North Haven Info

McCarty and Freda Letters

2009-09-29T11:07:00.007-04:00

This post is intended to supplement a letter to the editor I wrote to the North Haven Citizen today. The letter refers to a McCarty campaign letter and a letter to the editor written to the Citizen (and other papers) by First Selectman candidate Michael Freda and other Republican candidates.

Here is the McCarty campaign letter. Click on it to make it full-size.

And here is the Republican candidates' letter to the editor. Click on it to make it full-size.

The Town Discussion That Wasn't

2008-01-19T12:00:00.000-05:00

I finally watched the part of the Board of Finance meeting dealing with the supplemental forensic investigation report and whether it was officially authorized, generally agreed to without a vote, or wrongfully authorized by Michael Hallahan.

Two very important things were said there that were ignored by those attacking Hallahan and the Democrats on this blog.

One, Hallahan and Piccirillo said that they would be willing to pay for the supplemental report if it turned out Hallahan acted wrongfully. I can see why this was ignored. Has any North Haven Republican politician offered to pay for a mistake? Has any North Haven Republican politician even admitted to making a mistake?

Even if Hallahan, mistakenly or not, wrongly authorized the supplemental report, which might lead to more insurance money for the town, the town will not have to pay for it. This is a major difference between at least some elected North Haven Democrats and elected North Haven Republicans, and I’m proud of Hallahan and Piccirillo for making this unusual and responsible offer.

If the former administration had admitted, apologized for, and done its best to correct what it did, I would have supported it. But from my first conversation with Kevin Kopetz in 2003 until the present day, he has denied everything, apologized for nothing, and corrected things only to the extent his hand was forced by the fear of losing the 2007 election.

Two, Hallahan did not illegally appropriate any money, as suggested by William H. The original appropriation for the forensic investigation had not been spent yet. But this minor fact would have gotten in the way of angry accusations.

It was my understanding, as well, that everyone on the BoF wanted the investigation extended back a few years. In any event, the real issue wasn’t about this minor extension, but whether the investigation will go beyond the Community Services Department, an extension I have supported from the beginning.

But the real subject of this blog entry is my decision to act on my recognition that the discussion here is not about the issues confronting our town, but about political animosity. And that it doesn’t look like it’s going to change. This is a town discussion that wasn't. It's psychologically fascinating, but of no value to the town, and probably of some harm.

Every time I try to steer things toward issues, with the exception of the Rabina Properties development, others steer the blog away, and often with no respect for facts. They are driving the good people away, and sadly I think this is their goal.

This blog is not something I want to put my efforts into anymore. The election is over, and we have a decent, responsible administration. It will certainly make mistakes, but nothing that deserves the bile that has been poured out on this blog. So this is my last blog entry, and the blog will no longer be open for comments.

Another Board of Finance Marathon

2008-01-17T09:48:00.000-05:00

I did not attend last night's Board of Finance meeting, but it seems to have been a marathon with all sorts of controversy.

This is a place for those who attended or have watched the meeting to discuss it. But please try to be clear and complete in your descriptions of what happened, and fair and understanding, as well. If you don't understand something, ask (I don't mean me, especially since I haven't even seen the meeting). Don't just assume things were this way or that.

Here's the first comment on the meeting:

William H. said...

Rob, I really wish you were at the Board of Finance meeting. It was a real circus. I have to be honest, the democrats might have dug themselves into a hole. Allegedly, Michael Hallahan approved the Audit Company to do an additional forensic audit without approval from the Board of Finance, which as you know is a direct violation of the Town Charter and the CT Statute. Mr. Hallahan went on to indirectly admit this but his explaniation was that his actions were in the best interest of the town. Now, Rob, as a lawyer I'm sure you can agree that intent does not overrule policy. If one counters that the Republicans were doing this for years, my rebuttal would be that the Democrats promised to stop these actions and bring integrity back to Town Hall. Is this a good start? Also, I'm sure you'll hear that Martin Piccirilo's behavior at the meeting was deplorable but that's another story. I am happy to report that the Board will act as a bipartisan unit when putting together their budget, which is a good first step to your bipartisan uptopia.

As I said, I wasn't there, so I don't know what was done or said. But I am required to say once again that I am not a lawyer, that I haven't been a lawyer for 25 years, and that I was never a member of the Connecticut bar. If I don't do this, I will be publicly accused of illegal conduct by a member of the Republican Town Committee.

What actions did the Democrats promise to stop that you know occurred? And did the Democrats fail to stop it?

The question that your description raises is, Why would a forensic investigation firm do any work based on the words of one Board of Finance member, when it is directed by acting finance director Ed Swinkoski and there had been no BoF vote? In other words, did Hallahan talk to the firm about doing further investigations, or did he order them to do it, and did they accept his orders?

This is what I mean by providing a clear and complete description, and not making assumptions. But I don't know what was said or what happened, so I can do nothing more here than ask questions.

Where's Waldo? Hard at Work.

2008-01-16T13:15:00.000-05:00

A few months ago, I made fun of how many times Kevin Kopetz's picture appears in the latest Civic Calendar, comparing it to Where's Waldo? It was also common to find his picture in the local newspapers, standing next to every new business that opened its doors in North Haven.

I was happy to see the announcement of the opening of Lucilia's Fine Foods in today's Courier, and no picture of either the former or the present First Selectman. I believe that's a first, and I hope not the last.

Instead, standing with the proud new business owners is the Quinnipiac Chamber of Commerce president, Robin Wilson. Much more appropriate!

The First Selectman's job is not to get his or her picture taken for the newspapers and calendars, but to do the work he or she is elected (and paid) to do. If McCarty's predecessor had spent as much time managing as he did having his picture taken, he'd probably still be First Selectman.

I hope Lucilia's becomes known for much more than the company it keeps in newspaper photos, and becomes a town institution.

New Meeting Dates and Questions for Janet

2008-01-16T08:54:00.001-05:00

See the North Haven Info website for dates, places, times, and topics of meetings, including the Board of Finance meeting this evening, the Board of Selectmen next Tuesday, a tentatively scheduled Special Town Meeting (if the Board of Finance approves emergency capital expenditures this evening), and budget workshops.

Also, the email address for directing questions to First Selectman Janet McCarty for her TV show, North Haven Update, is QuestionforJanet@aol.com, not what they put up on her first show, QuestionsforJanet@aol.com. Computers are unforgiving of the slightest typo.

Stop the Sniping and Support McCarty's Efforts to Get This Town on Track

2008-01-12T09:53:00.000-05:00

The people who have been sniping at First Selectman Janet McCarty, calling her incapable of doing the job and worse, appear to have no idea about the state of the town government, as left to McCarty by the outgoing administration, whose First Selectman truly was either incapable or unwilling to do the job.

First, the budget is a complete mess, worse than people thought. We’re fortunate to have Ed Gomeau unraveling it, as I said in my last blog entry. McCarty describes it as a Russian doll problem: when you open up one problem, you find another problem inside, and another problem inside that. Finance Director Vincent Palmeri was a master, but unfortunately a master of hiding things, not of budgeting for a public organization.

Second, the personnel situation is a shambles (Palmeri was also the director of personnel). There appear to be no benchmarks for evaluating personnel. The overtime issue that came up at recent Board of Finance meetings, with respect to the Community Services Department, appears to be a problem throughout the town government. There are insufficient rules, insufficient monitoring, and insufficient incentives.

Third, the tax collection situation seems to have been let go by our last two Tax Collectors. Thousands of people, it turns out, hadn’t paid their automobile taxes, and our new Tax Collector, Alan Sturz, is now looking at the situation with our real estate and personal property taxes. People who got notices to pay long-outstanding auto taxes have been pouring into Town Hall. Not a popular move by a new administration, and not a help to getting work done, but you gotta do what your predecessors failed to do.

As for the Board of Selectmen meeting on Palmeri that everyone wants to have so badly (even though they didn’t seem to mind Kopetz letting Palmeri's situation go month after month while Palmeri was getting sick pay), there was a problem when Republican Selectman Michael Freda was going to be playing baseball in Florida next week, but he appears to have changed his mind, as you can read in his comments below, so that obstacle seems to be out of the way.

Fairness and patience seem to be lacking in too many North Haveners. Many people making comments here are not willing to recognize how hard it is to start any new job, and how much harder it is to take over a town government whose past administration provided almost no help in the transition, and which itself did a terrible job in some very important areas.

McCarty is working as hard and as long hours as anyone possibly could. I hope that people will stop spitting on her and hoping for her early demise, and instead start supporting her efforts. And those who see conspiracies everywhere can forget it: the Democrats aren’t organized enough to conspire.

Go Go Gomeau, or Getting the Budget Right

2008-01-11T16:25:00.000-05:00

This week’s North Haven Citizen contains an article about some of what First Selectman Janet McCarty plans to do in 2008. I recommend you read it.

Her first priority is to present a transparent budget. And she’s backing that up by appointing the Board of Education Business Manager, Ed Gomeau, to be interim budget coordinator. From what I’ve heard about Mr. Gomeau (who has returned to North Haven after working elsewhere), this is a great decision. He will bring a new process and a new attitude to a system that has formerly been all Vincent Palmeri all the time, with the Board of Finance just going along with false numbers, illegal budget transfers, and little respect for the input of department heads (except for Joseph Ierardi, whose department's budget numbers somehow were the only ones on target).

This town should thank Mr. Gomeau for taking on this extra burden and sharing with us his expertise. He can’t perform miracles, but at least the Board of Finance and the Town Meeting will have the best possible budget to vote on.

We should also thank Ms. McCarty for continuing to talk openly about her plans for the year. It's not only new, but courageous, because it opens her up for attack as her plans don't all pan out as quickly as she (and we) would like.

Also in this week’s Citizen, it says that McCarty delayed the January 3 Board of Selectmen meeting because Palmeri’s lawyer was in Arizona, and that rescheduling the meeting has been hampered by her attempt to get Palmeri’s lawyer to attend the meeting.

Also of note in the Citizen is Republican Selectman Michael Freda’s statement that there will be “fundamental disagreements” between him and the Democratic Selectmen, and that he will deliver his criticism at future meetings. It’s interesting that, in all he wrote on this blog, there were no fundamental disagreements that I could see. I hope he doesn’t hold back his ideas for presentation at Board of Selectmen meetings, but instead shares them with citizens so that they can be discussed in advance. Not only can citizens add their take on his ideas, but with their input, he might find areas and means of compromise.

The Need to Change the Relationship Between Town Board Members and Town Government

2008-01-09T08:54:00.000-05:00

Without taking a position on who said what, the dispute between Fire Commissioner and Democratic Town Committee (DTC) chair Peter Criscuolo, Jr. and Republican Fire Commissioner chair Pat Nuzzolillo still says something very disconcerting about government in North Haven.

The question has been raised as to whether Nuzzolillo offered Criscuolo the Fire Commission chairmanship in return for Criscuolo using his DTC position and ties with Janet McCarty to get Fire Commissioner Michael Zuccarelli, Jr. the job as director of the Community Services and Recreation Department. It doesn’t appear that we’ll ever know.

What is still disconcerting is that a Republican official felt it was appropriate to call the DTC chair with an endorsement for an important and highly-paid town job. Nuzzolillo has apparently admitted that he did this, and only this.

First of all, this implies that the DTC chair could have an effect on the hiring of a department head, that even the most important jobs in town government are partisan in nature. Actually, it implies more specifically that this is how Republican officials think things work.

Why? Because this is the way things have worked for as long as anyone can remember. In fact, one recent holder of the RTC chairmanship was the holder of the position that the town is now trying to fill: Joseph Ierardi, someone hardly known for withholding his influence. His predecessor, Gary Johns, used his position to get himself a North Haven job he was not qualified for. With the Democrats in power, why should things change? Nuzzolillo must have thought.

Second, it is disconcerting that Nuzzolillo felt that working together on a volunteer commission was enough to cross our town’s contentious party lines to ask a favor for someone else on the commission. Why should work on a commission have anything to do with town government hiring, outside of the scope of the commission itself? And why should working together on a commission be enough for someone to recommend another for a job that has nothing to do with the work of the commission?

There’s a boundary problem here. There’s an idea that serving the town on its boards and commissions gives a person influence over the affairs of the administration of our town’s government. They should have absolutely nothing to do with one another. In fact, anyone who has been involved with the policy and oversight side of town government – that is, its boards and commissions – should not only not have special influence over or priority for jobs in town government, but should not even apply, especially in related areas.

For example, a Fire Commissioner should not apply for a job as a fire fighter in North Haven. Why? Because the Commissioner, in his role providing policy and oversight over the Fire Department, has special relations not only with the administrators of the department, but also with the other members of the Commission. No one can be seen as making an independent decision with respect to the Commissioner’s job application. And in addition, people should not be put in the position of having to possibly reject the job application of someone who will be providing oversight over them or working with them on policy issues.

This would apply to any position, from a Board of Finance member applying for a job in the Finance Department, to a Board of Education member applying for a job in the school system, especially an administrative job.

We’ll never know for sure whether Nuzzolillo actually tried to bribe Criscuolo. But we do know that Nuzzolillo’s concept of his role as Fire Commissioner, as it relates to jobs in town government, is inappropriate.

I don’t think that his concept of his role is anything but typical among North Haven Republican officials. Let’s hope that Democratic officials learn from this, and that it helps to change the way the people who run our town’s policy and oversight see their relationship with our town government’s administration.

What I'd Like to See in 2008

2007-12-31T14:21:00.000-05:00

2008 will be a new beginning for North Haven’s government. Here are some of the things I’d like to see in 2008.

Transparency - I’d like to see the town website include timely notices, agendas, and minutes of all board and commission meetings, contracts being bid out and job openings, budget information (everything that’s handed out to the Board of Finance members, because town residents vote on the budget, too), ordinances, personnel policies, etc. I’d like to see my North Haven Info website worthless by budget time.

Forensic Investigation - I’d like to see the investigation extended to the Finance Department and to all no-bid and insufficiently-bid contracts, to determine how much the town lost over the last few years and whether there might have been any kickbacks. I'd like to see many more interviews done, and the public told immediately if any current or former official or contractor refuses to fully cooperate.

Fully Honest Budget - I’d like to see a budget that is as accurate as possible, with all sizeable budget transfers, wherever they come from, approved in advance by the Town Meeting, as the law requires.

Appointment of Independents - The Board of Selectmen has already appointed many more Independents (and less partisan members of both parties) than the Republicans did. I’d like to see this continue. This town needs to become far less partisan.

Charter Revision Commission - The Charter hasn’t been amended for 27 years. Experts say a charter should be re-examined every 10 years. Failing to call a charter revision commission is the second most irresponsible thing the North Haven Republicans did (first is not bidding out contracts). I’d like to see the Democrats do the responsible thing, even if it means opening up a pandora’s box of issues.

New Ethics Program - Our Code of Ethics is mediocre and its language provides little guidance to town officials, employees, and citizens. There is no ethics education in our town, even for members of the Board of Ethics. There is little disclosure, no one asking for advisory opinions, and there is no protection for whistleblowers, which makes it very hard for employees to report unethical behavior. An Ethics Review Committee has been formed to make changes in the Code of Ethics. I’d like to see it recommend a complete overhaul of North Haven’s government ethics program, from top to bottom. Not because of the Ierardi-Palmeri scandal, but because it’s the right thing to do.

Ordinances - I’d like to see all of North Haven’s ordinances given a second look. Some ordinances, such as the preference given to in-town contractors, were approved at poorly attended August Town Meetings, with no debate whatsoever. In other cases, there are no ordinances in areas where other towns have found them necessary (if only we’d had one to deal with porn shops, it would have saved us a lot of time and money).

Low-Income Housing - The Kopetz Administration’s inaction on this issue puts the town at the mercy of developers who can, by including low-income housing, force almost any development on the town. I’d like to see the town take the initiative on this issue.

Increase in Education Cost Sharing - In 2007, the Board of Finance, with no opposition from the Board of Education or the School Superintendent, without giving North Haven voters a choice, and over the opposition of Selectman Janet McCarty, did not allow any of the nearly $1 million increase in state education funding to be actually spent on education. I'd like to see this year's increase spent on education or handed back to the state.

Energy Audit - I’d like to see an energy audit of all town operations (and those of our major contractors, to be paid for by the contractors). This has apparently already begun, although I don’t know the scope of it. I'd also like the town to take advantage of available grants for energy conservation and alternative energy projects. For example, it’s a crime that our high school roof was not covered with solar panels.

Reconciliation - Last, but far from least, the Republican Town Committee has done nothing since the election but show bad faith (e.g., all the fuss about nothing, Ms. Payette and Ms. Falcigno’s noncooperation in the Town Hall transition, and Mr. Kopetz’s refusal to stay on until he could be replaced). There’s even been an editorial in the North Haven Post about it.

I’d like to see the RTC start acting in good faith, and I’d like to see it hold a long, hard, public discussion about what Republican officials did wrong during the Kopetz Administration and before (going far beyond the Ierardi-Palmeri arrests), and what is the responsible way to let the people of North Haven know that they realize what they did was wrong and that they will not do it again. At such a meeting or meetings, I’d like to see them ask for the opinions of Democrats and Independents, and of Republicans who are ashamed of how their leaders acted, and I’d like to see the RTC treat these individuals and their opinions with respect.

Reconciliation will require not only apology and a sincere show of remorse, but also a change of RTC leadership and membership. Chair Elinor Pedalino is a no more appropriate leader than her predecessor, Joseph Ierardi, to bring the Republican Party into the new era of open, honest, less partisan North Haven government.

If the RTC refuses to seek reconciliation, I’d like to see the majority of decent, honest Republicans in North Haven take over the RTC and make it an important part of healing the damage done to North Haven.

For a truly happy new year, I'd like to see the following cheer throughout the year: "No More Hate in 2008."

Some Positive Accomplishments

2007-12-26T10:10:00.000-05:00

In the holiday spirit, I would like to mention some of the positive things the McCarty Administration has already accomplished or started to put into motion, including the things done under the last administration, which McCarty had been calling for for years, but were done by the Kopetz Admininistration only due to the threat of losing power.

1. Paramedic Service - so that the town has paramedics among its first responders

2. Town Website - This was bid out during the election season, but still did not manage to include basic things such as the town Ordinances or the actual (instead of proposed) board and commission schedule. Plans are to greatly increase the information on the website, including meeting agendas and minutes, budget information, etc. The best thing will be that meeting agendas will be available in advance, so that people can prepare for meetings and can decide whether or not to attend.

3. Easy Communication - Town Hall employees are being given email, so that town residents can communicate with them in a way other than playing telephone tag during working hours.

4. Energy Audit - of town buildings, to both conserve energy and save money.

5. Important Hiring - McCarty is trying to fill important positions that had been left open for many months: a new Community Services director, a new Finance director, and a Town Engineer.

6. Public Updates and Question Answering - While the Kopetz Administration did not even support the idea of asking town officials questions at Town Meetings, McCarty and Fontana have begun a series of NHTV shows where they will let people know what has been happening with town government, and what will soon be happening. They will answer questions called in or sent to them at QuestionsForJanet@aol.com.

7. Greater Involvement of Independents in Town Government - McCarty made a concerted effort to attract people to sit on boards and commissions who do not have close party ties, especially unaffiliated voters. She is being attacked for appointing cronies, but the attraction of independent individuals to town government is her greatest accomplishment. Even the idea of having an independent assistant town attorney to give her different views than the Town Attorney’s firm is a new, effective way of getting more points of view expressed in North Haven’s government.

8. Public Comments During Board and Commission Meetings - McCarty called for this for years, but it would not be allowed until the upcoming election and the controversy over the forensic investigation made the Republicans give in.

9. An Honest Budget - McCarty called for this for years, but it would not have happened (although still only partially) without the cloud over the Finance Department, the upcoming election, the New Haven Register and Post editorials, and of course the rejection of the first budget by voters.

How Polluted Is It?

2007-12-21T10:21:00.000-05:00

I have said very little about the Rabina Properties plan for the Pratt & Whitney site, but it seems increasingly amazing to me how little has been said about the necessary cleanup of the polluted property, especially considering that there are plans to have people living on it.

With all the talk about children, roads, runoff, etc., according to Planning & Zoning Commission Vice Chair James Giulietti (in today’s Register article), “the commission does not have any information on the cleanup of the land.”

How can anything happen until we know the current environmental state of the property and the cost and possibilities of its cleanup?

I would like someone to explain to me and to the rest of North Haven’s residents why this aspect of the development has taken such a back seat to all other considerations.

The Republican Town Committee Admits That Much of What Happened Under the Kopetz Administration Was Unacceptable

2007-12-19T15:01:00.000-05:00

The Republican Town Committee has finally admitted to at least some of the wrongdoing done by Republican town officials during the Kopetz Administration.

Of course, the RTC didn’t just come out and say what happened, or apologize to the people of North Haven about it. But by attacking the two Democratic members of the Board of Selectmen in a letter to the editor, its Chair made it clear that much of what had been done under the Kopetz Administration was wrong.

A party town committee doesn’t attack someone for things it considers acceptable. By attacking, they are admitting that such things are unacceptable. Let’s see what the RTC considers unacceptable. Here’s the letter to the Advisor, which appeared this week. I’ll follow the RTC’s numbering.

1. It is unacceptable not to select a Town Attorney without seeing if the firm’s fees are competitive. I totally agree, but this is what the Kopetz Administration did. It simply selected the old Town Attorney’s partner. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.

On the other hand, McCarty talked to other lawyers and firms and, in fact, did not put all her eggs in one basket. She selected Richard Parrett and his firm; Christopher Duby, a sole practitioner to do a lot of the day-to-day work at a lower rate than North Haven’s been paying; and the former Town Attorney, Mr. Donofrio, who will continue handling the matters he’s been handling, because he’s highly competent and it would cost the town a lot of money to turn the matters over to other lawyers.

2. It is unacceptable to not have every fact and number at your fingertips, even on someone’s crazy first week in office. If this is unacceptable, then it must be even more unacceptable not to even allow the public to ask for facts and numbers at public meetings.

When Mr. Donofrio was up for appointment as Town Attorney, no member of the public was allowed to ask a single question of him or of the Board of Selectmen. Time and time again, top officials of the Kopetz Administration refused to answer questions from the public, either because they didn’t have the answer or because they just didn’t want to bother. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.

3. It is unacceptable not to provide information about officials’ qualifications at the moment that information is requested, even if the request is made at a public meeting. This is rough, but it’s true that town officials should be prepared.

However, when members of the Kopetz Administration were asked questions at town meetings and other meetings, they often did not have the necessary materials, even sometimes when requests were made to bring specific materials with them. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.

4-5. It is unacceptable to hire unqualified people for important jobs. Not only was then RTC Chair Gary Johns not a qualified assessor, he did not even take the examination required by law. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.

However, the RTC got it wrong. Parrett’s firm is full of people with municipal law experience, and he has municipal law experience himself, although it is not his specialty. When you hire a Town Attorney, you are hiring the firm. That’s why Mr. Donofrio was already effectively Town Attorney when he was appointed to the position.

The RTC is also wrong in acting as though all the legal work done for North Haven is strictly municipal law. I myself have been consulted on numerous legal questions involving the town, and I never practiced municipal law. But I know how to read and interpret laws. Duby also has a great deal of municipal administration experience, as does Parrett. Unqualified they are not.

6. It is unacceptable to get into trouble with the Freedom of Information Commission. I agree. When I introduced myself to a Connecticut FOIC official at a government ethics conference last year, his first words to me were, “Your town has a serious FOI problem.” The Kopetz Administration showed little respect for openness and transparency in government, which was the principal reason I started the North Haven Info website. It is unacceptable not to follow the FOI Act, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.

As for Duby, he says that he had nothing to do with the case before the FOIC. It was not his decision to withhold his resume and his resume was not the only document withheld. The case was handled (or, it appears, mishandled) by the City Attorney’s office, and it decided what documents to give the FOIC and what documents to withhold. That is why the City of Bridgeport paid his fine – because Duby was not personally at fault.

7-8. It is unacceptable for someone to be hired by a First Selectman who has been the First Selectman’s campaign manager, who has been elected to the Board of Education, or who has been a member of the Board of Selectmen. Apparently, it is unacceptable for anyone close to a First Selectman to receive an important position, or even be called on to give legal advice.

Joseph Ierardi was Mr. Kopetz’s campaign manager, and yet he was kept on as Director of Community Services, and the result was that Mr. Kopetz refused to investigate allegations made against Mr. Ierardi. It’s good to hear the RTC finally admit that it was unacceptable to even keep Mr. Ierardi on his town position. Maybe the RTC will also finally admit it was unacceptable to elect a department head (Ierardi, that is) to chair the RTC, or to have an RTC Chair given a job with the town (Gary Johns).

Mr. Kopetz worked under the former Town Attorney, Robert Ciulla, at a New Haven law firm, and yet Mr. Kopetz hired him as Town Attorney. Mr. Donofrio also worked at that New Haven law firm, and then again with Mr. Ciulla as partners in their North Haven firm. I don’t think this meant they shouldn’t be hired as town attorneys, but the RTC apparently does. If only it had said something all those years.

9. It is unacceptable for a Town Attorney candidate or his firm to make large campaign contributions to a First Selectman candidate. I agree completely. I think all town contractors (which town attorneys effectively are) should be banned from making campaign contributions.

Jeffrey Donofrio and his wife each gave the Kopetz campaign $1,000 this year, and Mr. Ciulla gave $250. In addition, town contractors gave thousands of dollars to the Kopetz campaign, but not to the McCarty campaign. This was unacceptable, and it’s good to hear the RTC finally admit this.

This is a great first step toward the RTC showing that its values have changed since its party led the town through a period where contracts were not bid out, where department heads were allowed to act with impunity, where citizens were not allowed to speak during public meetings and officials would not answer questions when they were allowed, where town information was extremely difficult to find, and where intimidation was a common practice.

New Board Appointments: Undermining the Power of the Party Town Committees

2007-12-18T08:52:00.000-05:00

The principal act at last night’s Board of Selectmen’s meeting was the acceptance by the two Democratic Selectmen of the Republican Town Committee’s recommendation for the third slot on the Board, Michael Freda.

But more important was the undermining of the power of the party town committees with respect to the other board and commission appointments.

First Selectman Janet McCarty asked North Haveners of all parties, as well as those unaffiliated, to let her know if they wanted to be on a board or commission. The result was amany new board members, and more unaffiliated members, as well. And they weren’t hand-picked by the party town committees.

The great majority of towns our size around the United States have nonpartisan governments. Not bipartisan, but nonpartisan. You don’t run as a party member, you’re not appointed as a party member.

After all, what do parties really stand for, locally? Both parties are in favor of the best services and schools possible with the taxes people are willing to pay. Sometimes there are party differences with respect to development, but otherwise it’s mostly about power.

The deal the two party town committees made to divvy up board and commission appointments meant the exclusion from government of the largest group of citizens, those who are unaffiliated. And if you include party members who want to be able to vote in state and national primaries, but are uninvolved in local party affairs, that means a large majority of the people in town were excluded from participating in government.

Now, some of this independent majority will be participating in government. And hopefully more and more.

Why does this matter? Because they’re not interested in power. They’re interested in being involved with their community. Their loyalty is not to a party, but to the town. They will be more likely to ask questions, and less willing to go along with the crowd.

It felt good to hear Michael Pomichter, Parks & Recreation Commission chair for 17 years, complain about the failure to reappoint him. Seventeen years is a long time to run a commission. Was his commission asking the right questions, protecting the best interests of North Haven? It seems time for someone else to run the commission.

Last night, North Haven took another step into the future, away from a closed town run by two bickering parties, toward an open town run by its citizens.

Some people will complain that this puts too much power in the hands of the First Selectman. But the Republicans never complained about this when they controlled the seat. Not a single one would publicly mention possible alternatives to so much power in one person’s hands. Not a single one would publicly talk about making changes to the Charter, after 27 years, even though it was clearly the responsible thing to do.

In a comment in this blog, our new Republican Selectman, Michael Freda, said he favors charter revision, but his suggested changes are minor and very limited. And he waited until the Republicans were out of power.

My feeling is that as long as it’s about power, it isn’t good for North Haven. Last night’s board and commission appointments seemed more about spreading participation than about power.

A Big Fuss About Nothing Is a Great Sign for the New Administration

2007-12-15T09:02:00.000-05:00

When leading opposition figures make a fuss about nothing, it means that things must actually be going very well with North Haven’s new administration.

What do I mean by “fuss”? For example, Republican Board of Finance member Timothy Doheny wrote a letter to the editor complaining that he and other Republican members of town boards were not sent formal invitations (not paid for by the town, incidentally) to the inauguration. He accused the Democrats of failing to show they can “lead with sincerity and dignity.”

But all he showed is that he didn’t bother to ask who had actually been sent invitations. He would have discovered that newly elected Republicans and Democrats were invited, but other board and commission members, for the most part, were not. And he might have noted that everyone in town was invited, and that he and many other non-formally-invited people did attend.

At the December 6 Board of Selectmen meeting, Republican Town Committee Chair Elinor Pedalino got bent out of shape over the Board of Selectmen members’ failure to immediately select a replacement for Kevin Kopetz, only four days after they were legally allowed to do so. This is a very serious decision, and First Selectwoman Janet McCarty is in the midst of starting a new job, making a zillion other important decisions and meeting with many people with whom she will be working over the next two years.

But this did not stop the Town Committee chair from accusing Ms. McCarty of hypocrisy, of closing out the Republicans, of giving the town a closed government, and of a lack of due process.

Ms. Pedalino didn’t bother to change her prepared speech when she learned that nothing important was decided at the BoS meeting, other than the appointment of the Town Attorney and an Assistant Town Attorney. And she didn’t bother to note that public comments could be made both before and after the Board discussed this issue.

Two years ago, the Republican majority on the BoS would not let anyone speak at all during the meeting where Mr. Donofrio was appointed Town Attorney, and Ms. Pedalino had nothing to say about that.

The fact is that Ms. McCarty stands for open government, and she has already opened government up enormously and in many ways. She fought for public comments during meetings, and finally won. She has made her home phone number and email address public information. She has gone on TV twice already to share with North Haveners what is going on, and she has offered to answer their questions not alone in an office, but also publicly, where all can hear. She is working to further improve the improved website she worked for, to make everyone at Town Hall more accessible, via email and fax, and to make information accessible to everyone, to help citizens participate in their government.

To say that Ms. McCarty is not giving us open government – the thing I have fought for so hard myself – is the most vicious lie possible. I think Ms. Pedalino should be replaced with someone who can better represent the honest, public-spirited Republicans in this town.

But Ms. Pedalino and Mr. Doheny are not alone in trying to make a fuss out of nothing.

Right there with her is former, long-time Board of Finance Acting Chair (somehow the Democrats managed to elect a Chair at their first Board of Finance meeting) Michael O. Peterson. At the December 12 BoF meeting, he also implied hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats, who spoke of open government, he said, but did not seem to be providing it.

What example of this did he bring up? A fact-finding meeting on November 20, while he was still acting BoF chair, between three BoF members (two Dems and one GOP), our acting finance director, and our special auditor.

This meeting was not noticed as a meeting, and Mr. Peterson said this was illegal because (i) three BoF members is a quorum (this is not true; Section 301D of the Charter says the number is four); (ii) because there were members of both parties present, which makes it a meeting (also not true; Section 1-200(2) of the Freedom of Information Act speaks of a meeting consisting of a quorum, not a mix of parties, because without a quorum nothing can be decided); and (iii) because the meeting was of the audit subcommittee (two of the three BoF members present at the meeting were, indeed, also members of the audit subcommittee, making it a quorum of that subcommittee, but its chair, Republican Timothy Doheny, said that he did not consider it a meeting of the audit subcommittee, that he did not consider the audit subcommittee to be active, and in any event he considered it only a fact-finding get-together, not a meeting to make decisions).

Again, an implication of Democratic hypocrisy (not giving us the open government they promised) was misplaced. And again, the person causing the fuss didn’t bother to check: he thought Janet McCarty was present at the meeting and that she should have been responsible, although she wasn’t present, was not even a member of the BoF at the time, and Peterson himself was its Chair and therefore responsible.

I know, it sounds silly. But that’s the best they could do. The Republican leaders couldn’t wait for Ms. McCarty to make some real mistakes, to really close people out of the town’s decision-making, to actually break laws the way Republican leaders did day in and day out.

And then there’s the fuss the Republican Town Committee Treasurer, Antoinetta Carmody, made at the December 6 Board of Selectmen meeting about the new assistant town attorney. For my views on our new assistant town attorney, click here.

It’s clear that there will be no honeymoon for the Democrats. People with what Mr. Doheny calls “sincerity and dignity” give those who replace them in office a little time to get going before they start attacking them.

But not in North Haven, at least not among North Haven’s Republican leaders. If the Republicans want to get back to respectability, they need leaders who will act respectable and show respect. Not leaders like Ms. Pedalino or her predecessor, Joseph Ierardi, or his predecessor, Gary Johns, who used his position to take a North Haven job for which he did not have qualifications (requiring the town to pay extra for the services of a certified Assessor).

The Republicans lost power because they abused it. If they abuse the open government Janet McCarty and friends have given North Haven, they will deserve to stay where they are.

It’s time to earn back our respect, not play the same old tired, ugly games.

NHTV

2007-12-15T08:59:00.000-05:00

Someone asked me to start a discussion on NHTV. This person felt that they have been fiscally irresponsible and an obstacle to the televising of public comments, going along with the Republicans on this issue. There were also questions about the quality of its telecasts.

I don't know much about NHTV. I don't know its relationship with the town, how much it depends on town funds for its operation, how its board of directors is chosen and whether it is politically controlled.

If anyone has information to share about NHTV, this is the place to do it.

Cronyism in North Haven Government

2007-12-09T13:11:00.000-05:00

As I say below, I don't think cronyism has been or is a serious problem in North Haven, but a circle of people running a closed government is. However, others feel different, so here's a place to discuss cronyism in North Haven's government, past, present, and future. Below are the comments to the Back to the Issues entry on the subject of cronyism.

If anyone wants a discussion of any relevant topic, within reason, just ask me. Send me an email containing a blog entry to start off the discussion. I'm at rwechsler@cityethics.org.

mike torrello said...
Yes true colors are showing thru!!Lets see, a past Dem. is given town lawyer job Favor returned. A Dem whose husband was up for re-election and was incharge of the security of voting machines( As she told us all when asking for a raise)is given a top job in the Mccaty (No I did not forget the R she never uses them anyway even though she move here 15 Years ago from BOSTON) crew of hmmm.. what is the word... Oh yeah CRONIES crew. I feel the people of this town have been lied to by more power at any cost DEMS. I have no party ties so save it. Never held any positions with town. BUT I MAY SOON...... MR. W. I know that you do not agree with what has just taken place.

Robert Wechsler said...
My only criticism about cronyism has been when people are selected for jobs they're not qualified for, principally Mr. Johns as Assessor.

Usually, cronyism refers to giving jobs to people who help one get elected.I don't think Mrs. Feinberg was involved in the McCarty campaign, and she seems to be very qualified to be McCarty's assistant. I think McCarty is lucky to have her.

In addition, Gerry Feinberg resigned from the Board of Finance so that there would not be even an appearance of conflict.For me, cronyism was a minor problem in the Kopetz administration. My problem was that it was a closed group of people, who prevented any oversight from occurring, and made citizen participation difficult.

The least of my problems with Mr. Donofrio, for example, was the fact that his partner was Town Attorney before him, and that both he and Mr. Kopetz used to work under Mr. Ciulla at a New Haven law firm.Why, because Donofrio was highly qualified for the job, and worked hard at it.In fact, I only used the word "crony" once in my blog entries: "She does not have a circle of cronies she will put into power."

I don't believe that Mrs. Feinberg was a member of McCarty's circle or is now in a position of power.

As for Mr. Parrett, I don't know him, but as a lawyer and former First Selectman, it's likely that he, too, is qualified for the position. And he was not involved in Ms. McCarty's re-election, as far as I can tell, nor a member of her circle, nor even politically involved for many years. It seems like a responsible decision to me.

If these connections lead to the same sort of closed government we had under the Republicans, I will criticize the Democrats very loudly. But from what I gather, there were will be a great deal more transparency, and citizen participation will be welcomed, not thwarted.

Marty Kaufman said...
So let me see if I get this right Mr Torrello, if there is a change in administration, the new administration should surround itself with personel from the previous regime? No point in putting people in place that you trust,maybe just pander to the losers until your term is up,or risk being accussed of cronyism,even if the person IS qualified?

I am very interested in hearing who YOU feel should be appointed to these positions Mr. Torrello.

This should'nt be a problem because you have no political affilliation to worry about, Right? Please be specific as to the position and the name of who YOU feel the Mccarty administration should put in that spot. I eagerly await to read your selections as I also am of no political affilliation and seek to gain some insight into correct political thinking and behavior.

Marty K said...
One more observationThere wouldn't be an EMPTY selectman's spot on the board if Mr. Kopetz's dedication to the town of North Haven didn't disappear when the paycheck did!!!

Robert Wechsler said...
Once again, we've gotten away from the issues.

But one more thing on cronyism. The principal crony in the last several years was Mr. Kopetz himself.Remember, he didn't choose his circle, the circle chose him. And he was not qualified to run North Haven, with far less experience in North Haven administration than Ms. McCarty has (and her critics have all insisted she lacks the necessary experience - and I, who supports a town manager form of government, have agreed).

But Mr. Kopetz did not run the town, as we have discovered. It was run principally by Mr. Palmeri and Mr. Ierardi, with help from the Town Attorneys.

I believe that Ms. McCarty will run North Haven, and that she is nobody's crony.

Back to the Issues

2007-11-30T15:38:00.000-05:00

I agree with those who think this blog has turned too much into a feud between Mr. Freda and myself about the past. So I'm running Mario's comment again, including the comments made to it, and let's focus on these and other issues. Of course, anyone else who wants to keep up the conversation with Mr. Freda is welcome to in comments to the blog entries dealing with his candidacy and comments.

Mr. Freda,

Many of us are willing to read about and debate your unique vision and novel plans for the future. However, so far there hasn't been much to debate. Since nobody stands for bad schools, taking a position in favor of schools simply isn't a distinguishing issue.

By contrast, we already have some interesting and probably controversial visions on the table. Is it time to revisit the town charter (as required by law)? In the process, should we move to a more modern form of government (as Mr. W has suggested)? Has the political process served us well or might we benefit from professional management?

While pondering some large issues, such as this one, there is no shortage of smaller and easier ones to tackle. Should high-ranking town employees get medical benefits for themselves and family for life? Should they receive a huge retirement pension?

Should the audit be continued? What should be its scope?

Regarding the school budget, is there a better way to vote and decide? Specifically, can changes be made to prevent politicians from pitting education against other interests?

How can we make officials more responsive? One good change is Janet M will be holding meetings at times when more people can attend. I suggest that all elected officials have an email that is available to the citizens. I know that Janet M and Steve F have done so for some time and they are always quick to respond. I am not aware that Mr. Freda ever made available his email. For those officials who have office phones, those too should be available. We need to minimize the secrecy tendencies of future politicians.

Then there's the matter that an independent raised. Roughly, the point was that independents can/do determine the outcomes of the elections and yet they are ultimately given no voice in the government. Should we try to change that? Any ideas on how to do it? This issue could be pressing if Janet M chooses not to accept Mr. Freda.

For those interested in the issue of independent participation in North Haven's government, here's a North Haven Post column on the subject, which I wrote several months ago. Independents interested in being appointed to a board and commission should let First Selectwoman-elect Janet McCarty know: 239-1913, janet.mccarty@usa.net. Tell your Independent friends.

Charlotte said...
Mario,Yes, I agree that there are too many important and potentially transforming issues to allow Mr. Freda to set the debate agenda on this blog. Thus far, he has taken no novel stands, offered no novel solutions, and offered no novel perspectives. Let's debate progressive issues, not tired republican positions.

Big Al said...
Open question to anyone who might be able to answer.Is there a specific reason why an unaffiliated voter cannot serve on one of the more important boards such as P&Z,ZBA,BOE, and so on?I would be very interested in doing just that but always thought that there was something in the town charter that prohibited it.

Jim Leahy said...
Nobody sets the agenda on this blog. Mr. Freda is entitled to his opinion and you can debate with him at any time. I happen to think a lot of what he says makes a great deal of sense. You may not agree with him, but he raises soem interesting points.Let's forget about the mudslinging which occurred during the election and move forward, helping North Haven grow and prosper. Keep in mind that Mr. Freda is the only person from the previous administartion to have the guts to discuss issues openly on this blog.

Robert Wechsler said...
In response to Big Al's question: Connecticut's election laws make it hard for independents or minor party members (e.g., Greens or Libertarians) to run for office. Of course, either major party may nominate an independent, but they tend to ask the independent to join the party.Across the country, most towns our size are nonpartisan. That is, no one can run as a member of a party. This makes it easy for anyone to run.

To help independents interested in running, earlier this year I put up on the North Haven Info website a link to the state guide to campaign finance laws, so people can see what has to be done in order to run (the link is at the end of the first section on the page).

Think about it for the next time, and you might even be able to swing an endorsement from a party. Go to meetings of the board, ask good questions, write letters to the editor, build your candidacy.

Responses to Mr. Freda: A Town Hero, Democracy, and Disrespect for North Haveners

2007-11-29T17:31:00.000-05:00

Mr. Freda has been very busy. I will make just three responses to what he wrote in his many comments.

Televising Public Comments
Mr. Freda has taken credit for supporting and arranging the televising of public comments at Board of Finance Auditor Subcommittee meetings (“because it was the right thing to do”). What he failed to do was give credit to the man who first arranged to televise these comments, Douglas Wood. Wood filmed the meetings, including public comments, somehow broke them up into viewable segments, and put them up on You Tube so that I could link to them from the North Haven Info website.

It was Wood’s many dozens of hours of painstaking labor that humiliated the Board of Finance Auditor Subcommittee, and then some other town boards and commissions, into the radical step of making public comments part of their meetings so that NHTV’s gavel-to-gavel coverage would include them, and so that North Haveners could actually see what their fellow citizens were saying, and what responses they were being given by our elected officials.

Of course it was the right thing to do, which is why we’d been asking for it for a long time. No one ever came up with an argument that it was wrong or undoable or anything. Republican leaders just kept blaming the problem on NHTV.

Wood should be a hero in this town, but people like Freda ignore him, just the way that Freda’s colleagues insisted on not using my name or making any reference to the budget petition or this blog or website. Only little people act like this. Only little people.

Extra State Education Funds
Mr. Freda said that the Board of Finance’s decision on keeping the extra state education funds totally out of the first budget was due to the Fasano/Fontana letter that said such extra funds could not be guaranteed.

The Fasano/Fontana letter should definitely have been an important factor in the Board of Finance’s decision at that time, but it should also have been recognized that state politicians don’t like to go out on a limb regarding a town issue. Until Fontana ran for the Board of Selectmen, how many town issues did either of them take a stand on?

In any event, as time passed and the state surplus looked more and more concrete, the extra state education funds became more and more certain. Yet the Board of Finance did nothing.

Including the extra education funds in the first budget was not an all-or-nothing decision. As I said, it would have been most responsible to include in the budget half of the lowest (Republican) figure, about $400,000. This is what many other towns did.

It is my understanding that, even after the first budget was rejected, all or part of the extra state education funds could have been put into a Contingency Fund, and then the Town Meeting could have later voted to have that money transferred to the education budget (or left there to cut taxes the following year). Think: what would have been done with the extra state education funds had they been voted after the second budget referendum? They would have been placed in a Contingency Fund, and the people of North Haven would have had the right to decide how to transfer those funds.

In any event, when I made my motion to delay the referendum (in order to let the Board of Finance put to a town vote the use of the extra education funds and insurance savings), Freda’s argument (that state law did not allow the extra state education funds to be put into the second budget) was not made, by him or by his colleagues.

Instead, Republicans threatened further cuts in the education budget, knowing, at this late date, that these cuts would not be necessary. I said their threats were hollow, and hollow they were. A strategy based on falsehood. A strategy based on a deep disrespect for the citizens of North Haven and their role in North Haven’s government.

No one from the Kopetz Administration even rose and said that we could at least apply the extra education funds to offset the education cuts in the second budget (something Freda will, I'm sure, agree would have been perfectly legal).

Power and Contempt
Mr. Freda has taken the first step in bringing an end to what he calls the “contempt” people feel for him and his colleagues: he has acknowledged that there is justification for this contempt. That is further than any other Republican official has gone, and I commend Mr. Freda for it. It was clearly very hard for him to do, or he would have done it up front and made himself a hero.

The next step is to acknowledge what this justification was, what he and his colleagues did to make us understandably feel the way we do. The next step after that is to take responsibility for it: not using the passive tense (things were done), but the active (I or we did or did not do this and that). The final step is to give a sign of remorse. Of course, these can be, and usually are, done all at once.

It is this way of responding to, by respecting, our contempt that led me to throw out the idea of apology and provide a link to my essay on apology and municipal government (actually a review of an excellent book by Aaron Lazare called “On Apology”). Apology is the way people who have wronged others show that they realize what they did and what harm it did, and feel bad about it. It’s the way people show that they do not have contempt for those they harm (a false apology, such as Mr. Freda’s “if I offended you, I’m sorry,” implying a weakness in the person harmed, is just another show of contempt). There are rules to apology, they are clear, almost everyone understands them, but people still don’t like them and few people think much about them.

It’s also nice that Mr. Freda finally talked about power in his comment on contempt. Not issues, but power. Power and the spoils of power.

None of what happened this year was about issues, as Mr. Freda portrays them. It was about whether our town would have responsible, democratic, public discussions of the issues, without arrogance, intimidation, secrecy, law-breaking, lies, and important August and daytime meetings. That’s why I found myself allied with conservatives, liberals, and moderates, all decent people who wanted a more democratic and decent town government. And not power. Nor the spoils of power.

Ultimate power in the people, as Mr. Freda refers to it, is not the same thing as the power that comes with running a government. It’s a crude form of power, based on limited information, the unpredictability of voter turnouts, decisions made by party committees even when the largest group is independents, etc.

If the Democrats don’t come through, what can we do? Bring you guys back? Select the best people for each board, when there is almost no information to go on? Neither Mr. Freda nor any of his fellow Board of Finance candidates filled out even part of my questionnaire, so that North Haven Info visitors could see where the candidates stood on a variety of issues. They clearly did not want voters to have concrete information upon which to employ their “ultimate power.” What’s a voter to do?

There are a lot of things I would like to see that the Democrats are unlikely to give us, or at least give a high priority to. Democracy isn’t about throwing people out to get what you want, and what you deserve. Voting is only a small part of democracy, a part the Republicans couldn’t take away from us. Democracy is far, far more complicated than that.

But one simple rule is, If you want to be respected as a government official in a democracy, show respect. Respect is a much more appropriate word than contempt.

Why We Need to Update North Haven's Laws and Regulations

2007-11-29T08:52:00.000-05:00

Yesterday’s Register had an article about the North Haven Planning & Zoning Commission’s attempt to disapprove the opening of a porn shop on Washington Avenue. The case is going to the state Supreme Court, and for one reason only: the town had no regulations dealing with retail sales of adult videos (it does now, of course, too late).

This town doesn’t have laws and regulations dealing with lots of things, and the cost of this suit is a concrete example of how the Republicans’ negligence is costing taxpayers big bucks. I’ve been saying for some time that the Charter and the ethics code needed updating after over twenty-five years each, and until the scandal this year, there was no interest from the Kopetz Administration, and then only with respect to the ethics code.

I suggest that North Haven’s Charter, ordinances, and regulations be given a careful look over the next two years. North Haven needs good, up-to-date laws and regulations. And we should ask the towns’ boards and lawyers to help out on a volunteer basis, so that the work isn’t just a boon for the new Town Attorney’s firm. I’ve already put my time where my mouth is by drawing up a draft ethics code.

North Haven Earns a Democracy Cup!

2007-11-29T08:41:00.000-05:00

Who would ever have thunk it: North Haven is the winner of a Democracy Cup!

According to an article in today’s Register, North Haven had the largest voter turnout among the state’s medium-sized municipalities (15-35,000 registered voters; we must have barely squeaked in), with a whopping 57.9%.

We actually get to have a trophy, and for two years, a year longer than a winning sports team.

Democracy has truly come to North Haven. We owe ourselves applause, and a few more rounds of democracy for everyone.

Mario on Various Issues Facing North Haven Government

2007-11-28T18:21:00.000-05:00

Mario's new comment is worthy of a blog entry, so here it is reproduced below. It's directed to Selectman candidate Michael Freda, but there are issues here for everyone to think about and discuss:

Mario said...
Setting the blog agenda

Mr. Freda,

Many of us are willing to read about and debate your unique vision and novel plans for the future. However, so far there hasn't been much to debate. Since nobody stands for bad schools, taking a position in favor of schools simply isn't a distinguishing issue.

By contrast, we already have some interesting and probably controversial visions on the table. Is it time to revisit the town charter (as required by law)? In the process, should we move to a more modern form of government (as Mr. W has suggested)? Has the political process served us well or might we benefit from professional management?

While pondering some large issues, such as this one, there is no shortage of smaller and easier ones to tackle. Should high-ranking town employees get medical benefits for themselves and family for life? Should they receive a huge retirement pension?

Should the audit be continued? What should be its scope? Regarding the school budget, is there a better way to vote and decide? Specifically, can changes be made to prevent politicians from pitting education against other interests?

How can we make officials more responsive? One good change is Janet M will be holding meetings at times when more people can attend. I suggest that all elected officials have an email that is available to the citizens. I know that Janet M and Steve F have done so for some time and they are always quick to respond. I am not award that Mr. Freda ever made available his email. For those officials who have office phones, those too should be available. We need to minimize the secrecy tendencies of future politicians.

Then there's the matter that an independent raised. Roughly, the point was that independents can/do determine the outcomes of the elections and yet they are ultimately given no voice in the government. Should we try to change that? Any ideas on how to do it? This issue could be pressing if Janet M chooses not to accept Mr. Freda.

For those interested in the issue of independent participation in North Haven's government, here's a North Haven Post column on the subject, which I wrote several months ago. Independents interested in being appointed to a board and commission should let First Selectwoman-elect Janet McCarty know: 239-1913, janet.mccarty@usa.net. Tell your Independent friends.

Is Michael Freda Out of Touch with North Haven?

2007-11-27T13:11:00.001-05:00

Town official and Selectman candidate Michael Freda has said in this blog that he won’t respond to ordinary citizen Bubba anymore, and that he is even considering an end to his participation here, because Bubba referred to him as a “moral fraud” (see Freda’s November 27 comment to one blog entry and his November 27 comment to another.

This same town official Michael Freda referred to me (an ordinary citizen) in a far more public venue (two North Haven weekly newspapers) with the following language (and much more):

“Let me cut through all of his nonsensical claims and accusations and tell you exactly how I view his article. His article is the most irresponsible piece of sensationalistic propaganda that I have ever seen on any level. ... His dizzying display of dubious claims, combined with his total inability to offer constructive solutions, concerns me a great deal.”

Government officials have, I believe, a greater responsibility to refrain from showing disrespect to citizens than citizens have to refrain from showing disrespect to officials. Officials have power to make decisions that affect people’s lives and pocketbooks, and they should be representing, not attacking, citizens. Disrespect for government officials is a great American tradition.

Freda’s attack on me was not a personal attack, despite its language. It was an attack on all critics of Board of Finance policies, an attempt to discredit the critics in the eyes of their community and raise the ante for others to criticize North Haven Republican policies.

Bubba and others think that Freda is discredited due to his votes and his inaction, his lack of criticism when criticism was called for. And they’re angry about it. Bubba expressed this with the phrase “moral and political fraud,” which is rough, certainly, but no reason for Mr. Freda to consider saying goodbye to his participation in this blog.

I don’t think Freda has a thin skin, so why is he so upset? What did he expect when he considered throwing his hat into the Board of Selectmen ring? What does his response say about his view of North Haven citizens? Does he have a right to expect more from them than they expect from him?

Maybe Freda is, as Bubba says right after the fraud phrase, seriously out of touch with North Haveners. They’re angry, and they’re going to take some of that anger out on Freda. If Freda didn’t expect this response, then he is out of touch, and perhaps he won’t be able to accurately and effectively represent the town on the Board of Selectmen.

Community Watchdog Joins the Pack

2007-11-25T09:14:00.000-05:00

What has been referred to in this blog as a new North Haven-oriented website, the Community Watchdog Spotlight, was announced in a letter to the editor of the Citizen (Nov. 16) and a paid column in this week’s Advisor by Veronica Hamel Kivela (click on the small image of it below).

The stated goal of the Spotlight is to inform voters whether candidates are following through on their campaign promises. That’s an easy way to make any candidate look bad, since candidates almost never fulfill all their campaign promises, and some may take years to fulfill, no matter how hard a candidate tries (the coming recession will make things especially difficult).

But the stated goal of the Community Watchdog Project website (www.sctir.com), which is where this and future columns are to appear, is different from the column’s stated goal. The Watchdog Project’s goal is “to abolish illegal immigration in the State of Connecticut beginning with New Haven, and to protect our right to be American.”

In the Hartford Courant (August 26, 2007), Ms. Kivela is quoted as saying, “If these people actually want to come to America because they want a slice of the American pie, if they want to live the great American dream that somebody has sold them, why are they bringing their thug ways with them?” This language will sound familiar to many older immigrants in North Haven, or from stories our parents or grandparents told us.

But Ms. Kivela’s Watchdog Spotlight is not about immigration, nor does it mention that immigration is her organization’s principal issue (she is the Community Watchdog Project’s Press Secretary).

Ms. Kivela’s column is an attack on First Selectwoman-elect Janet McCarty, as well as the New Haven Register (“slanted and biased reporting”) and people who “fanned the flames by embellishing on any kernel of truth.”

Ms. Kivela emphasizes how emotional Ms. McCarty is, as are, she says, those who voted for her. But her column is extremely emotional, as is her organization’s website

For example, New Haven Mayor John DeStefano is pictured as Che Guevera on a poster that says “John DeStefano - For a Socialized New Haven” (the image is soon to be featured on “our DeStefano Socialism apparel”). That does not sound like rational analysis of issues to me.

I welcome Ms. Kivela’s participation in the discussion of town government, but her emotional attack on people and their emotions is not a good start. Her accusation that Ms. McCarty’s intention to fire finance director Vincent Palmeri is based on rumor and gossip is not accurate. She knows that McCarty and others have been criticizing the work of Mr. Palmeri for several years, and that their criticisms go far beyond the grounds for arrest.

By the way, unlike the North Haven Info blog, you cannot place comments on the Community Watchdog blog without providing your name and email address. To participate here, you only have to register with Google (I have no access to this information).

Also, it does not appear that the Community Watchdog blog (if that is where the Spotlight columns are to be placed; this and the ability of town residents to comment are not discussed in the column) is functioning yet. But they seem to be testing it, so it should come on-line soon.

Michael Freda Is the Republicans' Selectman Choice

2007-11-21T07:42:00.000-05:00

(Draft Two)

Those of you who read the comments in this blog might have wondered why I’ve been giving Michael Freda such a hard time (see the comments to this particular blog entry).

It wasn’t just because he had attacked me viciously and personally in a letter to the editor a few months ago. It was because I suspected that he was the Republicans’ choice for Selectman, and that his reappearance in this blog was an attempt to cover over what he had done on the Board of Finance so that he would be a more palatable candidate (especially important since he might have to run in a special election).

Mr. Freda states in a comment to the first draft of this blog entry that when he first returned to the blog on November 9, he had not known he was being considered as a Selectman. He learned this on November 12. But I didn't start giving him a hard time until November 14, the day we learned that Mr. Kopetz was leaving office and I concluded that Mr. Freda was the most likely person to replace him.

The November 21 New Haven Register confirmed my suspicions.

I was clearly not alone in my suspicions. The day before, Marty K. wrote in a comment:

“Why are YOU Mr. Freda all of a sudden so eager to simplify and set the record straight on so many issues when you quietly sat in the background and said NOTHING while Mr Pederson went off so many times on his abusive partisan tirades? Simple explanations, like the ones you apparently feel compelled to give now that the reign of terror is over, could possibly have saved you people the election. It just doesn't make sense and I really have to question what possible other motives there might be for this sudden change in philosophy.”

Even yesterday, Mr. Freda denied any ulterior motives for his actions. He argues in his comment below that he didn't think it was fair to other candidates to mention here that he was a candidate. I don't see a fairness issue at all. A citizen wondered what he was up to, and Freda could have said, "I didn't return to this blog because I was planning to be a Selectman, but I am being considered for the position."

People who believe in closed government can always find excuses for it. But the default position should be open government all the time. What harm would it have been for the Republicans to disclose the names of the people they were considering, and to let town residents in on the process? Does it help trust in government that no one knows, for example, how Town Meeting moderators are chosen?

We need more transparency in North Haven government, not less. Freda's fairness argument is about courtesy (and I don't think even this courtesy was necessary). Courtesy should not stand in the way of government transparency.

Mr. Freda also argued that he and his fellow members of the Board of Finance were only acting in the public interest in an attempt to keep down taxes.

How could he have thought refusing Michael Hallahan’s requests to discuss bidding out contracts could possibly keep down North Haven’s taxes?

How could he have thought approving 37 budget transfers of $19,999 each (when the Town Meeting has to, by law, approve transfers of $20,000 or more) was in the public interest? Not to mention the other ways in which the Board of Finance broke state law on budget transfers, as I pointed out in detail here and at Town Meetings?

How could he have thought that underfunding the same budget items year after year, understating revenues (remember the $875,000 in revenues discovered between the first and second budgets this year?), and refusing to include any part of the additional state education funding in the budget was in the public interest?

His actions and inactions do not reflect ideological differences. They reflect a disregard for town and state law, for the rights of the Town Meeting, for the ability to save the town money by competitive bidding of contracts, and for transparency in government. They reflect the work of a political machine used to getting its way, and listening to no one. At least until things looked bad for the machine after the first budget was rejected, which led it to give in to the public interest in order to hopefully stay in power.

These are not matters Mr. Freda felt obliged to respond to. Fairness to his fellow candidates for Selectman, but not his actions and inactions as a member of the Board of Finance.

I talked in my comments about Mr. Freda’s values. The issue is not his vision of North Haven or his approach to budgeting. He says again and again that his views would be unpopular on the North Haven Info blog, but that isn’t true. No one has objected to his views on issues. It’s not his views that are unpopular, but his actions.

The issue is his willingness to speak independently in favor of the rule of law, and to show some remorse for the way he and his colleagues ignored laws, and the way they kept government closed, personally attacked those who criticized them and, until things started looking bad for them, did what they could to lessen citizen participation in government.

So far, in Mr. Freda’s comments, I have seen no willingness to put the past behind him by acknowledging what happened, so that we know that he is capable of acting not, for example, to affect his reputation before he is nominated for the Board of Selectmen, but acting truly in our best interests, whatever his party affiliation.

It’s not about your views, Mr. Freda. It’s not about partisan squabbles, either. It’s about having a town government that is open and honest, where town officials (and you still are one) will, when their motives are questioned by a citizen, admit they’re at least shortlisted for a top position, and not try to hide it even on the day it’s announced.

You failed the openness test yesterday, even when it would have done no harm to have done the right thing. Keeping your party secret was more important than telling the truth (or even part of it). That does not bode well.

Quote for the Day

2007-11-17T09:58:00.000-05:00

At an Auditors Conference in Vermont this September, Assistant Attorney General Christine Boraker, according to an article in the Rutland Herald, “said state and local governments must make significant investments in ferreting out unethical behavior. Lying on reimbursement forms, adding overtime hours to a timesheet or emotionally abusing subordinates, she said, can create hostile unproductive workplaces and cost taxpayers and communities substantially. Failing to identify transgressions early on, she said, breeds a ‘sense of entitlement that empowers progressively more serious acts of misconduct which may lead to unlawful acts.'"

Another State Investigation Touches on North Haven Government

2007-11-16T11:07:00.000-05:00

According to an article in today’s New Haven Register, the state Board of Accountancy has expanded its investigation of North Haven’s former auditing firm, Levitsky & Berney, to include three municipalities in addition to West Haven.

Is North Haven one of these three municipalities? If not, it should be. And, according to the article, the Board’s counsel, Rebecca Adams, suggests that each town appoint a contact person for her to deal with throughout the investigation. The first compliance meeting with the auditing firm is scheduled for sometime in December, so this is something that the new First Selectwoman, Janet McCarty, should do.

It cannot be someone from the finance department, because it is overseen by a former Levitsky & Berney auditor (this is a conflict of interest issue, not an accusation; I think the world of Ed Swinkoski). And it should not be anyone who had any responsibility of oversight, such as a Board of Finance member.

Vincent Palmeri Accepts Defeat (and Sick Pay)

2007-11-15T08:36:00.000-05:00

It appears that if Kevin Kopetz had been re-elected, Vincent Palmeri would have been brought back to run North Haven. What other conclusion can one reach when, the day after Kopetz’s defeat, Palmeri announces his desire to retire (according to an article in today’s Register)?

I wrote in a North Haven Post op-ed piece, before the gun charges, that the original allegations were only a minor reason why Palmeri should be fired.

Kopetz could no more control Palmeri’s activities than he could Ierardi’s. Palmeri was not a public servant, but a public master, and he apparently felt that, even after the gun charges, he could come back as a public master.

McCarty wasn’t going to allow this, so Palmeri decided to accept defeat in the game that he and his colleagues were playing.

Originally, according to the article, Palmeri said he would retire by the end of the year. But then he decided to change that to November 30, the last business day before McCarty becomes First Selectman. On December 3, McCarty would have begun the dismissal process with respect to Palmeri.

There's also the matter of sick pay. Here’s what the Personnel Policy Manual for Department Heads says:

"Payment of Accumulated Sick Leave - Upon retirement, death or voluntary resignation, a Department Head shall receive payment for accumulated sick leave. The payment will be for 100% of the accumulated days at the current straight time rate of pay."

Kevin Kopetz says the law should be followed with respect to Palmeri’s pension, but for a long tie he gave Palmeri sick pay (over McCarty's protest and with Mitchell's support) without Palmeri having retired, died, or voluntarily resigned. How is that following the law? Which lawyer told Attorney Kopetz to do that?

It’s this sort of taking care of friends that has undermined trust in our town’s government and, finally, driven Kopetz and his friends out of office. No apologies, no admissions, just take the money and run. Now that Palmeri is retired, he'll get all the rest of his accrued sick pay (the total accrued was $56,000; I don't know how much of that has already been paid).

For the record, here's what the Personnel Policy Manual for Department Heads says about conduct, which is relevant to dismissal:

"A Department Head is prohibited from engaging in any conduct which could reflect unfavorably upon the Town. Department Heads must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using public office for private gain or giving preferential treatment to any person."

How Kevin Kopetz Will Be Replaced

2007-11-14T11:09:00.000-05:00

You might wonder what the procedure is for filling Mr. Kopetz's position. Here is the state law which, according to Section 205(c) of our Charter, applies:

Sec. 9-222. Filling of vacancy in office of first selectman or selectman. Petition for special election.

When a vacancy occurs in the office of first selectman or in the office of selectman it shall be filled within thirty days after the day of its occurrence by the remaining members of the board of selectmen. ...

If such a vacancy in the office of first selectman or of selectman is not so filled within thirty days after the day of its occurrence, the town clerk shall, within ten days thereafter, notify the elective town officers enrolled in the same political party as the first selectman or selectman, as the case may be, who vacated the office ... and it shall be filled by such elective town officers within sixty days after its occurrence.

Any person so appointed shall serve for the portion of the term remaining unexpired or until a special election called as hereinafter provided upon petition of a number of electors of such town equal to five per cent of the names on the last-completed registry list thereof [somewhere around 600 names in North Haven, I would guess], but not fewer than fifty such electors.

Such petition shall be filed no later than fifteen days after the appointment by the remaining selectmen or such elective town officers, as the case may be. Such a special election shall forthwith be called by the town clerk upon the filing of such a petition with him and shall be held in accordance with the provisions of sections 9-164, 9-450 and 9-459....

This is very interesting. Two Democrats can pick a replacement for a Republican selectman, but the replacement cannot be a Democrat. The replacement may be unaffiliated, a Republican, a Green, Libertarian, or whatever.

If the Republicans don't like the replacement, they have fifteen days to present a petition with about 600 names, requesting a special election for a replacement, who would, presumably, run against the replacement chosen by McCarty and Fontana.

Therefore, it would be best for McCarty and Fontana to select someone who is acceptable to the Republican Town Committee. But by resigning, Kopetz could have prevented his own party from having someone on the Board of Selectmen.

Then again, considering that we appear to be going into a recession, the revaluation and high school bond interest costs are complete and here to stay, it may be the Republicans’ goal to place all the blame for higher taxes on the Democrats’ shoulders.

An interesting development.

Kopetz Declines to Serve North Haven

2007-11-14T10:18:00.000-05:00

Kevin Kopetz has decided not to accept the job he has referred to, falsely but consistently, as Third Selectman, according to an article in today’s Register (sorry, but the article isn't on-line). The former self-employed attorney said, according to the article, "for a number of reasons, I need to obtain, in fairness to my family, full-time employment. I didn’t think I could do that encumbered by having a part-time job that required another commitment on my part. It’s not fair to a future employer."

A comment from Nicky, a regular contributor, alerted me to the article, so I will place his comment into this blog entry: "I see from the papers today that Mr Kopetz’s ‘deep concern’ for the Town of North Haven seems to wane when there's no big paycheck involved!!! Maybe he's just afraid to be treated by the Democratic majority like the Republicans have treated them in the past? This scenario I do NOT think will occur because right now it appears that the incoming regime has a bit more class than the power drunk Republicans did. Time will tell, I think Janet, although not a smooth speaker, is sincere in her intentions, TIME WILL TELL!"

I agree with Nicky that, once again, Mr. Kopetz is putting his own interests ahead of the town’s. It’s not a part-time job he’s turning down (he held other important town positions while he was fully employed), it’s being in the position that McCarty’s been in all these years of having no power.

And it wouldn't be as bad for Kopetz as it's been for McCarty because, as Nicky says, McCarty would have treated Kopetz with respect, while that "nice man" for years treated her rudely and with disdain.

No, it’s all about power, and Kopetz doesn’t want any part of serving North Haven without having power. It’s not that Kopetz is a poor loser, it’s that this is a game to him and he’s lost. And when you lose, you go home. You don't stick around while the opposing team celebrates and moves on to the finals.

For McCarty it’s truly been about serving North Haven, no matter what abuse is thrown your way. She has finally communicated this to North Haven citizens, and Mr. Kopetz has emphasized how different he is from Ms. McCarty.

Bringing Transparency to North Haven Government: Part 1

2007-11-14T06:51:00.000-05:00

Janet McCarty and Steve Fontana have announced that they will be going on NHTV regularly (every week or so) to answer questions from citizens and to discuss what their administration is doing and planning to do.

This is a far cry from the Kopetz approach, which was to deal with citizens only one on one, in private. This is good for certain sorts of problems, but it keeps citizen recommendations and complaints private, when most of them should be public.

This is a great first step in bringing transparency to North Haven government.

The Democrats' Obligation to Bring Good Government to North Haven, and the Republicans' Obligation to Support This

2007-11-07T07:51:00.000-05:00

The Republicans were held accountable. It was a victory for democracy and our two-party system. (The numbers will be placed on northhaveninfo.org when I get them.)

Now, the burden of bringing good government to North Haven is on the Democrats' shoulders.

I will give them a short honeymoon to put all meeting agendas and minutes and financial information on-line, to move Board of Selectmen meetings to the evening, to bring us board and commission meetings where the chair chairs instead of dominates, to require town officials to fully and directly answer questions posed to them, to hire a town attorney who is a lawyer devoted to the public interest and not a politician devoted to those in power, etc.

As for the Republicans, they have to learn quickly to be a responsible opposition party. It won't come easy. The first thing they have to do is admit to themselves that their loss is their fault and no one else's. They've blamed and accused and attacked, and that's got to stop.

The Democrats did not create a closed town government, did not fail to bid out contracts, did not play fast and loose with budget transfer laws, did not fail to provide financial oversight, did not hide revenues, did not act arrogantly toward citizens, and all the rest.

Just as the Democrats now have the obligations that come with power, the Republicans had them before and, in many serious ways, they failed to meet their obligations. Admit your failure, at least to yourselves, and become a responsible opposition party, supporting the Democrats' efforts to heal this town and make it work openly and ethically, as well as financially.

Openness is a very risky thing. The Republicans didn't keep government closed for the hell of it. They did it because openness allows people to criticize more easily. It shows people what's going on.

It is very likely that the Republicans will take advantage of Democrats' attempts to open government, and that this will lead the Democrats to close things down. A responsible opposition party, one that has come to terms with its failures, wouldn't do this. We'll see.

Holding Those in Power Accountable

2007-11-04T10:51:00.000-05:00

Elected municipal officials are supposed to determine policies and provide oversight, and when they do not provide oversight or effective policies, they are supposed to be held accountable for their failures.

The Republican majority provided very little oversight, and did little with respect to policies until the Ierardi-Palmeri scandals this year. Even then, they did only as little as they felt they had to do not to lose the election.

When the town had to go through property reassessment, the Republicans did nothing to help homeowners deal with what they knew would be a large tax increase.

The Republicans did nothing to deal with the lies and omissions of the budget until the Democrats led the fight to vote down this year’s budget. And the Republicans did nothing about the illegal budget transfer system except misrepresent state law and a state Supreme Court case at a town meeting.

There was no oversight over department heads, one of whom was the Republican Town Committee chairman, the other effectively the town administrator, who was given powers that the Charter gives to the First Selectman.

Nothing was done about conflicts of interest, even when they were brought up at Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance meetings.

False threats were made about education cuts when it was clear the town would get an extra $1 million from the state for education.

And most important of all, until the scandals, many large and small contracts were not bid out, despite the Charter requirement to do so, and many were not properly bid out. This cost North Haven taxpayers millions of dollars, and the First Selectman had full responsibility for this. The Board of Finance had the responsibility to provide oversight over the contracting process, but the Republicans on the board would not allow the subject to even be discussed.

The Republicans’ failures were not due to incompetence. They were willful, they were the Republicans’ policy. And it cost taxpayers millions of dollars, the embarrassment of headlines, and the undermining of our trust in government.

Republicans have not spoken about any of these. They are not interested in being held accountable for their acts. They don’t care. What they care about is being re-elected. This cannot happen. This simply cannot happen. It isn’t about Janet McCarty or the Democrats or the scandal. It’s about trust, it’s about integrity, it’s about accountability, without which there is no democracy.

Register Calls for a "Thorough House Cleaning" of North Haven's Town Hall

2007-10-31T14:22:00.000-04:00

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.

What the Republicans Mean When They Say "Negativity"

2007-10-29T17:22:00.001-04:00

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.

How Does North Haven Differ from Chicago?

2007-10-29T10:01:00.000-04:00

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.

Timing Is Everything: The Ierardis Finally Speak

2007-10-28T13:04:00.000-04:00

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.

Ten Positive Reasons to Vote for Janet McCarty

2007-10-23T20:11:00.000-04:00

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.

Michael O. Peterson, Our Very Own Big Brother

2007-10-23T08:42:00.000-04:00

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.

The Forensic Report Part 2 - No-Bid Contracts

2007-10-21T18:04:00.000-04:00

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.

Biting the Bullet and Moving On

2007-10-18T07:55:00.000-04:00

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.

Two North Haven Government Contractors In Trouble with the Law

2007-10-17T07:40:00.000-04:00

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.

Where's Waldo? - The North Haven Edition

2007-10-15T15:21:00.000-04:00

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.

First Selectman Debate - Part 4

2007-10-12T20:13:00.000-04:00

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.

First Selectman Debate - Part 3

2007-10-12T16:28:00.000-04:00

“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.

First Selectman Debate - Part 2

2007-10-12T16:25:00.000-04:00

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.

First Selectman Debate - Part 1

2007-10-11T08:30:00.000-04:00

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.

Interests Opposed to Ours: How Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio Fooled the Town Meeting

2007-10-10T15:03:00.000-04:00

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.

Recent Letters to the Editor

2007-10-09T08:31:00.000-04:00

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).

Personal Attacks: What They Are, Why They're Done, and What You Can Do About Them

2007-10-07T11:04:00.000-04:00

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.

Getting to the Top of What Happened

2007-10-05T09:26:00.000-04:00

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.

The Forensic Report on the Community Services Dept.

2007-10-03T14:10:00.000-04:00

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.

The Board of Finance Gives the Town a Devil's Civics Lesson

2007-10-02T09:36:00.000-04:00

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.

Tonight's the Night to Teach the Town About Government Ethics

2007-10-01T06:43:00.000-04:00

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.

Palmeri the Political Liability

2007-09-29T07:03:00.000-04:00

The news in today’s Register that Kopetz has cut off Palmeri’s sick pay is hardly worthy of note.

Once again, attorney Kevin Kopetz is hiding behind "legal advice" when his decision to pay sick leave, against the town’s own policies, was illegal (see page 15 of the Personnel Policies Manual for Department Heads). Nothing has changed, except that it is even more embarrassing than before for him to be paying tax dollars to Palmeri.

Kopetz’s decision should be a managerial one. It’s not about whether Palmeri may be guilty. He is no more guilty today than he was a week ago, he has simply been accused of something new.

It’s about whether having Palmeri working for North Haven is in the town’s best interests. And it is clear that it is not, as I have detailed in my recent blog entry. And yet Kopetz has had nothing bad to say about Palmeri’s actions as an employee. Why? Because Palmeri has never been Kopetz’s subordinate, but Kopetz’s master.

All that happened this week is that Palmeri has become a political liability for Kopetz, who is seeking re-election. And yet Kopetz is quoted as saying, “I will not mix politics with the business of the town.”

Bull.

Palmeri Makes News, Kopetz Makes Silence: A Press Release from Selectwoman Janet McCarty

2007-09-28T06:56:00.000-04:00

More on Vincent Palmeri - a press release from Selectwoman Janet McCarty. For me, the most important part of this release is its emphasis on First Selectman Kevin Kopetz's silence. Despite all that Palmeri has done to hurt this town and help himself and his friends, despite the laws he has broken, the arrogance he has displayed, and the lies he has told, there has not been a word of criticism from Palmeri's boss and our town's chief executive officer.

It is clear that the town's best interests are not primary in Kopetz's actions. He simply cannot admit that he allowed the town to be harmed by leaving Palmeri in office not since Palmeri was arrested, but since Kopetz was named (not elected, remember) to office and given the power to fire Palmeri. Even if this gun offense forces Kopetz's hand, it is not the right reason to fire Palmeri. It is one of the least harmful things he has done.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – from Selectwoman Janet McCarty

McCarty Calls On Kopetz To Fire Vincent Palmeri Now

After learning of the latest State Police warrant issued for former North Haven Finance Director Vincent Palmeri (New Haven Register, 9/27/07), North Haven Selectwoman Janet McCarty called on First Selectman Kevin Kopetz to fire Mr. Palmeri immediately. “Each week seems to bring a new, even more disturbing revelation of corruption in Mr. Kopetz’s administration. By now it should be clear, even to Mr. Kopetz, that Mr. Palmeri’s employment with the town must be terminated,” she said.

McCarty also repeated her demand that Mr. Kopetz stop paying Palmeri at once. Said McCarty, “For the past five weeks, Mr. Kopetz appears to have been violating the town’s Personnel Policies Manual by paying Mr. Palmeri for ‘sick days,’ without providing any evidence that Mr. Palmeri is sick or on medical leave.” McCarty added, “The new allegations against Mr. Palmeri only serve to increase the outrage and sense of betrayal felt by North Haven residents. Clearly, there are more than sufficient grounds for Mr. Kopetz to dismiss Mr. Palmeri immediately, under Chapters 11 and 12 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual.”

Chapter 11 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual states,“A Department Head is prohibited from engaging in any conduct which could reflect unfavorably on the Town. Department Heads must avoid any action which might result in or create the impression of using public office for private gain or giving preferential treatment to any person.”

Chapter 12 of the town’s Personnel Policies Manual states, “From time to time, certain offenses or circumstances may occur which are of such seriousness that immediate dismissal of a Department Head may be necessary. The First Selectman may dismiss a Department Head for just cause upon giving the Department Head written notice of the reasons for the discharge and the effective date hereof.”

McCarty concluded, “As inexplicable as Mr. Palmeri’s alleged actions in this latest warrant are, Mr. Kopetz’s indecision is even more incomprehensible. For the good of the people in the town in which he lives, Mr. Kopetz needs to break his silence, explain his inaction, and take steps to remove Mr. Palmeri immediately from town employ.”

Vincent Palmeri, Public Master

2007-09-27T12:17:00.000-04:00

Vincent Palmeri. The first words he spoke to me -- four years ago it was -- were a threat. At a Town Meeting I had asked if we could vote separately on a number of special appropriations. After the meeting, when I was speaking with the First Selectman, Palmeri came up to me and said I would be responsible if any of the appropriations were voted down. He said it loud and literally in my face.

Public servants do not treat citizens this way. But then, Vincent Palmeri was never a public servant. He was a public master.

During the discussion about a forensic investigation, I and several others insisted that because Palmeri was the Director of Finance, and effectively the town administrator (in charge of personnel, procurement, and more), the investigation should not be limited to the Community Services department. Palmeri had access to, and power over, every department.

But the Board of Finance ignored this argument, showing more concern for the costs of the examination than for the cost to North Haven taxpayers of what Palmeri and his associates had stolen from us, in the form of cash, goods, and no-bid and insufficiently bid contracts (probably millions of dollars).

That decision has been clearly supported by the news today. You can read about it in the article Ann DeMatteo wrote in today’s New Haven Register.

Now Palmeri has been accused of purchasing two semiautomatic pistols with town money, money taken from the capital improvement fund, saying it was for “facilities.” One of these guns was found in a locker in the finance department, the other in Palmeri’s home.

Vincent Palmeri had access to, and control over, everything in North Haven’s government. Everything he touched is tainted, anything he had access to its questionable. And this includes the Board of Finance, which did everything he asked it to do, no matter whether it was legal or illegal, ethical or unethical. And the Board of Finance, of course, includes Mr. Kopetz, who has never stood up to Palmeri, never protected the town from his unethical and illegal acts.

This week’s Town Meeting showed the continuing power of Palmeri. He ignored the law with respect to budget transfer approval by the Town Meeting. The Town Attorney defended his breaking of the law by misrepresenting the law. The First Selectman said nothing one way or the other about the legality of the transfers, nor did any other member of the Board of Finance. Still, no one will publicly criticize Palmeri's putting himself above the law.

Palmeri has been North Haven’s town government for years. And he openly had a hands-off policy in his management. In paragraph 38 of the Joseph Ierardi arrest warrant affidavit, when the investigator asked Palmeri if he ever questioned any of Mrs. Ierardi’s overtime requests, he said, "you don’t question another department head." The investigator pointed out to him that this was his job. If only Kopetz had told Palmeri this!

Who knows what Palmeri and his associates have taken us for. All we know is that his associates have worked hard to make sure that we don’t find out. Why should we? It's only our tax dollars, after all!

For more on Palmeri, here is the op-ed piece I wrote, which appeared in the North Haven Post a few weeks ago:

There has been much talk recently about firing Finance Director Vincent Palmeri on the grounds that he was arrested for helping to hide some of what the authorities say the Ierardis were doing.

I don’t think that this is more than a small part of the reasons that Mr. Palmeri should be fired.

Firing Palmeri is not a radical idea. Even the Republican acting chair of the Board of Finance, Michael Peterson, has said publicly that he does not want to see Palmeri back at his job.

What has Palmeri done, beside running a tight ship in the finance department? Everything that people objected to about this last year’s budget process is his doing. It is Palmeri who year in and year out gave us an unrealistic budget by presenting seriously underestimated budget items to the Board of Finance. It is Palmeri who wanted an oversized contingent fund and who left out of the budget various sources of revenue, so that he had extra funds to work with. It is Palmeri who insisted that the town did not need to bid out several of its contracts, costing North Haven probably millions of dollars over the years. It is Palmeri who chose not to allow CIRMA to bid for our non-health insurance contract, and we know now that this cost us a lot. It is Palmeri who devised a sneaky way to get around the Town Meeting having to approve budget transfers over $20,000, by creating 37 budget transfers in the sum of $19,999 each. It is Palmeri who had to be forced to put the budget on-line and who did not put any Board of Finance meeting minutes in the library. It is Palmeri who arranged for the hiring of the Republican Town Committee chair as our Assessor, despite the fact that he was unqualified and did not take the test required by town ordinance.

In short, Palmeri had no respect for facts or laws or the Town Meeting or anything else that stood in the way of getting his budget passed as easily as possible. And that is why he should be fired.

Of course, the Board of Finance Republicans, including First Selectman Kevin Kopetz, went along with nearly everything he recommended (and the Democratic members questioned far too little of what he said). But they can all be thrown out by North Haven’s voters. Only Kevin Kopetz can fire Palmeri, and he should do it immediately, making it clear that the reasons go far beyond his arrest.

A Truly Embarrassing Town Meeting

2007-09-26T08:29:00.000-04:00

After last night’s Town Meeting, I introduced myself to the new North Haven Citizen reporter, Michael Russo, and I found myself deeply embarrassed about our town’s government. I put myself into the position of this outsider – an outsider who has covered other towns and understood what had happened – and I was ashamed for the leadership our town has to offer, and the arrogance that allows our leaders to put themselves and their political futures above the law.

In short, there was very little integrity to be seen in the high school auditorium. Nearly everyone was thinking more about himself or herself than about the public interest. It was all about winning and losing.

The principal issue raised at the meeting (by me) was the illegality of many of the budget transfers we were asked to vote on (illegal because, by law, the should have been approved by the Town Meeting months earlier) and the Town Meeting’s right to approve transfers taken from the Contingent Fund. The essential issue is that before the government may spend our tax dollars seriously beyond what we approved by voting for the budget, the Town Meeting is supposed to approve such expenditures. It’s not supposed to happen months later, when all we can do is rubber stamp illegal actions.

Not exciting stuff, certainly, but breaking a law is breaking a law, and the few powers given to the Town Meeting are worth protecting, I think.

The most embarrassing individual was our Town Attorney, Jeffrey Donofrio, who selectively quoted the state law provision (Sec. 7-348) that applies to the Town Meeting’s role in budget transfers, thereby misrepresenting it. And he did everything he could to muddy the waters, for example, quoting a section (7-347) that simply gives the Board of Finance the right to make transfers, before the rights of the Town Meeting with respect to these transfers are discussed in the following section. He acted as if this section meant that the Board of Finance can make the transfers all by itself.

He also mentioned a state supreme court case, without bothering to give the name of the case, so that people like me and you could not read it for ourselves.

It is clear that Mr. Donofrio was not acting as a lawyer for the Town, but rather as a lawyer protecting the illegal acts of First Selectman Kevin Kopetz and the rest of the Board of Finance. It was a devious, shameful, completely partisan performance.

Two members of the Board of Finance, Mr. Kopetz and Michael Freda, spoke without showing any concern for the possible illegality of their acts. And the other five members of the Board did not speak at all. This shows how much Board of Finance members care about whether what they do is legal or not.

Neither First Selectman candidate (both spoke) showed any interest in the illegality of the budget transfers. It’s a complicated issue, and they clearly did not think it would help them get elected. Neither Selectman candidate spoke, even Steve Fontana, a legislator who could have assured the Town Meeting that my interpretation of the statute was correct, or not.

This is the sort of lack of leadership that makes this town government so unethical and its citizens so uninvolved. When the people in our town who are responsible, people we elect to represent us and the people they appoint, do not show any concern about illegal actions, when lawyers hear another lawyer misrepresenting the law and say nothing, when candidates think of their candidacy rather than the obligations they will have if they win (or already have), our community is in trouble.

But it is not only those we elect who are the problem. We are part of the problem, too. Last night’s turnout was very small, and primarily town officials, employees, and Republican loyalists who always vote with the Kopetz Administration, right or wrong. Very few ordinary people turned out. One reason was the lack of preparation for the meeting by the town’s newspapers and leaders – people didn’t know why this meeting was important.

But the primary reason was indifference to participatory democracy. Parents of school-age children, fire fighters, and other groups come out in large numbers when they have a special stake in what happens, but rarely come out when only the whole town has a stake. They too think of themselves rather than the public good.

Perhaps the town leaders are right to ignore state laws and the Town Meeting’s rights. Perhaps the Town Meeting (that is, us) does not deserve the rights given to it, because it makes no attempt to protect them.

For more information about the budget transfer issue, click here.

Recent Articles: Forensic Audit, State Education Funds, Charter Revision, and Pensions

2007-09-24T09:53:00.000-04:00

During the last week, there have been a few articles in the New Haven Register that indirectly apply to North Haven, and one today that directly applies to us.

In Madison, representatives of the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance, and the Board of Education met publicly to decide how to spend the extra state funds for education received by the town this year. Madison received only an extra $326,000; North Haven received over $900,000, but in North Haven there was no public discussion about what to do with that money (despite my request at a Budget Town Meeting). So much for transparency in North Haven.

Another article concerns Guilford’s Charter Revision Commission, which is considering changes in Guilford’s form of government. Like other Town Meeting towns our size in Connecticut, Guilford takes a great deal of interest in its Charter, its most important law. And so should North Haven.

Another article deals with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s support for a New Haven resolution calling for a review of the city’s ability to reduce or revoke pensions of municipal employees or officials who used their positions to break the law.

We need to deal with this problem in North Haven, and consider not only actual acts, but also aiding and abetting such acts, and knowingly doing nothing about them. Remember that, when he was secretly recorded, Mr. Ierardi said that Mr. Kopetz, Mr. Donofrio, and Mr. Palmeri knew about his travel expenses game. If he was not lying, should there be no consequences when top officials, any of whom could have stopped a crime being committed, chose to do nothing?

And then there’s today’s article in the Register about North Haven’s recent Board of Finance meeting. It appears that the draft report from the forensic examiner, Kostin, Ruffkess & Co., has been sent to the Chief State’s Attorney office, without the Board of Finance members being able to see it. They’re trying to get it back, so they can discuss it at an October 1 meeting.

This sort of gambit has been used before, and I already let people in on it way back in June in a blog entry.

One example of this gambit involved an embezzlement case in Ledyard where, in November 2005, the water pollution control authority executive administrator, who had worked for the town for nearly 20 years, was suspected of having taken town funds. This was discovered by the town’s regular, annual auditor (unlike North Haven’s, which found no discrepancies). In March 2006, she was charged with first-degree larceny and tampering with physical evidence.

Ten months later, nothing. Even members of the town council were given almost no information. One executive session on the matter was held in December 2006. At that meeting, council members were provided with the results of the forensic report on the water pollution control authority’s financial records (completed in February 2006), but at the end of the session copies of the report were taken back. A local newspaper requested a copy of the forensic report, but this was denied. The mayor said that the audit had been sent to the Chief State’s Attorney "as part of an ongoing investigation" and that the town did not retain a copy. Why not?

When the council was asked to vote on a request for a second forensic examination, it had not yet seen the results of the first report. The minority party on the council complained about wanting to get to the bottom of what happened, and the majority party insisted that the case was being dealt with properly. Does this sound familiar?

Do we want to be kept in the dark here in North Haven, too?

Vote "No" on Budget Transfers at the September 25, 2007 Town Meeting

2007-09-12T14:07:00.000-04:00

On September 25, the North Haven Town Meeting will be asked to vote on certain transfers (due to underestimated budget items) over $20,000. This year, the Town Meeting is being asked to approve 17 of these budget item transfers totaling $830,000.

Below is a summary of the issues. And on the new Budget Transfers page of the North Haven Info website, you can find all the information you’ll need to decide how to vote, and arguments for why you should vote “No” on this resolution.

The Problem in a Nutshell
1. The majority of these budget items (“budget items” are the categories by which the finance department divides up town expenditures, within each area or department, such as overtime or building maintenance) have been underestimated year after year. If our town budget had honest numbers, very few transfers over $20,000 would be required. This would happen only when there were truly unexpected occurrences.

2. Town officials, including the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Finance, and the Finance Director, did not follow state or town law regarding Board of Finance and Town Meeting approval of budget transfers. Most important, the Town Meeting is supposed to approve department overexpenditures over $20,000 before they are made, not three months after the end of the fiscal year.

3. Budget item transfers over $20,000 between departments or from the Contingent Fund for the fiscal year 2006-2007 totaled $1.8 million, but the Town Meeting is only being asked to approve $830,000 of these transfers. The rest came from the Contingent Fund, but according to state and town law, these transfers also require Town Meeting approval.

What a “No” Vote Will Accomplish
By voting against the budget transfers, the Town Meeting will tell town officials to follow the law. A vote against the budget transfers will force town officials to acknowledge that they did not follow the law. Otherwise they will keep breaking the law and putting the Town Meeting in a position where it can only rubber stamp irresponsible decisions made long before. A vote against the budget transfers will also force town officials to come back and request Town Meeting approval of all transfers over $20,000 (the timing of the request for approval cannot be corrected this year).

Another View on Competitively Bidding Contracts

2007-09-06T09:07:00.000-04:00

Theresa Ranciato-Viele, former Democratic Selectwoman, wrote an excellent letter to the editor of the Courier this week. It concerns the pre-election decision of First Selectman Kevin Kopetz to finally comply with the Town Charter and send out service contracts for competitive bidding (the First Selectman has sole responsibility for competitively bidding contracts). Click here to read the article, for those who missed it in the newspaper.

How Not to Balance a Budget

2007-09-05T09:07:00.001-04:00

I would like to share with you Janet McCarty's excellent Selections column from last week, in case you were away and missed it in the newspapers. This is a continuation of North Haven Info's attempt to present to the people of North Haven a true picture of their government's budget, despite our town leaders' continuing attempt to fool us. The goal is a honest budget that will allow us to have the necessary knowledge to exercise our votes, no matter what our political positions.

The headline of a recent New Haven Register article suggested that Town Hall’s budget is tight and true ("North Haven finds itself with a small budget surplus"), but a look at the numbers reveals that the process is still as flawed as ever.

The end-of-the-year report reveals that $1 million of contingency funds were spent and another $1.5 million was transferred among various accounts. And that’s not all. As usual, Town Hall underestimated revenues—this time by $2.7 million. These corrections total $5.2 million – a far cry from the $109,000 surplus headlined in the Register.

The budget is full of items that confuse rather than illuminate how the town has spent your money. Two arresting examples are the $85,000 appropriation intended to pay for implementing the property tax revaluation (reval) phase-in, and the mysteriously missing insurance file that should have accompanied the $991,421 "refund" from the town’s insurance contractor.

At the last Board of Finance meeting, we learned that only $2,800 of the $85,000 appropriated for implementing the reval phase-in was needed. Some have dismissed this as a minor mistake. I respectfully disagree. The $85,000 appropriation was made only five months ago at a Special Town Meeting. At that time, Town Hall insisted that it needed the money to pay for computer technology, because implementing phase-in would be "a nightmare." In reality, the money wasn’t needed; the extra $82,200 was folded into the general fund. (You may recall that Town Hall used the "high cost" of implementation as a scare tactic to try to defeat the phase-in referendum.)

The mystery of the $1 million insurance refund is even more disturbing. At the last Board of Finance meeting,it was revealed that Town Hall had known for months that there was no documentation accompanying the nearly $1 million refund. One might think that, following the arrests and allegations of misappropriation of funds, Town Hall would do everything possible to clear up any and all suspect findings. But apparently Town Hall didn’t think it was important to inquire about the $1 million refund until Finance Board member Gerry Feinberg pushed for an explanation. Last week, at Mr. Feinberg’s insistence, a letter of inquiry was sent to the insurer.

Town Hall needs to do better job managing taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. We keep paying more but we are getting less for our money.

Republican Bites Dog -- I Mean, Another Republican

2007-07-30T14:02:00.000-04:00

Back in early June, the New Haven Register wrote that the Republican chair of North Haven’s Inland Wetlands Commission, Mark R. Trojanowski, called for more rigorous enforcement of our town’s wetlands laws, including “significant improvements ... in the process of documenting, investigating, reporting and acting on wetlands violations. Accountability and responsibility of this area must improve and be transparent to allow prudent and sound control and management of violations. The present system leaves open the door for abuse.”

Trojanowski said that the commission has been frustrated for years by the lack of documentation and by the lack of action taken on wetlands violations. He said that he expressed his concerns to First Selectmen Kevin Kopetz, to Public Works Director Richard Branigan, and to Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio.

You know things are really bad in North Haven when a Republican official goes public with criticism of other Republican town officials. But Trojanowski is hardly alone in his criticism. Vice chair Edward Bruce is quoted as saying, “we’ve asked for status reports for several years and once in a while a report is forthcoming ... but the status on all these alleged violations seemed unchanged from month to month. It’s not often that residential violations are brought to our attention, or any other violations, for that matter, unless the violation will cause permanent and irreparable harm.”

And Commissioner Leroy Gould said that there had been a power struggle between the town government and the Wetlands Commission over enforcement of wetlands laws.

I don’t know about the details here, but I certainly know the pattern. Department heads like to be in charge, and they don’t like their job made more difficult by bringing in more people, whether citizens at public meetings or citizens on boards and commissions. As with the Board of Finance and the Town Meeting, citizens are meant to rubber-stamp, not to question. And First Selectman Kevin Kopetz and Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio always back the department head or moderator against the people of North Haven, at least as long as there is not a public dispute and they feel they might lose.

According to the article, Public Works Director Branigan said that he was concerned about bringing the Wetlands Commission into the loop before the violation gets to the level of a cease-and-desist order, because the commission may have to make a judgment on the case. Commissioner Gould is quoted as saying, “Richard Branigan gave a silly argument as to why we shouldn’t get those reports, that we’re quasi-judicial and should someone appeal an enforcement action, we act in a quasi-judicial role and [should] be free of prejudice. What nonsense is that?"

That nonsense is just the sort of nonsense that is always spoken by North Haven town officials. We can’t do something because the law says you can’t, even if the law that says you can’t is never identified. “We can’t ask questions at Town Meetings, we can’t know what’s going on with the Ierardis or Mr. Palmeri, this is the way we have to do it.” Department heads and the Town Attorney and the Town Meeting Moderator say things like this, and rarely does anyone question them.

Well, not anymore. Now even Republicans are starting to question the nonsense we are told again and again. Now even Republicans recognize that the people who run this town can never admit their mistakes (not to mention apologize for them). Why? Because they’re not mistakes. They’re exactly what they intended. And what they intend is to be in charge and to keep the public from getting involved.

Lists of the Best Places Are Publicity Campaigns for the Magazines That Run Them

2007-07-26T06:44:00.000-04:00

I am not a believer in magazines' listings of the best. For one thing, whoever decides what statistics matter, and how much, decides who wins. And the statistics change, so that the winners can change -- that brings the magazine more publicity. If the same winners kept winning year after year, there wouldn't be very many front-page stories with the magazine's name, would there?

Take the Money Magazine listing, with North Haven in the top 100 nationwide. Two years ago (the last full listing), North Haven didn’t make the top hundred. In fact, none of the four towns in Connecticut that made the top hundred this year were in the top hundred two years ago. And the five Connecticut towns that were in the top hundred two years ago? Have they gone to the dogs since then? No, they had their headlines.

A few months ago, Connecticut Magazine did its own listing, and it broke the listing down by size of town. In our category, North Haven came in 21 out of 30. Not even in the top half. Does that mean our town is a terrible place to live? No, it just means that we didn't win on the basis of the statistics the editor chose.

North Haveners can't be so insecure as to care what magazines say about us. If we're happy here, we're happy here. What does Money Magazine or even Connecticut Magazine know about living here? So let's stop giving Money Magazine publicity and ignoring Connecticut Magazine because it didn't praise us this year. Let's stick to praising ourselves and criticizing ourselves.

A confident leader would ignore magazines. But sadly, Mr. Kopetz is desperate for anything that will make his weak leadership look strong. This is why he has made such a big deal of North Haven's supposed victory, and said nothing about Connecticut Magazine's rating of our town.

Why Steve Fontana Would Not Have Conflicts of Interest as State Rep and Selectman for North Haven

2007-07-25T08:33:00.000-04:00

Republican Town Committee chair Elinor Pedalino has accused Steve Fontana of a conflict of interest because he, our state representative, has decided to run for the position of selectman.

First, I want to point out that, to my knowledge, she has not publicly criticized anyone else for a conflict of interest, especially not her predecessor as Republican Town Committee chair, Joe Ierardi, who had a serious conflict between this partisan role and his nonpartisan role as a town department head. So it is clear that her criticism is in the worst sense partisan.

However, there is some validity to this concern. As a government ethics professional, I have criticized what is known as "double-dipping," that is, the holding of two government jobs, usually at different levels of government.

Whenever someone wears two hats, this leads to many possible conflicts of interest. In terms of double-dipping, the worst problem is representing two different constituencies, for example, a town on the one hand, and part of that town and other towns as a state representative. In Fontana’s case, his two constituencies would be exactly the same, so there would be no chance of a conflict here.

Another important conflict when one wears two government hats is a simple matter of time. For example, if you are a full-time First Selectman, any time you spend as a part-time state representative would take away from the time you have sworn to spend as First Selectman. Fontana does not have this problem, because he would be a part-time state representative and an even more part-time selectman.

Another problem with double-dipping is when an official uses his job to get himself a second government salary, and this allows him a much greater government pension. Fontana’s salary as a selectman would be very small, and the position carries no pension. His running for selectman has nothing to do with lining his pockets.

Finally, I can’t see any instance of Fontana having to deal with himself, the way, say, a First Selectman who is also a state administrator might have to go to himself seeking a grant for the town.

Notice I have not said that Fontana is a good person who would never allow a conflict to exist. This is the position that Ierardi took at a Board of Selectmen meeting when I criticized his wearing the two hats of department head and party chair, and no town official criticized this position, even though they all know that an individual’s character has nothing to do with a conflict existing.

What matters is that the most important conflicts that arise from double-dipping do not exist in the case of Fontana holding the two jobs of state representative and selectman for North Haven. There is no reason to believe that Fontana’s representation of the North Haven public at the state level would conflict with his representation of the North Haven public at the town level. He will be able to devote sufficient resources to both jobs, and he will not be taking advantage of his power at one level to give himself an extra salary and pension at another level.

In fact, there is one especially good thing about this situation. Fontana is an experienced lawmaker. He knows the law and seems to respect it. He will hopefully not allow our town’s laws, particularly our Charter, to be ignored, as it has been. Also, he will hopefully not hide behind the decisions of a seriously partisan Town Attorney, acting as if he does not understand laws himself, the way our current First Selectman, also a lawyer, does.

Is There a Con in the Word "Connection"?

2007-07-24T16:37:00.000-04:00

One advantage of being the incumbent chief executive officer of a town is that you can identify yourself with the town, and vice versa. When good things happen, you can take credit for them. When bad things happen ... well, that’s another thing.

North Haven’s chief executive officer, Kevin Kopetz, took this a bit too far with his first campaign flyer. There’s nothing wrong with his taking advantage of the timing of North Haven’s inclusion in Money Magazine’s listing of the best places to live in America. But there is something wrong with publishing his flyer as if it were a town publication. The top of the flyer reads: "North Haven’s Community Connection," and it even has an issue number and date as if this were a town publication.

This is all perfectly legal, because the town did not pay for this flyer. However, it is ethically questionable, and this is a serious problem for a man who prides himself on his integrity. It was so unnecessary, it seems almost desperate, at least desperate to please and to look pleasing.

Seeing this made me question the title of the blog and website that I run. I didn’t choose the title, but it too could be seen as falsely official. However, this was certainly never intended. In fact, this blog and website are a legitimate publication, and have nothing to do with my or anyone else’s political campaign. This is not true of the Kopetz flyer.

Town Attorney Prevents Public Information from Being Disclosed at Board of Selectmen Meeting - The Information Can Now Be Found Here

2007-07-23T16:46:00.000-04:00

At the June 28 Board of Selectmen meeting, our Town Attorney successfully prevented our town’s sick leave policy for department heads from being stated publicly. Therefore, I have obtained a copy of the Personnel Policies Manual for Department Heads and placed it up on the North Haven Info website.

During the public comments section of the June 28 Board of Selectmen meeting, Charles DeMartino spoke about the unpaid leave situation of finance director Vincent Palmeri and asked a question about the town’s sick leave policy.

As the Board members began to answer Mr. DeMartino’s question, Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio rose and said that the Board could not deal with this matter, because it was not on the agenda.

This was wrong, for two reasons, and Mr. Donofrio, a very intelligent lawyer highly experienced in dealing with Freedom of Information law, must have known this.

Section 1-225(c) of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act reads, “Upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of a public agency present and voting, any subsequent business not included in such filed agendas may be considered and acted upon at such meetings.”

Discussing town sick leave policy in response to a citizen’s question is not “business” as intended in this provision. No decision was to be made or discussed by the Board of Selectmen. Were Mr. Donofrio to apply this rule to all citizen questions, there would be only questions, and no answers.

In addition, Mr. Donofrio failed to say that, even if his objection were valid, the Board of Selectmen could vote to add the matter to the agenda, as the Freedom of Information Acts allows. When a Town Attorney raises a legal issue, he has a responsibility to state the law correctly and fully.

So what is this sick leave policy for department heads that Mr. Donofrio didn’t want us to know about (nor did Mr. Kopetz, another lawyer who knows the law equally well, but made no objection)?

Here is the sick leave policy, which can be found in the Personnel Policies Manual for Department Heads:

“Policy: Department Heads shall be eligible for sick leave with pay upon satisfactory completion of the probationary period, at which time the employee shall be credited with sick leave earned retroactive to his/her date of employment. Sick Leave shall be accrued at a rate of 1 1/4 days per month (15 days per year) to a maximum accumulation of 140 days. Such employees shall be entitled to accrue on additional 60 days sick leave to be used exclusively for long term disability resulting from a catastrophical illness or accident.

“Payment of Accumulated Sick Leave: upon retirement, death or voluntary resignation, a Department Head shall receive payment for a accumulated sick leave. The payment will be for 100% of the accumulated days at the current straight time rate of pay.”

In other words, Mr. Palmeri has been entitled to accrue up to 140 days of sick leave priced at his current salary, which works out to about $400 a work day, for a total of about $56,000. No wonder Mr. Donofrio had to come up with some way to stop this from being said in public.

Insurance and State Education Funding: First Selectman Kevin Kopetz Was Far, Far Off the Mark

2007-07-04T09:27:00.000-04:00

First Selectman Kevin Kopetz and his colleagues opposed delaying the second Budget Referendum, which would have allowed us to know what the state’s increase in education funding (ECS) to North Haven would be and what the decrease in the town’s non-health insurance premiums would be. He said that he didn’t know if there would be any decrease in the town’s insurance premiums, and he budgeted only a 1% increase in the state’s increase in education funding, and did not feel that increase should be changed.

By the day I chose for the delayed second Budget Referendum, June 29, we knew these numbers.

The increase in our state education funding was not 1%, but 54% or $930,000.

And, according to Mr. Kopetz, the decrease in our non-health insurance was just short of $1.5 million ($160,000 of that decrease in education).

How could our First Selectman and Board of Finance have been so far off – $2.4 million off?

They had every reason to believe that the ECS increase would be substantial. Both the Republican Governor and the Democratic legislature wanted to give North Haven a $1 million increase. There was absolutely no reason to believe that there would be no increase, but this is what was budgeted. Had even half of the expected increase ($500,000) been budgeted, as I requested, the threats about further cuts in education would have sounded as hollow as they were.

The insurance situation is more complicated. As I said in an earlier blog entry, Mr. Kopetz did not properly inform the people of North Haven about the insurance situation, so that they could not act responsibly as citizens. He misinformed people, and allowed others, who knew less than he and his advisors knew, to misinform them, too. Only at last week’s Board of Finance meeting did he start to deal publicly with the complexities of the situation, but by then the public’s part was over.

The number being thrown around – an insurance savings of $1,478,000 – is not true, as I learned at the opening of insurance bids, and as I reported in a blog entry. It’s ironic that when I predicted a savings in that range, town officials would not even admit to the possibility of any savings. Now they trumpet how much they’ve saved the town, when they really just did what town residents asked them to do in a petition (without giving town residents the credit). And now I have learned enough to know that the savings will not be as large as they say.

The reason for this is that the setup with CIRMA, the municipal-run self-insurance program of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, is completely different from what we’ve had in the past. In the past, we paid for insurance up front, and then three years later we either received a refund, as we did this year (about $900,000) or, when there was an unusual number and amount of claims, we paid even more. With CIRMA, we will pay a much smaller amount up front, and then pay as we go. Therefore, we don’t know how great our savings will be, although our insurance consultant apparently feels that the CIRMA policy will save the town money.

How much insurance savings should the town use to lower the mill rate? I would say, between $300,000 and $400,000. But it appears that the Board of Finance is using a larger number. This would be just as irresponsible as it was to use no number at all. I will find out what number was used, and then make the appropriate changes to this paragraph (I was out of town for last week’s Board of Finance meeting).

I was amused to learn that Mr. Kopetz is taking the position that the insurance savings to the education side of the budget is sufficient to offset the $150,000 cut from that side of the budget. Recall that he was threatening education cuts beyond this $150,000 cut, and I was arguing that his threats were hollow due to insurance savings and the ECS increase. Had the request to delay the second Budget Referendum been accepted, which would have required nothing more than Mr. Kopetz’s support, it would have become clear before the referendum that, as I argued, not even the past cut in education was necessary. And Mr. Kopetz himself has proved this to be true.

But Mr. Kopetz said that there might be no insurance savings. He was far, far off. We’ll never know why he was so far off, and why with so little knowledge my figures were much closer to reality.

Was he not telling us all he knew, or is he simply incompetent? It really doesn’t matter. What matters is that our town’s chief executive officer was far, far off. What matters is that when town residents said he was far, far off, he refused to budge. What matters is that even with demands for a realistic budget, even after a petition and speeches and letters to the editor, he did not give us realistic figures. And that his figures are still not realistic.

What We Can Learn from Other Connecticut Towns' Experiences with Embezzlement

2007-06-25T09:37:00.000-04:00

The name-the-forensic-chicken contest is over now, with Kostin, Ruffkess as our "forensic operations auditor." But there are still a few things to learn.

Kostin, Ruffkess’s proposal is especially informative. In its proposal, the firm provides newspaper articles on other municipal cases in Connecticut where it has performed forensic investigations in response to the discovery of embezzlement.

In Stonington, an accountant stole town funds, and her reaction, as well as the town’s reaction, were completely different from what has happened here in North Haven. The accountant had worked for Stonington for 25 years. In December 2003, after the finance director uncovered the theft and reported it to town officials, officials confronted her and she immediately admitted stealing up to $50,000 from the town. A town audit later placed the figure at $257,000.

An audit (as opposed to a forensic examination) was completely appropriate, because there was no question that the accountant had done anything other than steal money to fund her gambling addiction. She was happy that she was arrested, so that she could beat her habit, and she looked forward to providing the town with as much restitution as possible.

But the town did not wait for her trial to be over before filing a lawsuit against her to recoup the town’s losses. Stonington attached the accountant’s assets, including her home and her car. And the town’s first selectman and the chair of its board of finance both urged the judge to send the accountant to prison.

Things are going very differently in North Haven. Although the Ierardis have not, to my knowledge, confessed to anything or said anything about restitution, although they do not seem to have any addictions, North Haven officials are playing nice with them. Although our finance director not only did not uncover the theft, but has been accused of helping to hide it, no one is looking into what else he might have done in all the areas in which he had responsibility, from procurement to hiring to town finances.

Thank goodness that our town officials are not as bloodthirsty as the Stonington officials seemed to be at the trial (the accountant was given a sentence of one year in prison and an order to pay back all the money she stole). But will North Haven officials file suit, and will they attach assets before they can be sold, and will they try to find out all that was taken from the town, not just out of cash drawers, not just from false travel reimbursements, but also from such things as no-bid contracts, the hiring of unqualified people, and other acts I and others know nothing about? From the limited role of the "forensic operations auditor," this doesn’t seem to be the case.

In one article on the Stonington theft, it was noted that, although most of the embezzlement involved cash deposits and checks from commercial truck haulers, the audit also discovered discrepancies in the town’s general fund, shellfish fund, dog fund, escrow revaluation, and youth services, recreation, and sewer funds. This is an important indication that when someone from the finance department is involved, problems can occur anywhere, and an audit should not be overly limited.

In Montville, a water pollution control authority administrator embezzled $51,500 in town funds between 2003 and 2005. She was arrested in May 2006, and by January 2007, when she pleaded guilty, she had paid all the money back.. The administrator was sentenced to 90 days in prison, and she was ordered to pay back an additional $55,000 that the town had spent on the audit and in pay to the administrator during the investigation period.

No one in North Haven seems to have considered getting back from the Ierardis the cost of the audit or their post–arrest pay.

In the articles about this case, I saw one thing to watch out for. The auditor (presumably Kostin, Ruffkess) recommended merging the accounting functions of the water pollution control authority with those of the town, but the town council refused to do this. I hope that our town leaders listen better to the auditor’s recommendations.

But the most serious problems seem to have occurred with respect to an embezzlement case in Ledyard. In November 2005, the water pollution control authority executive administrator, who had worked for the town for nearly 20 years, was suspected of having taken town funds. This was discovered by the town’s regular, annual auditor (unlike North Haven’s, which found no discrepancies). In March 2006, she was charged with first-degree larceny and tampering with physical evidence.

Ten months later, nothing. Even members of the town council were given almost no information. One executive session on the matter was held in December 2006. At that meeting, council members were provided with the results of the forensic audit of the water pollution control authority’s financial records (completed in February 2006), but at the end of the session, copies of the audit were taken back. A local newspaper requested a copy of the forensic report, but this was denied. The mayor said that the audit had been sent to the State’s Attorney "as part of an ongoing investigation" and that the town did not retain a copy.

When the council was asked to vote on a request for a second forensic audit, it had not yet seen the results of the first audit. The minority party on the council complained about wanting to get to the bottom of what happened, and the majority party insisted that the case was being dealt with properly.

The $64,000 discrepancy originally discovered grew to $152,000 after the second forensic examination, presumably by Kostin, Ruffkess.

This month, the Ledyard administrator made a plea bargain with state prosecutors, pleading to first-degree larceny and accepting a maximum one-year prison sentence and restitution.

This is something else to watch out for: hiding the results of the forensic examination. Too much has already occurred behind closed doors, too many excuses about possible litigation, about employee evaluation, and the like. This isn’t a matter of how the Ierardis and Mr. Palmeri did their job, but possible criminal activity that arose from opportunities provided by their jobs. Reporters as well as I and others in North Haven opposed dealing with all of these matters in executive session, that is, secretly. There should be no more secrets, and no more excuses.

We should not forget that the Ierardis could have admitted what they had done, like the woman in Stonington. They could be paying back whatever funds they stole or misused, like the woman in Montville. Instead, they have chosen to say nothing, like the woman in Ledyard. Nor has Mr. Palmeri said a word.

Thanks to North Haven's Men in Hartford for the Big Increase in State Education Funding

2007-06-24T08:36:00.000-04:00

There has recently been a lot of criticism directed toward our state representative, Steve Fontana and, less so, against our state senator, Len Fasano. Besides the silly sniping about a circus elephant bill, the principal area of criticism has been their failure to get North Haven its fair share of state education funding.

Going into budget negotiations for this year’s state budget, Governor Rell and the Democrats wanted to give North Haven an increase in state education funding of a little over $1 million, while the Republicans wanted to give North Haven $880,000.

I believe that both Mr. Fontana and Mr. Fasano worked hard to get as much money for North Haven as they could. The result is an increase in ECS funding of $931,929 for this coming year, an increase of 54%. In contrast, New Haven received an increase of only 7%.

One reason that North Haven did not get more is that the legislative Republicans wanted more money to go to wealthier towns. Otherwise, we might have received a full million dollars.

But what is most important is that when the state finally decided to do something about the education cost sharing formula, North Haven benefited greatly. Our representatives in Hartford took advantage of this new attitude and made a great difference for North Haven.

I only wish they had had more faith in their efforts to have advised the Board of Finance to include at least half of the funding increase in our budget, so that we would have had a better idea what monies the town had to work with.

BoF Chair Embraces Idea He Rejected Last Week

2007-06-20T10:04:00.000-04:00

Board of Finance acting chair Michael O. Peterson might like to keep telling people I'm untrustworthy because I use numbers from the Connecticut Council of Municipalities (an organization on whose board Kevin Kopetz sits), even long after I've taken those numbers off the northhaveninfo.org website.

But when he hears a responsible idea, even after opposing it, at least he comes around to supporting it.

The responsible idea was my motion at last week's Budget Town Meeting to delay the referendum so that voters and the Board of Finance would know more about the cut in insurance costs (at least $360,000, it turns out) and the increase in state education funding (it looks like they're going to use Governor Rell's number, which is a $1.05 million increase).

According to today's New Haven Register, Mr. Peterson said that the Board of Finance will probably not set the tax rate at this evening's meeting, but delay it until the insurance and education funding figures are solid.

This is not quite what I was asking for. In a participatory democracy like North Haven's, I felt that town residents should also have more information before they made their decision on the second budget (they wouldn't have voted until next Friday). Mr. Peterson seems to feel that only elected representatives should have this information before they decide.

Too little and too late, but still a good judgment, Mr. Peterson. Too bad you didn't talk about delaying the vote at the Budget Town Meeting last week. But that would have given me some legitimacy, and you want nothing less than to give me legitimacy.

The Second Budget Barely Passes - People Weren't As Frightened as They Were Supposed to Be

2007-06-20T07:06:00.000-04:00

I was happily surprised to see the voting on the second budget so close.

Here are the numbers:

District 1 - 346 for, 481 against
District 2 - 475 / 527
District 3 - 578 / 327
District 4 - 265 / 215
District 5 - 532 / 512
Absentee - 28 / 26
Total - 2224 / 2088 (51.6% / 48.4%)

Considering how much the Republicans on the Board of Finance changed their ways – making budget items more realistic and adding in revenues that should have been there in the first place – how much Mr. Kopetz and others tried to scare people into voting for the budget (or lose all-day kindergarten, as well as services and personnel on the town side), and all the speeches that were made and signs that went up to save our schools, it’s amazing that the budget didn’t win by a landslide.

People weren’t nearly as frightened as they were supposed to be, except in the third district (Ridge Road School), which had been the only district in favor of (narrowly) the first budget. District 1 (Recreation Center) was just as much against the budget, and the other three districts were split pretty evenly.

At the Budget Town Meeting, it looked like the empty threats were doing their job. But the vote gave us a different story. Not only are a lot of people unhappy about the rise in property taxes, but they don’t seem to believe that they are being given the best budget possible, that is, they don’t seem to believe that the people who run this town are acting in their best interests.

The Next Budget Vote Is All About Who Runs This Town

2007-06-16T06:45:00.000-04:00

Now that the insurance bids have been opened, we know that town non-health insurance budget items will be at least $364,000 lower than what has been budgeted. This means that if the second budget is rejected, all that needs to be done is cut the amount of these budget items. There is no need to make any further cuts in education, services, or personnel. As I said in an earlier blog and at the Budget Town Meeting last Monday, Mr. Kopetz’s threats of further budget cuts were hollow.

The insurance windfall could be used to offset some or all of the $150,000 recently cut from the education budget, as I originally proposed. But I no longer think this is the right approach. If the School Superintendent, teachers, and parents do not want that $150,000 back, as they clearly expressed at the Budget Town Meeting, then who does? The insurance windfall would be better used to bring town property taxes. The same thing with the increase in state education funding (they’re very close to an agreement in Hartford, and no one is talking about cutting the education increases; North Haven’s will be about $1 million).

But I do believe the budget should still be rejected. A message needs to be sent to Mr. Kopetz and the rest of the Board of Finance that they must present to the people of this town an honest and complete budget.

I proposed a compromise on Monday night, to allow the insurance decrease and the state education funding increase to be added to the second budget before it is voted on, but town officials did not even show this compromise the slightest respect. They gave us a clear choice: (1) we vote for an incomplete budget because we’re afraid they’ll cut education, despite the $364,000 insurance cut and the million-dollar increase in education funding; or (2) we vote No in favor of a complete budget and make them afraid to give us an unrealistic, incomplete budget ever again.

This is all about who runs this town. Is it town officials who play games with numbers, withhold information from us, and make false threats? Or is it citizens who want an end to this game and these empty threats, who want the first budget to be realistic and complete?

For years, town officials have run this town without ever being worried about us (we just vote them in again and again), and that’s why the Ierardis and finance director Vincent Palmeri believed they could get away with anything. Now the balance is shifting toward us citizens. We cannot lessen the pressure now. We cannot give way to fear. We must send a clear message that this is our town, and that we want our officials to give us a complete, realistic budget we can be proud of.

Please vote on Tuesday. This is a far more important vote than it seems.

The Opening of Insurance Bids: Good News for North Haven, and a New Can of Worms

2007-06-15T16:12:00.000-04:00

After the opening of the insurance bids today, and an informative talk with our insurance consultant, Guy Barnhart, and our town treasurer, Richard Guandalini, who is also an insurance agent, I now have a much better understanding of our town’s insurance situation.

The situation is both better and worse than I had thought.

It’s better because it appears that our town has not been paying exorbitant amounts to our insurance agent just because certain companies were excluded from bidding. But we have been paying a lot more.

Our long-time insurance agent, North Haven Insurance Group, has brought its town insurance premiums down from $2,384,000 last year and $2,435,000 for next year (that is, what was budgeted for next year) to $2,071,000. If the decision is to stay with our regular insurer, the town will save $364,000, a 15% savings and over twice the amount cut from education budget since the rejection of the first budget. (I can't say what the savings would be from the other two bids, from H. D. Segur of Cheshire and CIRMA, the nonprofit arm of the CT Conference of Municipalities, because the differences in how they presented their numbers is way too complicated; the consultant was hired to figure it all out.)

What's important is that the town did get a big savings from opening the bidding up to companies that had never bid before (although municipal insurance is so complicated, it is impossible to say what portion of the decrease is due simply to opening up the bidding).

The insurance situation is worse because it appears that our town has been paying exorbitant amounts for insurance because we have so many more employees doing jobs that lead to accidents than other towns do, and our insurance claims are high. We have what is called a "high experiences modification rating," what we would call a "bad insurance record."

This points to something the town has to deal with, openly, honestly, and through public discussion.

Here’s the deal. North Haven is paying much more (as much as twice as much) for insurance than other towns our size not only because of inadequate bidding, but also because (1) we have more people doing jobs that lead to accidents, from fire fighters to refuse collectors, than most other towns our size; (2) our payroll is higher; and (3) we file more insurance claims than most other towns our size.

Insurance (not just the types bid out today, but also health insurance, which is even higher) is one of the hidden costs of the way North Haven provides services. Other hidden costs include overtime, pensions and other employee benefits.

North Haven has great services, but we are paying a great deal for them. I feel that we need to discuss our services one by one, to determine what we need and how best to provide and pay for them. I am not a great believer in privatizing (that is, contracting out) public services, but a failure to discuss this option is irresponsible. All options should be discussed.

Our community’s values should be discussed, as well. For example, if we were to contract out our refuse collection, we could insist on specifications that provide workers with health care and other benefits, so that we did not change our approach by hurting others. We could even insist that as many of our employees as possible be offered positions by the winning contractor.

This is a controversial and difficult topic, and it should be handled responsibly and fairly, with respect to both town employees and residents.

What should not happen is what has happened with insurance, and this is another very bad thing I learned today.

I and others have been making criticisms about the way insurance is handled, but we did not have a full understanding of the way premiums are determined. First Selectman Kevin Kopetz, who is the person in town who makes decisions about the selection of insurance providers, could have spoken at a number of meetings in order to help us better understand the situation. He could have called in our town treasurer or the insurance consultant to explain things. But he chose not to. He chose instead to let me and others, including the newspapers, partially misinform people about the insurance situation, which is no different than his misinforming people himself.

Ask yourself why he would do such a thing, why he did not want people to understand the insurance situation, why he did not even properly inform the news media. Also ask yourself why he did not appear at the opening of insurance bids, since he is the one who will make the decisions, and he is the one that I, reporters, and others wanted to ask questions of.

Could it be that he did not want us to fully understand the insurance situation? Could it be that town residents' confusion would be to his advantage? Could it be that understanding the insurance situation would open up a new can of worms?

North Haven's Town Government: Business or Service Provider? No, It's Much More Than Either

2007-06-13T09:26:00.000-04:00

A big topic of discussion at this week’s Budget Town Meeting was whether the town government is a business or not. Some citizens argued that it should be run like a business, and some town officials argued that it’s not a business, but a provider of services. Neither of these views comes close to the views of public administration specialists.

This discussion goes back to an 1887 essay by future president Woodrow Wilson, arguing that public administration should be more businesslike, with solutions approached scientifically. Let me bring some perspective to this discussion, to further people's understanding of the obligations of public service.

What does it mean to say that government is about providing services? Is it enough to make sure that garbage is picked up on time and that the streets are safe? There are private refuse companies and private security firms. Are their responsibilities the same as governments’? No, they are businesses out to make a profit. When it turns out that underworld figures have been running a refuse company that has picked the garbage up on time, has the government that hired them fulfilled its obligations to its citizens? A government’s obligations to its citizens go far beyond providing services. And a government also has greater obligations to its employees.

What does it mean to say that government is a business? It’s certainly not intended to make a profit, nor is it supposed to compete to supply demands (or, certainly, create demands). What it means to say that government is a business is that it should be run professionally and responsibly. Public servants should be hired on the basis of their knowledge, competence, and skills, they should follow laws and standards, they should talk and meet with others like them to share best practices and learn to solve problems, and they should work efficiently and at the least possible expense to supply the services within their areas of responsibility.

But government is much more than this, because public servants’ obligations are much greater than those of business people. Business people are expected to sell as hard as they can get away with, making misrepresentations, confusing matters, anything to sell a product. Public servants are not supposed to do this. Business people have all sorts of secrets, everything from chemical compounds to sales approaches. Public servants are not supposed to keep anything secret. In fact, they have an obligation to make their work as transparent as possible, because democracy depends on citizens’ knowledge and understanding. Business owners can hire and contract with their friends and relatives all they want. Public officials are not supposed to. Business owners have no obligation to act in the interests of a community; they can pick and choose their customers, their places of business, etc. (unless they're public facilities). Public officials have an obligation to act in the public interest and not to discriminate in any way.

I could go on and on, but I think you understand the difference by now. Why is there such a big difference? Because public officials aren't proprietors, they're trustees. They handle our money, and we give them power and authority, and in return they have fiduciary obligations to us. They have to spend our money in the public interest. They have to wield their power and authority for our interest, not for their interest or the interests of their friends, family, or business associates.

This difference also applies to the consumers of government services, better known as citizens. Consumers have a limited role: they buy or don’t buy. They can complain, but this is part of the sales mechanism. Citizens have not only a right to complain, but a responsibility to participate. They can’t go to board meetings, but they can go to selectmen meetings (if they don’t have a job), and they can make their feelings known. And they can vote, not only at elections, but also at town meetings and through petitions and polls.

Governments make decisions that affect all of us. If they don’t invest enough in education, for example, our economy will go downhill. There’s not another company that’s going to pick up the slack as there would be, for example, if a computer company didn’t move ahead fast enough with technology.

North Haven’s government falls short in all these aspects. It is not sufficiently efficient or professional in many ways, most notably in the bidding out of contracts and in some of its hiring decisions, such as hiring two unqualified assessors in a row. Nor has it met many of its higher, ethical and fiduciary obligations, in areas such as transparency, honesty, and patronage. And its high overtime costs show clearly that the town government is not providing services at the lowest possible cost and has been placing too much strain on some of its employees.

Nor have North Haven’s citizens fulfilled their responsibility to participate in their government. Meeting attendance and voting numbers are embarrassing.

The question is not simply whether North Haven’s government is run like a business or is a service provider. Neither would nearly be enough. The question is whether North Haven’s government is run like a government: efficient, open, honest, fair, participatory. And the answer is, sadly, No, although since the Ierardi-Palmeri arrests, things are changing for the better.

A Disappointing Budget Town Meeting

2007-06-12T08:41:00.000-04:00

After last night’s Budget Town Meeting, I felt deeply disappointed, and I would like to share that disappointment with you.

I should start with myself. I was disappointed that I had not expected Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio to play with the rules, that I had not been prepared for all the twists and turns he could bring to the situation. I’d like to say I was disappointed that I was so emotional, but my expectations are low on that front.

I was disappointed that so many North Haven residents were so self-interested. Teachers and parents spoke on and on about the need to support our children’s education. Businesspeople talked about running the town like a business, and town employees talked about providing services. Very few people took the trouble to get out of their own interests to take a larger view of what is happening in our town and what can happen, if only. . .

This is a period of enormous change in our town and in our state, and yet the meeting felt like the same thing all over again. Governor Rell devoted herself to bringing more state money to local education, and yet no one thanked her, they just doubted whether the money would actually come, even though the legislature has embraced her vision in a rare case of bipartisan cooperation.

Yet the same people who doubted Governor Rell’s vision for education and taxation in Connecticut fully believed in First Selectman Kevin Kopetz’s and School Superintendent Sarah Querfeld’s threatened cuts to North Haven education, and fully accepted the cuts that were already made (on top of the cuts that had been made before that). All I heard were fears, fears that rose to certainty, that if the second budget were rejected, it was inevitable that education would be cut again.

And the same people doubted, doubts that rose to near certainty, that what I said about the insurance bidding was true, even though I am not a politician seeking office, not even a member of a party, but a citizen who has been devoting himself to bringing transparency and accountability to government. Did anyone ask themselves why I brought the motion I brought? Did anyone who asked this question give themselves anything but the cynical and untrue answer, to further the Democrats’ bid for power? (My motion was an attempt to delay the referendum for a week and a half to allow enormous savings in insurance and the expected increase in state education funding -- each in the vicinity of $1 million -- to be included in the budget, so that the $150,000 education cut could be added back in and no further education cuts be made.)

My next disappointment is that the town’s leading Democrats were unwilling to take a stand. Janet McCarty, the two Democrats on the Board of Finance, officers of the Democratic Town Committee, none of them was willing to get up and tell you the truth: that the budget is in your hands, that Kevin Kopetz and the others who write the budget are not going to cut the education budget when they have all that new money from the insurance windfall and all that new education money from the state. They apparently feared that you wouldn’t believe them either, and would take what they said as merely politics rather than as a recognition that things have changed in this town, that now the people who run the town are every bit as afraid of losing power as the people who want to preserve its schools are afraid of losing the all-day kindergarten.

Or the people who run this town were afraid, because after last night, I don’t think they are anymore. They were given the shot in the arm they needed. If the second budget passes, things will go back to the way they were. They will know that threats still work, and that few people will admit to themselves that they are acting out of unfounded fear. Fear has no place in a democracy. Fear undermines our freedoms. But fear was everywhere last night.

And fear stops people thinking. Teachers, who should be able to think critically, refused to listen to new information and worked on false assumptions, accepting uncritically whatever officials said, because those officials control the education budget.

People didn’t notice that no town official put himself on the line regarding the insurance bids or state education funding. I provided numbers, they provided none. What did they have to hide? No one seemed to care. They were too afraid of further cuts to care.

There was nothing disappointing about Board of Finance chair Michael Peterson. He brought out the same charges against me he’d made at the last meeting, even though he knows that I got my numbers from the Connecticut Council of Municipalities (CCM; Mr. Kopetz sits on its board), and that when I learned that two of them were wrong, I took all the CCM’s numbers off the northhaveninfo.org website. But when Peterson is criticized by a person with integrity, he has to bring that person down to his level. It’s sad.

Nearly everyone last night was speaking out of his or her self-interest. Why should I be any different? It is in my best interest to stop putting so much time into making our town government transparent and accountable. It is in my best interest, since I have no children, to vote for cutting the school budget.

I have devoted my life to good government, especially in the area of municipal ethics. I do work in this field across Connecticut and around the country. My work in North Haven has taken time away from my work elsewhere. Why should I devote myself so much to this town? I mean that as a question, and I would like an answer.

Why should I not drop this blog and website, stop going to meetings, stop speaking out against the misuse of power and in favor of transparency and accountability in our town government, when I can do so much good elsewhere? This is not a rhetorical question. I would like an answer.

Kevin Kopetz Threatens Budget Cuts He Will Not and Cannot Make

2007-06-09T09:47:00.000-04:00

There are three principal problems with the second budget.

1. Nearly half the seriously underestimated budget items are still underestimated;

2. The $1 million increase in state funding to education is not included in the budget, and yet the town’s education budget was cut by another $150,000; and

3. The hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings we will be getting from finally bidding out many of our insurance policies is also not included in the budget.

In his most recent weekly column, on the revised budget, First Selectman and Board of Finance member Kevin Kopetz did not give us straight talk about any of these three problems. Instead he threatened to cut the budget in ways that he neither will nor can do.

Underestimated Budget Items : Mr. Kopetz notes in his column that $700,000 was taken out of the contingency fund to do something about "traditionally underfunded" budget items, but he says nothing about the $575,000 in underfunded budget items that remain underfunded.

Education : Mr. Kopetz does not take responsibility for failing to include in the second budget any portion of the expected state increase in education funds. He blames "our state legislators," saying that due to their advice the Board of Finance was "unable to add revenue from the state," adding that "there are numerous budgetary proposals in Hartford, and little consensus at this time."

There are only two principal state budgetary proposals on the table, and there is no disagreement about the coming year’s increase in state aid to North Haven. The Governor wants an increase of $1.05 million and the Democratically-controlled Appropriations Committee wants an increase of $1.07 million. That sounds like consensus to me. Yes, there is a Republican proposal (not on the table), which would give North Haven only $.88 million, but even that would mean more than enough to cover the $150,000 cut from our town’s education budget, with $730,000 left over.

But Mr. Kopetz didn’t share these numbers with his constituents. He simply said the BoF was unable to do anything. They're powerless. It isn’t their fault.

The Board of Finance did not consider the options other Connecticut towns considered, everything from including the governor's budget figure in the budget (e.g., Newington and Rocky Hill) to including the state legislature's budget figure (e.g., West Hartford) to including half the governor's figure (e.g., Portland and Tolland), to including the usual small increase in state funding (e.g., Avon and Ellington). Instead, even as the state budget figures stayed the same and state budget agreement grew near, the Board of Finance did not discuss the issue.

This is the BoF's fault. Kopetz and the other members of the Board of Finance were elected to give us the straight scoop about our budget, and they failed. The BoF Republicans (because both Democrats voted against the education cuts) cut our education budget knowing that the state was earmarking large additional funds for North Haven education. (For more on this issue, click here).

Insurance : Although Mr. Kopetz is the individual in charge of awarding new insurance policies and, therefore, knows all about the savings they will bring the town (we hired a consultant to put together the bid request, so this doesn’t require any expertise on his part), he completely left this issue out of his column. Our savings should be upwards of $1 million (towns our size using the municipal-owned CIRMA plan spend over $1 million less a year than North Haven in workers compensation insurance alone!), and we will know on June 15.

But Mr. Kopetz chose not to share this information with the people of North Haven.

Instead, he gave us threats: "If the budget is rejected, then there will be further budgetary reductions ... that may be unpopular and may include personnel and losses in service."

This means that, despite a state funding increase of $1 million and a decrease in several insurance budget items totaling upwards of $1 million, Mr. Kopetz still would cut services and personnel! That would be gross mismanagement.

No, Kopetz wouldn’t do that, and he wouldn’t have to do that. He would only have to cut the insurance figures in the budget. He would also have to make additions to the education budget with the state money intended for that purpose. And he could also cut taxes and fund underfunded budget items, as well.

No, Kopetz won’t do what he says he will do. In his column, he is only trying to use the power of his position and the respect he has among people in North Haven to scare us into voting for a budget that includes neither the state education funding increases nor the decreases in insurance costs, which wrongfully (due to the state increases and voters' clearly stated desires) cuts education, and which still leaves $575,000 in budget items seriously underfunded.

It is clear from Mr. Kopetz’s column why we have to vote against the budget: to put a stop to his and his colleagues' false threats, omissions, and misrepresentations, and to give the town an honest budget.

The Register said in a recent editorial that our town’s "budget numbers are as suspect as the people who put the figures together," and this week the Post said we still need a more realistic budget. This isn’t just me. This isn’t partisan, and this isn’t a personal attack.

The only attacks that are going on in this town are the attacks on our belief and respect in our town's political leaders. We are being threatened with budget cuts that will never occur, and information is being withheld from us. There is no reason to put up with this.

Mr. Kopetz and the rest of the Board of Finance have clearly not gotten the message yet. Maybe another rejected budget will do this. The first rejection took them part of the way. Maybe another rejection will take them all the way to an honest, realistic budget this town can be proud of.

It's a Double-Yolker! And There's Still a Chance that the Forensic Chicken Might Be Reborn

2007-06-08T11:36:00.000-04:00

The forensic egg is still up in the air, but at least it’s definitely a double-yolker. Well, nothing is definite in the world of forensic chickens and eggs.

Yesterday evening, the Board of Finance Auditor Subcommittee met to choose firms to do the town’s annual audit and its “forensic operations” audit. By “double-yolker,” I mean that the same firm will not being doing both of these audits, which would involve a conflict of interest. At the last Board of Finance meeting, chair Michael Peterson expressed a concern that having two firms do this job might not be “economically prudent.” Fortunately, the subcommittee did not share this concern.

The subcommittee started with the uncontroversial audit, the annual audit, but I will start with the “forensic operations” audit.

Five firms bid for the “forensic operations” audit, if you can call them bids. Subcommittee member Michael Hallahan quoted acting Director of Finance Edward Swinkoski as saying that it would be like bidding on the painting of a house you haven’t seen. Basically, the firms provided hourly rates for its various levels of employee/partner and, sometimes, maximum totals.

One of the five firms was McGladrey & Pullen, which won the annual audit (sorry to give away the plot), so it was not considered for the “forensic operations” audit.

Of the other four firms, Checkers had the lowest hourly rates, but it is a forensic specialist and did not list its operations audit accomplishments.

Of the three firms with more operations experience, all three members focused on Kostin Ruffkess, a New England accounting firm with some municipal operations experience (Mansfield’s Community Services center and Cheshire) and a forensic capability.

Hallahan, the subcommittee’s lone Democrat, offered an excellent solution: choose Checkers for the forensic work and Kostin Ruffkess for the operations work. There is nothing in the bid request that requires the selection of only one firm.

The other two members, who had emphasized Checkers’ lack of operations experience but excellent forensic credentials, were not sold on this. However, they agreed to recommend both names, but not Hallahan’s solution, to the full Board of Finance. My guess is that the BoF is unlikely to go with Hallahan’s solution (which is basically what he’s argued for all along), but at least it will have the chance.

Timothy Doheny expressed a concern about having three firms in the finance office, but it has already been agreed that the forensic examination takes first precedence. Therefore, if Checkers were chosen to do the examination, it would have first dibs on the finance department’s personnel. And in any event, much of its work will be done in the Community Services and Recreation and other departments, and it will involve interviews rather than going through documents in the finance department. In other words, it’s a non-issue, and it was the only argument made against having three firms.

As for the annual audit, only two of six firms asked to bid actually sent in a bid. This is sort of shocking (“Don’t they like us?”) until you look more closely and discover that one of the six firms works in northwest Connecticut, and another works in eastern Connecticut. A third firm, Kostin Ruffkess, probably figured that it wouldn’t get both jobs, so it only applied for the “forensic operations” audit. So that means only one firm, the one Connecticut accounting firm with forensic capability, doesn’t like North Haven, or has enough work.

None of this was mentioned at the meeting, by the way, because it would be embarrassing to admit that the subcommittee’s sole criterion for choosing firms (how many municipal audits they do in the state) was not well thought out.

The firm chosen to do the annual audit is a national firm with an office in New Haven, McGladrey & Pullen. One criterion used to select this firm was the fact that municipalities keep using it year after year. But that’s also true of the firm that, until now, did North Haven’s audit year after year, and pointed out none of our financial problems (nor did it catch problems in West Haven last year). It’s not good to keep a firm on too long. It becomes too close to the people it’s supposed to be auditing.

The bottom line is that the subcommittee did well in not selecting just one firm to do both jobs, and in allowing two firms, one specializing in operations audits, the other in forensic examinations, to be considered by the Board of Finance to do the second job, either together or apart.

But the subcommittee did not make an effective argument against Hallahan’s idea of separating the two aspects of the “forensic operations” audit, and it gave the town very little choice in its selection of an annual auditor.

The forensic egg is now in the Board of Finance's court. It meets next on June 20, the day after the next budget referendum. Let's hope the BoF doesn't make a goose egg out of it.

If the BoF selects Checkers to do a forensic examination of Community Services and aspects of other departments, and it gives Checkers the leeway to ask the right questions, concerning not just cash, but also contracts and other matters, the forensic chicken I originally didn't count on might just be reborn. And North Haven might just learn what has been happening in this town.

State Increases in Education Funding Will Be Enough to Offset Cuts to the Education Budget and Cut Taxes, Too

2007-06-07T15:51:00.000-04:00

I did some research on the state budget, which was supposed to pass yesterday, but the compromise was not reached (they're still negotiating on it up in Hartford). Most of the disagreements are about taxing, not spending, and certainly not about this year's increase in state education funding through the ECS formula.

The two important budgets -- the Governor's and the Democrats' -- give North Haven almost exactly the same increase:

Governor - $1.05 million
Democrats - $1.07 million

The Republicans' budget, which is not on the table, would give North Haven $.88 million. But even that wouldn't be bad.

At the last Board of Finance meeting before last week's, First Selectman Kevin Kopetz said that we should use the lesser of these three budget figures. However, he did not include any of these figures in his recommended changes (and his recommended changes were the basis for the BoF’s discussion and were accepted by the Republican majority, with only very minor, housekeeping changes).

Other towns took the state funding increase into consideration. Many were conservative, such as Portland, which used 53% of the Governor's figure, and Tolland, which used 50% of the Democrats' figure. For North Haven, this would have meant additional revenue in the budget of $556,000 or $535,000, enough to offset the cut to the education budget and also cut taxes by about $400,000.

But North Haven's second budget isn't even be conservative in its estimate of state aid to education. The Board of Finance Republican majority ignored the state aid increase completely, and cut the education budget. That's not conservative, that's vindictive. It's getting back at those of us who opposed the budget but do not want further cuts in education.

Doing this while knowing that state aid to education will increase substantially this year is not good management. It's politics at its ugliest.

North Haven's Oversight Problem, Especially in Community Services

2007-06-06T07:45:00.000-04:00

North Haven has a serious oversight problem. In many instances, town officials are not being held accountable by the boards and commissions that oversee them. This is more serious in North Haven than elsewhere, because most towns and cities across the country have an executive branch and a legislative branch. The executive branch manages. The legislative branch makes policy and provides oversight.

North Haven does not have a legislature that makes policy or provides oversight. All we have is a Town Meeting that rubber-stamps ordinances, extra expenditures, and budget transfers, and discusses budgets.

Two department heads have recently been arrested. How have the bodies responsible for oversight of these departments done their jobs?

When Director of Finance Vincent Palmeri recommended 37 budget transfers each in the amount of $19,999, the Board of Finance did not even discuss this sneaky way of getting around the state law that requires Town Meeting approval of all budget transfers $20,000 and over.

When Director of Finance Vincent Palmeri insisted that renewing contracts was the same as having them competitively bid, the Board of Finance did not question or discuss this policy, despite the fact that it has cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Nor does the Board of Finance provide oversight over the town’s chief executive officer. In fact, that person, First Selectmen Kevin Kopetz, is a full-fledged member of the Board of Finance. When Mr. Palmeri was no longer available to recommend changes to the budget last week, Mr. Kopetz did so, and the Board’s large Republican majority (5-2) accepted every one of Mr. Kopetz’s recommendations. So much for oversight.

But things are even worse with respect to Community Services. The Community Services Commission has met only once since last September. It does not appear to have ever reviewed the department budget, nor has it provided any of the oversight required by town ordinance.

Section 19-3 of North Haven Ordinances requires the Commission to "hold regular meetings, oversee the activities of the Community Services Department, report to the Selectmen on the activities and performance of the Community Services Departments and its Director ... review the budget prior to submission by the Director to the Selectmen and monitor the expenditures, receipts and operations of the Department."

The Community Services Commission does not appear to have done any of this, and nothing has changed since the arrest of the Ierardis. The Commission remains completely dependent on the acting department head, Eileen Pettit. Although it has had a difficult time getting a quorum, its acting chair, Laurie Jean Hannon, did not follow up on the notice of yesterday’s meeting (sent by Ms. Pettit), and once again there was no quorum. After unsuccessfully calling the missing members after the meeting was to have begun, Ms. Hannon announced that the next meeting of the Commission would be the first Tuesday in September.

When questioned by members of the public (six members of the public attended the meeting, along with four members of the nine-member commission and two members of the department), Ms. Hannon explained that no meetings were scheduled before September. Ms. Pettit suggested that a special meeting be scheduled. Members of the public suggested that commission members be asked in advance when they would be free, so that the next meeting would have a quorum. Ms. Hannon, who twice ran to be our state representative, continued not to take responsibility for getting a quorum.

Ms. Hannon also failed to respond to a letter sent to her by several members of the public, most of whom attended the meeting. That letter requested that she send notice and an agenda of last night’s meeting to me, for posting on northhaveninfo.org. She did not apologize for failing to do this.

The one meeting of the commission, on May 1 (minutes can be found here), was noticed for 7:00 p.m., but held at 5:30 p.m., so that only one member of the public attended. This was blamed on the North Haven Citizen, but as can be seen at http://www.northhaveninfo.org/17.html, the incorrect time was also given to the town clerk.

A commission that cannot take responsibility for its own actions is incapable of taking responsibility for a town department, especially one whose former department head was such a controversial figure. Did the commission do anything about the fact that a husband was supervising his wife? Did the commission do anything about the fact that the department’s director was also chair of the Republican Town Committee, requiring him to put the interests of a party ahead of the interests of all town residents? Did the commission receive any complaints about the Ierardis’ activities and, if so, what did it do about them?

The commission has done nothing to make up for its failure to do its job. It appears that the commission members had not even read the arrest warrant affidavits when they met on May 1. It appears from that meeting’s minutes that, even in the midst of a department crisis, its only interest was in activities, not in what had happened in the department. There appears to have been no interest in interviewing department employees to find out what happened.

It is worse to have a commission that does nothing than to have no commission at all. The Board of Selectmen must tell the commission to fulfill its responsibilities, and it must replace commission members who have not been showing up at meetings.

Ms. Hannon said that a chairman would not be elected until after the November elections. That is unacceptable. Someone must take responsibility for the commission immediately, and it should clearly not be her. A special meeting should be called for as soon as the members can meet.

This town is badly in need of accountability. If there isn’t any oversight over a department that needs it so much, even in a time of crisis, how can we expect oversight elsewhere in our government? This is one more reason I’m in favor of changing our form of government. What we have now is simply not working in the best interests of the people of North Haven.

The New Budget Proposal Is Better, But Not What It Appears

2007-05-31T13:04:00.000-04:00

At last night’s Board of Finance meeting, where changes were made to the rejected budget, some good was done, but it was done halfway and with no more openness or goodwill than usual.

As usual, what was not said and not done was more important than what was said and done. This is not how a town democracy should operate. It makes things unnecessarily difficult for people to understand and it puts into question what is done, as well as the motives behind what is done.

At first glance, I was reasonably happy with the changes. But the more I thought about and came to understand what happened, and what didn’t happen, the more unhappy I became. Most people don’t look closely enough at a town budget. I have to, because I have to write about it. I hope what I say will make you think about it more closely, as well, even if you don’t agree with everything I say.

Despite the fact that the budget changes include some of the things that I and many others have been asking for, I do not believe that the budget is a sufficiently realistic document to merit a Yes vote. I also feel that there was no need to cut the education budget.

It’s not clear who this new budget satisfies. Those who don’t want a big tax increase won’t be satisfied, because the expenditure cuts are so small. Those who want a realistic budget won’t be satisfied, because only half of the underestimated expenditures are now realistic, and two large changes that will be known in a couple of weeks were not included in the budget: the increase in state aid and the decrease in insurance costs. Those who didn’t want education touched won’t be satisfied, because the education side was cut disproportionately and unnecessarily. And those who are willing to pay more taxes for better services and education won’t be satisfied, either.

The highlights of the changes are as follows (you can follow them on this sheet; I recommend opening the sheet in a new window for easier reference):

1. $700,000 was taken out of the contingency fund and added to a variety of underestimated budget items, most of them in the areas of overtime, gas & oil, and maintenance.

2. $875,000 worth of revenue was added.

3. $688,000 was taken out of the town side of the budget, and $150,000 was taken out of the education side of the budget, for total expenditures cuts of $838,000. But of the town side of these reductions, $178,000 was capital expenditures (that is, investment in equipment, which is expensed over a period of years rather than in the 2007-8 fiscal year), so that the actual, current expenditure cuts on the town side were $510,000.

4. $341,000 worth of additions were made to town side of the budget. The supervisors union contract was finally negotiated, requiring the payment of three years of backpay in the amount of $114,000. This is the only true addition. $100,000 is intended for the special "forensic-operations" audit, and this was taken from the unappropriated fund balance (this $100,000 was also included as added revenue, so the two even out). The rest represents two additional positions added to the Public Works department, to be paid out of fees associated with their work; these fees were included in the revenue increases, so it's a wash.

This is a lot of numbers. But the bottom line of the budget hasn’t changed much. If you consider that $250,000 was added to the town budget after the Budget Town Meeting, and that the supervisors’ backpay of $114,000 was also added, the town current expenditure cuts fall to only $146,000, the same as the $150,000 expenditure cuts on the education side.

If you consider the enormous opposition to cutting the education side of the budget, this seems like a very odd result. And, of course, this result was not presented as I presented it, except by the Democrats. The Republicans, even when doing some of the right things, still are far too concerned with how things look. When you’re doing the right things, you don’t have to be so concerned with appearances. But they haven’t learned this yet.

On the revenue side, the BoF Republicans want to make it look like they’re giving us more realistic revenue figures. But the fact is that they were willing to overtax us in the amount of $875,000 (and probably a lot more, by the time we see the state budget figures).

As for expenditures, they want it to look like they’re making sizeable cuts, when overall they are not. And yet, even these cuts will likely be unnecessary when we see the results of the bidding out of town insurance contracts, which will be decided on June 15 and take effect on July 1. If the bidding is truly open (in the past, I understand, specifications have seriously limited which companies could bid), this could mean a gain to the town (that is, a cut in expenditures) of over $1 million a year.

This means, for example, that expenditures could be cut without any cuts to education. It also means that a great deal more of the underestimated expenditure figures could be made realistic without adding to the tax burden (only about half the figures were made realistic). If the BoF weren’t in so much of a rush to go to another referendum, it could have waited to see the results of the bidding process and put the new insurance figures into the budget.

So, although a good, long-overdue management decision was made with respect to insurance, the Board of Finance is at the same time denying town residents the short-term benefits of this decision, just so that it can have another referendum before the artificial, and effectively meaningless, deadline of June 30. At the same time, the Board of Finance Republicans said nothing about my petition’s call for bidding out insurance, or all the similar calls in the past. They said nothing about how much more the town has been paying for insurance than other towns. And they do not appear to have let the Democrats on the BoF, or others (including me), know they had begun the insurance bidding process, so that we could take this into account in how we approached the budget.

Although extremely relevant to the budget situation, the Republicans on the BoF did not want the insurance bidding to be a factor. More lack of transparency, and more game-playing. Old habits are hard to end, and it’s not clear to me that the BoF Republicans are trying to beat the habit.

The expenditure figures are now more realistic, but the BoF added in only $700,000, whereas I found $1,275,000 in underestimated expenditures. That means, they only corrected 54% of this problem, a right down-the-middle compromise that was not presented as a compromise. Many seriously underestimated budget items were simply ignored. And again, not a word about the years that Janet McCarty and others have been arguing for this change, and been told they didn’t know what they were talking about. Now we know that they were right on target.

The revenue figures are now more realistic, but there was no explanation of why the additional revenue was left out in the first place. In the past, this revenue was surplus that the administration could play with as it chose, making budget transfers mostly without the knowledge or approval of the Town Meeting (despite state requirements of Town Meeting approval of transfers over $20,000). The result was a budget that had little relationship to reality. Nothing was said about this. The less is said, the less one can believe that these changes reflect long-term policy rather than short-term expediency, that is, doing what it takes to keep control of town government.

In addition, soon the state budget will be passed, and this will almost definitely give North Haven a lot more education funding than in the past. The recommended increases in funding to North Haven are as follows:

Governor - $1.05 million
Democrats - $1.07 million
Republicans - $.88 million

Although at the last meeting, First Selectman Kevin Kopetz said that we should use the lesser of these three budget figures, he did not include this figure in his recommended changes (his recommended changes were the basis for BoF’s discussion and were accepted by the Republican majority, with only very minor, housekeeping changes).

Other towns took the state funding increase into consideration. Many were conservative, such as Portland, which used 53% of the Governor's figure, and Tolland, which used 50% of the Democrats' figure. For North Haven, this would have meant additional revenue in the budget of $556,000 or $535,000, enough to offset the cut to the education budget and also cut taxes by $400,000.

Again, waiting a couple weeks to go to referendum would have given North Haven residents more information and a more accurate budget to vote on.

At the last BoF meeting, Mr. Kopetz also said that it looked like the local conveyance tax won’t be cut by the legislature, and that this could be included in revenue estimates, but it was not.

The other big missing piece in the Republicans’ revenue changes is the tax collection rate. The petition asked that the estimated collection rate be more realistic. I and others called for a rate of 99% (the average of the last three years) instead of 97.5%, because the lower figure would lead to overtaxing and the creation of what is effectively a million-dollar slush fund to be used as the administration pleases.

A question was asked about the tax collection rate being used, but I don’t believe it was answered. The failure to increase this estimate prevents the numbers from being realistic and takes more control over the budget away from North Haven residents.

There was a great deal of talk among Republicans of "fairness" and "sacrifice." The "fairness" was about making everyone "sacrifice" together, but there wasn’t much sacrificed on the town side of the budget. No services were cut, no positions were cut. The biggest cuts were of electricity (a better contract), medical insurance (not explained), cemetery care, and capital equipment. Hopefully the most important capital expenditure cut, fire fighting equipment, will be covered by a state grant.

And the "fairness," as many people said, was questionable, since there was such strong opposition to cutting the education budget any more than it already has been. No one was against cutting the town budget. Yet the two were cut by the same amount.

And is it "fair" to ask for "sacrifice" when, within a couple of weeks, we will almost certainly have large cuts in our insurance costs and a large increase in our state allotment for education?

As I said at the beginning of this blog entry, it’s not clear who this new budget satisfies. It will be supported only by those who are fooled or confused and generally vote for budgets, those who are worried that there will be bigger cuts in education the next time around (there won’t have to be, because the next time around, there will be all those extra state funds and insurance savings), and those who are worried about what will happen if this budget goes down and the June 30 deadline is reached (nothing will happen at all).

Once again, the Republicans’ budget shows disrespect to the people of North Haven. It appears to be something it is not. Behind this is an expectation that few people will have the skill or the time to look critically at the numbers or think about what’s missing, so that they will fall for the appearance of a better, more realistic, fair budget.

But it’s not fair to us to rush ahead with two very large figures (state budget and insurance) only a couple of weeks away. It’s not fair to us to only fix half of the underestimated budget items, to not increase the estimated tax collection rate, to cut the education budget unnecessarily. It’s not fair to us to make it look like more is being cut than is actually being cut. It's not fair to us to keep employee benefits out of the discussion, and to not have a full, open discussion of competitively bidding contracts, the most responsible (and legally required) way to get our expenditures total down. It's not fair to give us a budget that is still out of line with (that is, higher than) other towns our size in several areas.

It’s also not fair to us to make us vote for the town and education parts of the budget together, rather than separately, because voting for one budget causes many pro-education people to vote for a town budget they don’t support. The town budget is better now, but only separating the budgets will put sufficient pressure on BoF Republicans to ensure that the town budget become the good and true budget we deserve.

The Register Confirms That the Budget Is a Lie

2007-05-30T11:03:00.001-04:00

Today's New Haven Register has an editorial that confirms what I and many others, including the more than 200 North Haven residents who signed an on-line petition, have been saying: "There were a lot of reasons North Haven voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposed $78 million budget for the coming year. But they all boiled down to this: The budget numbers are as suspect as the people who put the figures together."

That's a very rough statement from the Register, but one that is clear to anyone with an open mind. Expenditure figures do not reflect reality, revenue figures are too low, budget transfer figures are chosen to get around Town Meeting approval, insurance and benefit figures are out of line when compared to other towns, and the Board of Finance has shown no interest in these or in the bidding out of contracts.

And yet it wants to cut basic services instead of getting us reasonably priced insurance, getting all our contracts bid out, taking a close look at benefits, and considering the cutting of luxuries such as leaves in the street (which is dangerous) and weekly bulk pickup.

The BoF is in a rush, due to the June 30 budget deadline. But they weren't in a rush to be prepared for last week's meeting with alternatives the public could discuss. They weren't in a rush to hear what department heads had to say.

And anyway, there isn't such a rush. If we don't pass a budget by June 30, the town does not screech to a halt. State law (Sect. 7-405) provides for expenditures for 90 days after June 30 and, if no budget has been passed by then, on a monthly basis thereafter.

So the BoF needs to sit down, get insurance quotes, see about other contract savings, make the budget figures realistic, and recommend an ordinance to put an end to $19,999 budget transfers before it presents another dishonest budget to the public.

Budget Cuts Poll - Please Respond and Send to Your Friends

2007-05-27T09:03:00.000-04:00

I believe there is a great deal of overspending in such areas as insurance and wherever else there are no-bid or limited-bid contracts. But contracts cannot generally be bid out quickly, and there seems to be no interest among Board of Finance members in getting a quick insurance quote, to see what savings we could have in this area (and comply with a petition signed by over 200 North Haven residents, which was totally ignored by the Board of Finance at its May 23 meeting).

In fact, the Board of Finance, even in the midst of a scandal, has remained passive, responding rather than actively fulfilling its responsibility to oversee the town's finances. It has done nothing about bidding out contracts in order to bring our costs down. It has not reconsidered employee benefits in light of the changes in benefits in the outside world. It has fought tooth and nail against a forensic examination of questionable practices in the Finance department and in the town's procurement process.

The result of the Board of Finance's passivity is not only a budget full of lies but also the need to make cuts to some budget items. Knowing this, it did not invite department heads to the May 23 meeting, to give their suggestions, nor did our town's CEO present his suggestions (since he is a full member of the BoF, a serious conflict of interest that is, as far as I can tell, the only one of its kind in Connecticut).

Since the BoF doesn't seem interested in suggestions from those who know, and it doesn't look like we can trust the BoF to make responsible decisions on its own (last time a budget was rejected, it just punished us by cutting our library, pool, and recycling days), we need to tell them what we want cut and what we don't want cut. (To see the current budget proposal, click here. )

Please cut and paste the list below into an email, give each budget item (or group of budget items) a number (1 means "cut this one first." 12 means "cut this one last.") and email the list to rwechsler@cityethics.org. You can give multiple items the same number, for example, if there are some items you don't want cut, you can give them all a 12, and then work up (if three are 12, then the next one is 9). Or you can do this the other way, with, say, three marked 1 and then the next marked 4.

Suggestions of additional budget items or groups of items are welcome, and might be added to the poll. Responses will not be tied to any name or email address, but will be tallied and deleted.

Responses must be in by 5 pm Wednesday May 30 to be given to the Board of Finance right before it meets that evening at 7 pm.

Community Services Assistant Director position (cut position - $65K)

Contingent Fund (currently $1 million; to deal with emergencies, but usually used to offset expenditures for intentionally underestimated budget items)

Department Cuts Across the Board (to some, a way of not setting priorities; to others, a way to be fair)

Department Cuts in the Town Budget Only (no education cuts)

Instructional Supplies (increased this year from $418K to $503K)

Kindergarten (from full day to half day; cost unknown)

Leaf Collection (put in bags rather than along street; cost unknown)

Library Staff (result = day cut; $100K)

Overtime - 10% Across the Board (would save $130K)

Pool - Day Cut ($50K)

School Library Books & Periodicals (increased this year from $21K to $62K)

Weekly Bulk Pickup (monthly instead; cost unknown)

Others (suggestions may be added to poll, so think hard)

If you would like me to keep your email address on file to send you notice of other polls or any of the subjects listed below, please cut and paste the list, or parts of the list, into your email with an "X" in front of the ones you choose. If you do not send any part of the list, I will delete your message and not take down your email address or send you any email notices.

Notices of Special Meetings
Notices of Town Meetings and Public Hearings
Petitions and Polls
Major Blog Entries
Major Additions to Website
All

Forensic Chicken 3: From Double to Single Yolk

2007-05-26T17:41:00.000-04:00

In our last episode, the forensic chicken had returned to its egg. But it was at least a double-yolker, with separate Requests for Proposal (that is, requests for bids) for separate firms doing an annual audit and a "forensic-operational" audit. Why? Due to the conflicts of interest involved if one firm were to do both audits. The Republicans on the audit subcommittee were clear about this. (The conflicts are of two kinds: (1) the Sarbanes-Oxley Act calls for using separate firms to do accounting and consulting, that is, annual audits on the one hand, and forensic examinations or operations audits on the other; (2) there is a conflict between a new annual auditor's goal to please and be kept on, and a forensic examiner's goal to get to the bottom of what happened, even if your clients aren't happy with it.)

And then suddenly, at the May 23 Board of Finance meeting, it appeared that the two yolks might merge into just one. Acting chair Michael Peterson said that having two firms do the two jobs might not be "economically prudent." He wants to see the bids before he decides. And no one said otherwise.

Well, it doesn’t take much thought to realize that one firm will do the two jobs more cheaply than two. That was a given from the era when there actually appeared to be a forensic chicken (although I never believed it for a second). It was agreed that having one firm would not be ethically prudent. Now the talk is about economic prudence.

This is a doubly bad case of bait-and-switch, (1) because it’s sneaky and (2) because it will lead to the unethical situation that the decision to have two Requests for Proposals (RFPs) was supposed to prevent.

But since the Republicans finally "gave in" and added an addendum to the "forensic-operational" RFP requiring a forensic examination of the last three years of the Community Services and Recreation department (even though the known misconduct goes back many years further), and because it wasn’t absolutely certain that only one firm would be chosen (although how could two firms possibly make the lowest bid?), both Democrats voted for the addendum and accepted what, unless there is a great deal of protest, will be an unethical approach to examining unethical conduct.

Of course, although Peterson said that the limits of three years and just one department (even though the heads of two departments were arrested) were just starting points, there is still no requirement to go further. And with all the twists and turns the Republican majority on the audit subcommittee and BoF have made, it’s hard to trust that anything not clearly required will actually occur.

Peterson stuck to the mantra "if the operations audit finds weaknesses, we’ll do a forensic audit," but the weaknesses that allowed the Ierardis to do what they did have all been changed. Is an operations auditor going to look, say, at the bidding of contracts? Will an operations auditor look at the Town Charter for the rules to follow? Will an operations auditor compare North Haven’s expenditures to those of other towns? Is it going to make determinations about whether we should hire more people to get overtime down? There have been nothing but generalizations about the operations auditor’s job, and on that, it appears, depends the depth and breadth of a forensic examination. It doesn’t give me much confidence in what the BoF will do.

Why? Because it’s backwards. Finding evidence of embezzlement shows where new methods are needed, not the other way around. Do BoF members not realize this, or are they leading us astray?

And do BoF members really care more about saving the town money than getting to the bottom of what happened, even though learning this will allow us to get money from our insurance company? Sarah Aziz, who is an accountant, suggested that the BoF get bids for the entire timespan of the known questionable activities in Community Services, and then decide what the town can afford. The BoF ignored this, apparently because its talk about expenses is just a smokescreen for limiting the scope of the examination.

Early on, the Republicans on the auditor subcommittee said that the town wouldn’t get any money out of the Ierardis, so it wasn’t worth doing a forensic examination. They failed to mention an insurance policy that would give the town up to $300,000 in stolen money, but only if the town presents evidence. And the town also holds unused vacation time and other benefits owed the Ierardis in the amount of $158,000. That sounds like enough of a reward to force us to do a good, deep, broad examination, not just to renew public trust, but to get our tax dollars back.

There was one especially telling exchange during the May 23 BoF meeting. Feinberg asked why the RFPs were not sent to the four BoF members who were not on the auditor subcommittee. He said that he doesn’t know what he’s voting on. Peterson said that he doesn’t have a copy himself, as if that makes it okay to have anyone vote for something he has never seen.

When Hallahan proposed a forensic RFP at the last auditor subcommittee meeting, the Republican members said they needed time to read it, even though the new material was very short. But Feinberg was not given this opportunity. Apparently, fair’s fair unless you have a big majority.

Hallahan said that his RFP went back to the year 2000, but the addendum only goes back to 2003. Peterson said that this is because the insurance policy only goes back three years, and the auditor must decide the magnitude of the problem before going back further (but we’re holding lots of the Ierardis’ money, and that is not time-limited, and we know that the misconduct, to the extent it existed, had started by the mid-1990s). It should be noted that Peterson said that the addendum included all the relevant language from Hallahan’s forensic RFP. Not all.

What is it that the Board of Finance Republicans are trying to hide? Or are they only trying to save the town money? If they’re trying to save the town money, why aren’t they trying to get as much of the $300,000 insurance money as possible, not to mention the $158,000 of the Ierardis’ benefits the town is holding? It just doesn’t add up. We could pay a forensic examiner a lot of money and still not lose a penny. And we could clear up all the doubts and suspicions and worries going through people's heads, something you can't put a dollar value on.

When the people of this town have been almost unanimously calling for a forensic chicken, why are they being offered a one-yolk egg? At a time when town officials should be bending over backwards to gain the public trust, why are they so hesitant to give the people what they’re asking for. Why aren't they trying to get to the bottom of what occurred, so that the town can move on, and town officials can manage our finances more easily because the public has confidence that they are acting in the town’s best interest?

Every time the BoF meets, there are more questions than answers. That's not the way to get the people's confidence. But then what is the Board of Finance Republicans' goal? That's the big open question.

Board of Finance + Budget = Business As Usual, or Zeroing Out Instead of Zeroing In

2007-05-26T07:38:00.000-04:00

Last night’s Board of Finance meeting dealt primarily with two topics: (1) amending the “forensic-operations audit” Request for Proposals (asking for bids) to make a forensic examination of the Community Services & Recreation department a requirement rather than a possibility, and (2) responding to the 2 to 1 rejection of the budget. In this blog entry, I will deal only with the budget. The budget discussion comes in two parts: (1) the members among themselves and (2) public comments.

The first thing worth noting is that no member of the Board of Finance seems to have considered a Plan B. Although everyone was predicting that the budget would be rejected, no one was prepared to talk about what to do next. But at least the two Democrats on the board, Gerry Feinberg and Michael Hallahan, had some ideas.

It is, of course, possible that the Republicans did have a Plan B, but chose not to share it with the public, so that they could spring it on us at their next meeting. That would be consistent with the way they ignored the on-line petition’s statement of what people wanted, and all the comments people had gone to the trouble of writing on the petition. As I’ve said many times before, town officials cannot expect to be respected until they show respect for the public they’re supposed to be representing.

It was clear from acting chair Michael Peterson’s first speech that the Republicans on the Board of Finance were just going to do business as usual, with one difference: Finance Director Vincent Palmeri was not there to tell the BoF what they should cut from the budget. They would have to do this themselves, and so Peterson began by asking BoF members to prepare a list of the specific budget items they would like to be amended, and to deliver the list by Friday – giving them one evening to work on it.

Democrat Michael Hallahan responded with some dark humor, thanking Peterson for asking for his input, something historically unusual on the BoF, which has 5 Republicans to 2 Democrats.

The other Democrat, Gerry Feinberg, went right to the heart of the matter, acknowledging that Peterson started with the presumption that the budget can be repaired. Feinberg suggested that they start with a clean slate, and this suggestion was rejected out of hand, because of time limitations.

The state apparently requires a budget to be approved by June 30, although some budgets do get rejected five times or more.

Feinberg talked about problems with underfunding, or underestimating, numerous budget items, and First Selectman Kevin Kopetz, who is also a member of the body responsible for oversight over his budget (that is, the BoF), said that the contingency fund could be reduced to make those estimates closer to reality. This makes sense, because the contingency fund is used for this purpose at the end of the year, so why not do it up front, so that the budget numbers better reflect reality.

Feinberg set off on a speech about what he considers the fundamental problem with the budget: that it doesn’t address where we’ll be this year or the next. There’s nothing in it that will convince people that the town won’t be in the same situation next year. Feinberg said that the BoF needs to look closely not only at expenditures, but also at revenues. He found that most of the revenue figures in the budget book are less than what actual revenues appear to be in the most recent report, and that this increase should be reflected in the new budget.

This shifted the conversation to revenues. Peterson said that the BoF will adjust the mill-rate in response to the final state budget, implying that this would not be taken into account in the second budget presented to North Haven residents.

This business-as-usual response was quickly rejected by Feinberg, who pointed out that all three state budgets – by the governor, Democrats, and Republicans – provide North Haven with a substantial increase in state money, none of which has been reflected in the rejected budget proposal and which was also ignored by Kopetz in his response to Feinberg. Peterson tried to hold the line, again saying that the mill-rate will be adjusted, but Kopetz agreed that the lower of the three state figures should be used once the figures are “solidified.” (But will the numbers be sufficiently “solid” before the next BoF meeting?) He also noted that it did not appear that the state would cut out the local conveyance tax (paid by homesellers), so this could also be taken into account.

So we might have better and higher revenue figures, which would lessen the pressure to cut services and possibly even allow taxes to be cut a bit.

Being faced with outdated revenue figures is another way in which voters were looking at an unrealistic budget, although this is not the fault of the Board of Finance. It will be the BoF’s fault if it does not include the state figures in the revenue section of their next budget proposal.

Next, Feinberg noted that a much higher percentage of North Haven’s total budget goes to the town side (relative to the education side) than in other, similar towns. Peterson said this was due to the fact that North Haven’s bonding expenses appear on the town side of the budget. But, as usual, there was no evidence presented that other towns put their bonding expenses on the education side of the budget. In any event, this trend of spending less on education relative to other towns is historical, and interest on the new high school begins just this year. Another example of how a lack of transparency works against our knowing the facts.

The next topic of conversation was why the BoF’s budget was rejected. Peterson said he didn’t know why. Hallahan said that BoF members should put themselves in the voters’ position. Peterson said there were many reasons, and that it wasn’t up to the BoF to figure out what people were thinking. Hallahan said that at the Budget Town Meeting, it was clear that people felt the budget was not realistic, that too much in it was inaccurate.

Not surprisingly, no BoF member mentioned the on-line petition I started, which was at their places when they arrived at the meeting. That petition, signed by 180 people at the time of the meeting (up over 200 now), stated clearly what they wanted the BoF to do, and also included many further comments, lots of them full of anger and disappointment in the work done by the BoF and the current administration. Nearly everyone did not want the education side of the budget touched, but Peterson did not acknowledge even this.

Besides asking for no cuts to the education budget, the petition’s requests are four: (1) make accurate estimates of expenses, which was brought up by Feinberg, but had little support from other members; (2) make accurate estimates of tax revenues, which was discussed but not resolved; (3) recommend an ordinance that requires budget transfers over $20,000 to be approved by the Town Meeting, which was never mentioned; and (4) inquire into and make a report on insurance costs and contracts, bringing in a forensic investigator where any irregularities are suspected, another request that was not mentioned by any BoF member.

The petition on delaying revaluation was ignored by the Republican majority of the Board of Selectmen in 2005. Again, a petition was ignored, this time by the entire Board of Finance. Neither was a binding petition, but that is no reason to ignore the will of 180 people who took the time to read, sign, and comment on a petition, and send it on their friends. It was an experiment that worked better than I had expected, and provided an excellent idea of why the town voted down the budget, which should be the principal impetus toward changing the budget. And yet no one on the BoF seemed to care. Their opinions clearly matter more than anything else. They don’t feel the need to be true representatives, and most of them know that they will not be up for re-election this year. That’s democracy the North Haven way.

The board switched back to talking about how to change the budget. Peterson echoed Kopetz’s suggestion that if Hallahan wanted to make expense figures more accurate, money could be taken out of the $1 million contingency fund. Richard Gillen said that they needed to look for savings, because moving money out of the contingency fund would not make any difference. Hallahan said there were a lot of very low numbers, and the department heads just ignored them. Timothy Doheny said that there were simply too many accounts.

When Feinberg said that he could not possibly have line item changes ready for Friday, Peterson switched the time for sending these changes (to acting finance director Edward Swinkoski) from Friday to the following Tuesday, with a meeting on Wednesday, May 30 at 7 pm. There was no talk of simply having each member e-mail his figures to the other members. One wonders about the concern for efficiency of a board that does not even talk about using e-mail under such tight time restrictions (Feinberg did ask if he could e-mail his figures to Swinkoski). One wonders how such an inefficient group of men could possibly make our town work better?

I was the first speaker in public comments. Here is what I prepared for my speech, and basically what I said after talking about the petition and how good a picture it gave of how the people who voted against the budget felt.

The Board of Finance is this town’s principal oversight committee. Every other town our size in the state has a legislative body that meets regularly and provides oversight over the executive branch. All we have is the Board of Finance.

And it has not been doing its job. It accepts and presents to the public expenditure numbers that are not realistic. It selects a revenue estimate that is substantially lower than the figures for the last three years.

When Mr. Palmeri suggested 37 budget transfers each $1 less than the legal limit, totalling 3/4 of a million dollars, did the Board of Finance even discuss the issue? No.

When Mr. Hallahan asked for a discussion of no-bid contracts, this town’s biggest financial problem and the subject of much controversy both among townspeople and in the New Haven Register, did the Board of Finance discuss the issue? No.

Does the Board of Finance sufficiently look at the figures of other towns our size in the state, to see if we’re paying too much for various items, to make sure the way we’ve always done things is still the best way of doing them? If it did, it would have seen how high our insurance costs are, for example. And our pensions. And some of our contracts.

The people of North Haven rejected the Board of Finance’s budget because the Board of Finance is not doing its oversight job. We rejected the Board of Finance’s budget because it’s a lie, and because we stopped falling for the smokescreens and half-truths we’re told. We rejected the Board of Finance’s budget despite wanting to vote for the education budget, because we were tired of the scare tactics perpetrated by people such as, most recently, Board of Education member Suzanne Donofrio.

If the Board of Finance touches the education budget, it will have crossed the line. The anger in this town will boil over.

No one on the BoF said a word in response to my speech.

Michael Mele talked about non-competitive bidding and the need for change in the administration’s mindset. He felt that millions of dollars could be cut from the budget by bidding out contracts and other means, if not for this budget, then certainly for the next. Whatever is decided, I think that this sort of a commitment must accompany it.

A woman whose name I didn’t catch said that people only hear what they want to hear, and that people who voted against the budget were fully aware that there would be cuts in the budget on both sides. She felt it wasn’t fair for the town to carry a double burden of cuts. She felt the main reason for people voting against the budget was that taxes are too high, and she felt that the contingency fund needed to be preserved to deal with unexpected events. She finished by saying that sewer use charges had been increased, and that the figures for them in the budget were too low.

Sherman Katz talked about addressing budget overruns, that there are ways of talking to department heads about how they’re doing. Kopetz said that he planned to meet with department heads about budgeting, and had asked for updates.

But as the town’s CEO and a member of the Board of Finance, shouldn’t Kopetz have already done that, both before presenting a budget and in anticipation of the budget being rejected? Why does it always seem that Kopetz is reacting to events? That’s not good management.

Tim Doheny observed that overtime overruns are offset by salary savings. This is true, and not true. To the extent that overtime allows a department to hire fewer people, that can be a short-term savings. But overtime is more expensive than regular income, and it adds to the income of employees with respect to their pensions. Therefore, as employees approach retirement, they tend to take more overtime in order to get larger pensions (pensions are based on earnings in the last years before retirement). This can be very expensive, and may be one reason why North Haven pension benefits are substantially higher than many towns our size. It would be helpful if we knew that our large overtime costs also gave us fewer employees than other towns. I’m not sure that’s the case.

Feinberg said that the town budget has to go through a transition. We can’t zero every budget item out in one year, it’s not practical. We need to move in that direction, need to bring in department heads and make them and the BoF accountable.

Peterson replied that state law requires zeroing out line items.

Gina Falcigno, Kopetz’s assistant, said that she fielded many phone calls from people about the budget, and that there was not one single message. She was responding to what I had said, but I hadn’t said there was one single message. In any even, the one group I did not talk about, which she did, was the group who simply feels that taxes are too high. This group votes against the budget every year, but is not large enough to reject the budget. To get the current budget passed, you have to get the support of the many people who usually support the budget, but this time voted against it. Their reasons are more complicated and varied, but are reflected in the four petition demands, the request to preserve the education budget, and in the comments added to the petition.

Florence Sinow, a former Republican BoF member, said that the BoF is doing a great job and is not mistrusted. She said people will now have to sacrifice services because the budget was voted down. In other words, business as usual in a town that is changing fast.

A woman said she moved to North Haven for the schools, and has seen services cut. She asked that the education budget not be cut any more. Another woman rose and echoed this statement, adding that she felt held hostage: she either takes a tax increase or has the kids’ budget cut.

Doug Wood made a comparison between North Haven and Guilford, in which North Haven spends a great deal more on the town side and a good deal less on the education side of the budget. He emphasized the need to look at what other towns our size are doing.

Wood had lots of figures, but not the number of Guilford employees. Here are those numbers and how they affect the comparison:

Guilford: Full-Time Employees (Town side only): 158 PartTime: 90-150 (no benefits for parttime)
North Haven: FT: 185-195 PT: about 60 (no benefits for PT)

Using the 2006-2007 numbers for these staffing levels.

North Haven: $38k/year per FT employee
Guilford: $26k/year per FT employee

We pay 46% more per employee for benefits than Guilford does.

Margaret Tivnan said that too many people are being used to collect leaves, that we could bag them like other towns do and save a lot of money. A woman said that this would make it difficult for older people, but Margaret said that her older neighbor does all the raking herself and putting the leaves in bags would be easier than this. She also suggested that bid notices should be put online for everyone to see, as is done in many other towns.

All in all, it was not a very good public comments section, because so little had been put forward by the BoF. There was little concrete discussion among BoF members, no one on the BoF seems to have tried to find out what people think (I was at the polls talking to people; where were they?), and if they held any cards at all, the Republican BoF members were keeping them close to their chests. Instead of zeroing in on why the budget was rejected and what could be done to respond to the people rather than, as in the past, punish them for their impunity, the BoF zeroed out.

Where the cards really hit the table was in the part of the meeting concerning the forensic examination, which I will discuss in my next blog entry.

We Need to Send a Clear Message to the Board of Finance

2007-05-23T06:34:00.000-04:00

The budget was rejected 64%-36% yesterday. Now what's most important is to send a clear message to the Board of Finance about why the budget was rejected. Their tendency is to make cuts across the board, in both the town and education budgets. Many people were afraid of this and voted for the town budget in order to protect the education budget.

But we don't have to be helpless. We let the Board of Finance know how we felt at the Budget Town Meeting last week. We can come to the Board of Finance meeting this evening at 7:00 pm, at Town Hall (upstairs), and let them know again. And you can sign the northhaveninfo.org petition, and let them know (you can even make your own comments). You can sign the petition until 6 pm this evening. Please send the website address to your friends, so that we can get as many people as possible telling the Board of Finance not to touch the education budget.

Here is Selectwoman Janet McCarty's press release on the town's rejection of the budget. She is sending the same message.

I want to be clear about this: The overwhelming defeat of the proposed budget sends a unmistakable message to Town Hall: the people of North Haven do NOT approve of your ineffective budgeting process, unrealistic budget numbers, and your foolish decision to keep raises for alleged felons in this year’s budget.

These results should NOT be interpreted by the Board of Finance as a vote to cut the education budget. Folks who spoke at the budget hearing, those who wrote letters to the local papers, and those who called/wrote/emailed me did not vote NO because they think our kids are getting too much from our schools. In fact, they believe that our education system has been seriously weakened as a result of the cuts in funding approved by Town Hall over the last few years.

The NO vote is not a YES vote to the Board of Finance to conduct business as usual. It is a YES vote for efficient, effective and honest budgeting. I certainly hope that the Board of Finance gets the right message.

A Muzzled Freda Tries to Take Advantage of People's Laziness and Lack of Knowledge

2007-05-18T14:09:00.000-04:00

It is impossible to ignore Board of Finance member Michael Freda's latest opus on the town budget, as much as I would like to.

It's worth noting that this letter to the editor (sent to both the Citizen and the Post) is as calm as his last letter was over the top. Mr. Freda has clearly been muzzled.

What is sad here is how frightened Mr. Freda is to speak directly to what I, the Democratic members of the Board of Finance, Janet McCarty, and many others have said about the budget's dishonesty. All you need do is compare his letter against the flyer I handed out at the Budget Town Meeting, and my response to his last letter to the editor. And others have said so much more (see my blog entry on the Budget Town Meeting, for example).

Freda is banking on the fact that very few people will do this. He's taking advantage of people's laziness and lack of knowledge. He says, "We have no other motives or objectives other than to serve you as best we can." But what is his motive for writing a last-second letter that makes no effort to honestly present the opposition's side, even to knock it down (the way I did his)?

He says that I and others "speak in vague generalities." Yeah, right. I have thrown more numbers at this town than this town has ever seen.

There is one very specific matter I want to respond to. Freda says that the Board of Finance is in total support of bidding out contracts. But recently the BoF Republicans refused Democrat BoF member Michael Hallahan's requests to discuss competitive bidding of contracts.

Freda talks about the problem of contracts as low as $1,000 being bid out, and he's right. But the problem can only be solved by revising the Charter, something Democrats have favored, and which I have made the center of my criticism of North Haven's Republicans, but which no Republican member of the Board of Finance has publicly supported.

It's easy to say the right thing days before a referendum, when you know you're in trouble. Easy and deeply dishonest. It makes you nothing but another two-faced politician. At least to people who've been paying attention. But Mr. Freda is betting there are enough people that aren't paying attention. Very nice, Mr. Freda. You're the man.

Of course, Mr. Freda is not a politician. He wasn't elected to the Board of Finance, he was appointed. Just a year ago. He clearly has a lot to prove, and he's certainly proven what he's made of.

I'm not going to waste any more time on Freda. I've already said enough, and others have said much more. If this is the best the BoF Republicans can do, then it only gives more credence to what we've been saying.

The Ierardis Get Their Pension - But What Do We Get?

2007-05-18T08:26:00.000-04:00

At the center of yesterday’s Board of Selectmen meeting was an invisible dispute between lawyers, the result of which was Janet McCarty’s different position on pension payments to Joseph and Patricia Ierardi.

First, let’s look at what happened. The Ierardis were arrested for embezzlement and immediately announced their retirement and declared their innocence. They have not in any way owned up to what they did or didn’t do. No apologies, no explanations, no information that could help the town know about other misuses of funds, or what other town leaders knew about what was going on. Whatever they did or didn’t do, they showed no interest in making things better for the town. Instead they put out their hands and asked the town for money. Of all the possible things they could have done, they chose the most selfish alternative.

Of course, they deserve that money for all the years they worked for the town. But what about us? What are we owed for having been deceived all these years, not to mention intimidated by Mr. Ierardi?

The solution chosen by Mr. Kopetz and Mr. Mitchell, with the advice of town attorney Jeffrey Donofrio and labor lawyer George O’Brien, is rational, but I don't think it is right. The Ierardis will get their pensions ($122,000 a year) unless findings of fraud and dishonesty are made that would allow the Board of Selectmen to meet again and determine that, if these findings had been made while the Ierardis were employed, they would have resulted in their being fired. In that event, all further pension payments would end. But it is not clear whether past pension payments could be recouped.

Lawyers work for clients. In this case, Mr. Donofrio and Mr. O’Brien were effectively representing Mr. Kopetz and Mr. Mitchell. Therefore, Ms. McCarty had to speak with counsel of her own (all this is confidential, so I have no idea who or how many or what sort). Apparently (this is speculation based on what was said at the meeting), the advice she was given differed from the advice of Mr. Kopetz’s counsel. The difference does not appear to be so much about the law, but about (i) the likelihood of a successful suit against the town had the Board of Selectmen refused to allow the Ierardis’ pensions, conditional on their being found not guilty; and (ii) the possibility that the Ierardis will either win in court or make a plea bargain, so that (no matter what they did) there will be no findings of fraud sufficient to allow the Board of Selectmen to end pension payments.

There might be findings from a forensic examination (which, upon Ms. McCarty's request, the Board of Selectmen agreed to ask the Board of Finance to require), but then the Board of Selectmen would have to effectively hold a trial itself in order to end pension payments before a verdict is made or in the event there is no verdict. This would be long and messy and expensive and, if the Ierardis lost, they would likely sue, using taxpayer money to pay their lawyer.

How could a North Haven Board of Selectmen fairly judge a man who has been a North Haven icon, chair of the North Haven Republican Town Committee, the First Selectman's campaign manager (which Mr. Mitchell now is, I believe), and a vicious antagonist of Ms. McCarty? It's hard to imagine anyone sitting on the Board of Selectmen in the near future who could be perceived as neutral and fair to Mr. Ierardi.

Would the Ierardis have sued the town for immediate pension payments? We’ll never know, although it’s a fair bet they would, because they certainly don’t seem to care about putting the town through more pain. In fact, their lawyer told the New Haven Register that the Ierardis would have sued, which was totally unnecessary, since at least for now his side won. But at least they would have had to pay for the litigation themselves.

What we do know is that the town’s taxpayers will be paying the Ierardis $122,000 a year for as long as their trial takes, and that they have every incentive to drag it out, since we’ll be paying their lawyers. Ms. McCarty, on the other hand, said she didn’t want to see them get one more cent. Here’s her entire speech.

For the record, here is the exact wording of the motions the Board of Selectmen voted on (the same three for Patricia Ierardi, as well):

Motions Concerning Retirement Application of Joseph Ierardi

1. That the Town of North Haven, as Plan Administrator of the Town of North Haven Amended and Restated Pension Plan for General Employees of the Town Government and the Department of Education, conditionally approve the application of Joseph Ierardi to retire under the Plan, effective May 18, 2007, subject to forfeiture of any and all payments and benefits due or becoming due to him from the Pension Fund pursuant to Section 13.2 of the Plan, if there is a finding of fraud and dishonesty committed during the course of employment.

2. That the Town of North Haven inform Joseph Ierardi, in a writing prepared by the Town Attorney, of the approval of his retirement application and of the possible forfeiture of any and all payments and benefits due or becoming due to him from the Pension Fund pursuant to Section 13.2 of the Plan, concerning fraud and dishonesty.

3. That the Town of North Haven retain any and all amounts due, or becoming due on account of retirement, to Joseph Ierardi for earned but unpaid vacation, sick leave and similar benefits, unless and until an adequate accounting is obtained of all money, assets or other items owed to the Town by Joseph Ierardi and these are set off against such amounts due to Joseph Ierardi.

The Forensic Chicken Has Returned to Its Egg

2007-05-17T08:23:00.000-04:00

After last week’s Board of Finance Auditor Subcommittee meeting, articles appeared in local newspapers with headlines like “Forensic Audit OK’d” and “Finance Panel to Endorse Forensic Audit.” Before those articles appeared, I warned in a blog entry that we shouldn’t count our forensic chickens.

Well, it looks like the newborn forensic chicken has returned to its egg. All that’s left is the “capability” of an operations auditor to do forensic work. In the Request for Proposal approved unanimously by the Audit Subcommittee, no forensic investigation is required and no scope is given for one.

Eggs, too, are “capable” of being chickens. But most of them end up scrambled or fried.

Everyone who covers this town thought the deal was done. All the talk was about starting a forensic investigation as soon as possible, going back three years, giving the people what they want. But there were lots of warning signals, which I set forth in my blog entry.

At last evening’s meeting we learned how hollow Michael Freda’s mantra is. “As quickly and efficiently as possible” turns out not to mean getting a forensic investigation going, but rather not having a third firm involved, which would only get in the way.

Why is there even any talk of a third auditor? Until last week, the talk was about two firms, to do an annual-operations audit and a forensic investigation. Then, last week, there was suddenly talk about splitting the annual and operations audits into two. No agreement was reached on this, nor any vote taken, but this week there were two Requests for Proposal, and the operations audit was now called a Forensic-Operations audit, even though it requires no forensic work whatsoever.

The lone Democrat, Michael Hallahan, presented his Request for Proposal for a forensic investigation, and there was discussion of its scope and time period. But neither Timothy Doheny nor Freda showed any particular interest in it, and Doheny started referring to two approaches: theirs and Hallahan’s. In other words, with a Forensic-Operations audit, why bother with what they insist on calling a “forensic audit,” even though that is not the term ordinarily used. But the term is sufficiently confusing, so they keep on using it.

Will there be a forensic investigation of the departments whose directors were arrested: Community Services and Finance? And will the results of any such investigation be available before the election? There might be something, especially in Community Services, but I think there’s little likelihood of anything anywhere else. Doheny and Freda were reluctant even to go back before the last fiscal year, and refused, when I requested it, to put the Forensic-Operations Request for Proposal on hold while they were considering Hallahan’s forensic proposal. That’s pretty clear evidence of the way they’ll vote on Hallahan’s proposal: they’ll find it unnecessary, because a forensic proposal has already been approved, even by Hallahan. Gotcha! That’s where they’ve been heading. Gotcha! We win! There’s not much more to it than that.

And the town will lose. As usual.

Doheny and Freda are men who voted for a budget full of lies. Doheny and Freda are men who feel that the Board of Finance is not the place to discuss no-bid contracts, which have been costing taxpayers millions of dollars. Freda is the man who made such an over-the-top personal attack on me, his masters seem to have called him off.

And it is these men who will decide how deeply and quickly the dirty secrets of the Kopetz administration are brought to light. They are taking the advice of our town attorney, whom Joseph Ierardi said knew about his travel reimbursement scheme. They are taking the advice of our acting director of finance, who admits to knowing that fishy things were going on.

In such a situation, men with pride would bend over backwards to be fair, to go beyond what they need to do to win back the public trust. But these appear to be men who care more about winning, and winning means keeping secrets secret, and moving on.

Get that forensic word in the title, get that egg-like capability to do forensic work in the text, and you have a forensic chicken. No, putting feathers on an egg doesn’t make it a chicken. What’ll it be? Scrambled or fried?

An Uncivil Call for Civility

2007-05-16T07:38:00.000-04:00

Florence Sinow’s letter to the editor of the Advisor this week is one of a series of letters that appear every year asking for more civil discussion in North Haven politics. Sadly, her letter is anything but civil. She begins by saying that the “outcry” against First Selectman Kevin Kopetz is “unfair and untrue.” In two words, without any facts or arguments, she dismisses the hard, sincere work of numerous North Haven residents who are trying to act in the public interest. What could be more uncivil than this?