s Code of Ethics? Do they have disdain for the principles of democracy as practiced in our country?
The result of the meeting was better than the meeting itself. After giving its devil’s civics lessons, the Board of Finance voted to make the forensic report (with "minor changes") available in PDF format some time on Wednesday, and to discuss the report publicly at its regular October 17 meeting.
I don’t believe that there will be too much new in this report, since the accounting firm was given such a limited scope both in terms of departments (only one) and in terms of time period (I believe only three years). But it’s a start. I will put the report up on the North Haven Info web site as soon as I can.
The Board of Finance was meeting to discuss the draft report of the "forensic operations auditor" Kostin Ruffkess about the Community Services Department, the department over which Joseph Ierardi presided (he was also the chair of the Republican Town Committee and campaign manager to Kevin Kopetz).
The Days of Smoke-Filled Rooms Are Over
The principal reason the Board of Finance Republicans gave for going into an executive (that is, closed) session to discuss the report is that it would allow for a free and candid discussion. This is certainly true. Any discussion behind closed doors will be more free and candid than one in front of the public, especially at election time.
But the days of government in smoke-filled rooms are over. The principal reason that sunshine laws (laws requiring meetings to be open to the public and documents to be freely available) were passed is because government in smoke-filled rooms is not democratic. And in a participatory democracy like North Haven, with a legislature made up of the people of the town, government in smoke-filled rooms – even without the smoke – is especially unacceptable, and illegal.
Legislators all over the United States have decided that the ease of discussion is less important than the openness of discussion. This is a civics lesson that all of our elected officials should be giving us day in and day out. But our Board of Finance’s Republican majority told us the opposite.
The Board’s two Democrats, Michael Hallahan and Gerry Feinberg, did an excellent job of presenting the reasons why the discussion should have been held publicly, although they stuck more to the law than to the basic civics concepts.
They emphasized the balancing required by Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act, our state’s sunshine law. The relevant section of the Act is Section 1-210(b)(1): "Nothing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed to require disclosure of: (1) Preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure."
The Republican majority focused on the word "drafts" while the Democrats focused on the balancing test described in the phrase "provided a public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure." The word emphasized by the Democrats was "clearly."
The Presumption That Meetings Are Open
"Clearly outweighs" is the way the legislature stated the presumption that all government documents are public, as are all meetings to discuss them. Only when there is an overwhelming need to withhold a government document can such a document be kept secret and meetings about such documents be kept closed. For example, meetings about security issues and employee evaluations are generally closed.
In this case, the purpose for doing the forensic examination was to let the people of North Haven know what had happened, what had been stolen from them. It was all about regaining the public trust. Keeping documents and meetings secret undermines the public trust.
A Lesson in Sneakiness
The forensic report was not a "preliminary draft," the full phrase in the state law. The Republicans left out the word "preliminary" when they referred to the "draft" report, so that the report, which was certainly not preliminary, would seem to fit the exception to the open meeting rule.
This was a lesson in sneakiness that would corrupt a high school civics class, would start them thinking how to slyly misrepresent laws to favor their goal rather than honestly debating an issue and trying to decide what is right under the circumstances, what is in the public interest.
Making a Mockery of Our Political System
Democracy is not easy. It makes people uncomfortable. It means a lot of work. Nothing is easier than being ruled.
Majority votes do not make a democracy. What makes a democracy is openness and inclusion and respect for citizens and their rights and best interests.
The lesson the Board of Finance taught us was that all you need is a majority vote, and that if you have that, anything goes. You do not have to respect the spirit of the law, or even the law itself. You do what comes easiest. When in doubt, keep government closed.
These are horrible civics lessons. They distort our laws and political system and take advantage of people’s lack of understanding of complex issues. Any teacher who taught these lessons in our high school would be fired.
Just before the vote on going into executive session, Gerry Feinberg said it would be a travesty, a mockery of the process to do this. He was ignored. But he was right. The Board of Finance made a mockery of our nation’s commitment to open government.
Walking Out on a Conflict of Interest
The Board of Finance made even more of a mockery of our town’s Code of Ethics. Just after the Board voted to go into a closed session, I rose and said what I had said at the most recent Board of Selectmen meeting:
"Because they have been implicated in the alleged conspiracy that is the intended subject of the forensic investigation report, both Kevin Kopetz and Jeffrey Donofrio have a conflict of interest with respect to discussions and decisions concerning that report.
"They were implicated by Joseph Ierardi when he was secretly taped by the Chief State’s Attorney’s office, as stated in his Arrest Warrant Affidavit. On p 7 of the Affidavit, Ierardi is quoted as saying, "they over there have been told my whole history on travel, Palmeri, Kevin, Jeff," that is, our finance director, first selectman, and town attorney knew about Ierardi’s false travel reimbursement scheme, which consisted of Ierardi not traveling, but being paid travel expenses.
"What Ierardi said may not be true, but it is not in any way an admission of guilt for Mr. Kopetz or Mr. Donofrio to acknowledge that people reasonably believe that in advising, discussing, and making decisions regarding this report, they may be acting to protect themselves, because they too might be prosecuted or sued. Nor is it in any way an accusation for the Board of Finance to ask these two men to recuse themselves, that is, to withdraw from participation in any discussions or decisions regarding this report.
"The Code of Ethics says, in Sect. 3-3(A), "No officer... or official... shall have an interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of his official duties in the public interest or would tend to impair his independent judgment or action in the performance of his official duties."
"The fact that these two men stand to lose money, position, reputation, and even potentially freedom if it turns out that Mr. Ierardi was telling the truth is definitely something that might impair their independent judgment and be incompatible with their acting in the public interest."
This is a serious issue. And how did the Board of Finance deal with it? Its Republican members walked out of the room as I spoke. The TV camera wasn’t running, so they didn’t even have to act like they cared.
Ethics Requires Leadership
During the public comments period, at the very end of the meeting (after waiting around for nearly three hours), I raised the issue again. This time I focused on the need for discussion of conflicts of interest matters. I said that the Ethics Review Committee, charged with recommending changes to our Code of Ethics, is having its first meeting on Thursday, and that the Board of Finance was sending the wrong message: that when one of their colleagues is involved, conflicts of interest questions need not even be discussed. I said that a code of ethics is meaningless without leaders who take ethical issues seriously and discuss them publicly.
The acting chair, Michael O. Peterson, said that Mr. Kopetz is an honorable man. I responded that I did not question his honor, that there is nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest. The only dishonorable thing is refusing to acknowledge a conflict of interest, and refusing to allow it to be discussed responsibly and professionally.
Once again, there was no discussion. Once again, the Board of Finance gave North Haven a devil’s civics lesson: do not acknowledge your conflicts of interest, do not discuss them, and when a citizen raises a conflict of interest issue (even a government ethics professional), falsely accuse him of questioning the official’s honor.
This is exactly the response that Joseph Ierardi made when I brought up the conflict of interest between his obligations as a department head and his obligations as the chair of the Republican Town Committee at a Board of Selectmen meeting. He accused me of questioning his integrity, and cut off any discussion of the issue.
No civics lesson could be worse than this.
Is it that the Board of Finance Republicans do not understand these issues? Or do they simply not care? Do they put themselves above our state’s Freedom of Information Act and our town’s Code of Ethics? Do they have disdain for the principles of democracy as practiced in our country?
The result of the meeting was better than the meeting itself. After giving its devil’s civics lessons, the Board of Finance voted to make the forensic report (with "minor changes") available in PDF format some time on Wednesday, and to discuss the report publicly at its regular October 17 meeting.
I don’t believe that there will be too much new in this report, since the accounting firm was given such a limited scope both in terms of departments (only one) and in terms of time period (I believe only three years). But it’s a start. I will put the report up on the North Haven Info web site as soon as I can.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Tonight's the Night to Teach the Town About Government Ethics
The Ethics Review Committee, an advisory committee set up by the Board of Selectmen to consider changes to the town’s Code of Ethics, will have its first meeting on Thursday, October 4.
But it is of little value to consider changes to the town’s Code of Ethics when the town’s top officials show little interest in acknowledging or discussing conflicts of interest, not to mention doing anything about them.
An ethics code is not a code that deals with what is right and wrong. It focuses primarily on conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest occurs when, in this case, a government official or employee has a conflict between doing what is in the public interest and doing what is in his or her personal interest.
A typical example of a conflict of interest is when a board member’s spouse appears before the board. In such a situation, the board member is torn between his obligations to the town and his obligations toward and feelings about his wife. It is not only unfair to the town for the board member to participate in this matter, because it would be difficult for him to be neutral (and impossible to appear neutral), but it is also unfair to the board member to be put in the position of possibly having to make a decision harmful to his wife (if he wants to truly be neutral).
The solution to this problem is clear: the board member announces that he has a conflict of interest, and recuses himself (that is, withdraws) from participating or voting on this matter. There is nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, there is only something wrong when you do not acknowledge it and do something about it.
This evening, two of our town’s top officials will be in such a situation, although the conflict has nothing to do with a spouse. First Selectman Kevin Kopetz and Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio were both implicated by Joseph Ierardi ("They over there, have been told my whole history on travel [i.e., the false travel reimbursement scheme; Ierardi didn’t travel]. Palmeri, Kevin, Jeff." (p. 7 of J. Ierardi Arrest Warrant Affidavit) in the alleged conspiracy that was investigated for the forensic report that will be discussed this evening by the Board of Finance, on which Mr. Kopetz sits and which Mr. Donofrio advises.
Their possible interest as individuals in hiding the results of the report, and preventing the investigation from going deeper and broader, conflicts with their interest as town officials in furthering the public interest in knowing what happened, in getting back any monies stolen from the town, and having immediate access to public documents.
Yes, there are also other considerations involved, but people as involved as these two, with potentially a great deal to lose, should not be involved in weighing these considerations. Their participation also undermines the public’s trust in government, since it does not appear that these two men are acting neutrally. Therefore, they should recuse themselves from participating in the discussion, from giving any advice, and from voting on this matter.
I raised this issue publicly with Mr. Kopetz at the most recent Board of Selectmen meeting, and there was no response or discussion. Mr. Kopetz and Mr. Donofrio continued to be deeply involved with the forensic report.
Mr. Kopetz says that he wants a better ethics code, but without ethical leadership, an ethics code is worthless. If the First Selectman and the Town Attorney and the members of the Board of Finance and Selectmen do not even acknowledge possible conflicts of interest, and refuse to discuss them when their existence is raised, this sends a very clear message to the other officials and employees in our town: if you do not acknowledge your conflicts of interest, then you don’t have to do anything about them.
When leaders ignore their own conflicts, everyone else will, too. If nothing is done about the conflicts of interest this evening, the Ethics Review Committee will simply be wasting its time. If there is a good discussion of this issue, it will help educate the town, and members of the Ethics Review Committee, about government ethics.
But it is of little value to consider changes to the town’s Code of Ethics when the town’s top officials show little interest in acknowledging or discussing conflicts of interest, not to mention doing anything about them.
An ethics code is not a code that deals with what is right and wrong. It focuses primarily on conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest occurs when, in this case, a government official or employee has a conflict between doing what is in the public interest and doing what is in his or her personal interest.
A typical example of a conflict of interest is when a board member’s spouse appears before the board. In such a situation, the board member is torn between his obligations to the town and his obligations toward and feelings about his wife. It is not only unfair to the town for the board member to participate in this matter, because it would be difficult for him to be neutral (and impossible to appear neutral), but it is also unfair to the board member to be put in the position of possibly having to make a decision harmful to his wife (if he wants to truly be neutral).
The solution to this problem is clear: the board member announces that he has a conflict of interest, and recuses himself (that is, withdraws) from participating or voting on this matter. There is nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest, there is only something wrong when you do not acknowledge it and do something about it.
This evening, two of our town’s top officials will be in such a situation, although the conflict has nothing to do with a spouse. First Selectman Kevin Kopetz and Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio were both implicated by Joseph Ierardi ("They over there, have been told my whole history on travel [i.e., the false travel reimbursement scheme; Ierardi didn’t travel]. Palmeri, Kevin, Jeff." (p. 7 of J. Ierardi Arrest Warrant Affidavit) in the alleged conspiracy that was investigated for the forensic report that will be discussed this evening by the Board of Finance, on which Mr. Kopetz sits and which Mr. Donofrio advises.
Their possible interest as individuals in hiding the results of the report, and preventing the investigation from going deeper and broader, conflicts with their interest as town officials in furthering the public interest in knowing what happened, in getting back any monies stolen from the town, and having immediate access to public documents.
Yes, there are also other considerations involved, but people as involved as these two, with potentially a great deal to lose, should not be involved in weighing these considerations. Their participation also undermines the public’s trust in government, since it does not appear that these two men are acting neutrally. Therefore, they should recuse themselves from participating in the discussion, from giving any advice, and from voting on this matter.
I raised this issue publicly with Mr. Kopetz at the most recent Board of Selectmen meeting, and there was no response or discussion. Mr. Kopetz and Mr. Donofrio continued to be deeply involved with the forensic report.
Mr. Kopetz says that he wants a better ethics code, but without ethical leadership, an ethics code is worthless. If the First Selectman and the Town Attorney and the members of the Board of Finance and Selectmen do not even acknowledge possible conflicts of interest, and refuse to discuss them when their existence is raised, this sends a very clear message to the other officials and employees in our town: if you do not acknowledge your conflicts of interest, then you don’t have to do anything about them.
When leaders ignore their own conflicts, everyone else will, too. If nothing is done about the conflicts of interest this evening, the Ethics Review Committee will simply be wasting its time. If there is a good discussion of this issue, it will help educate the town, and members of the Ethics Review Committee, about government ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
