WHAT A DIFFERENCE A CHARTER MAKES!

the following is from a blog that covers new milford.  interestingly new milford has a charter and doesn't operate under cgs title 7.  as a charter town new milford has a wider LATITUDE in operating their town.  the following is a good example. 

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010

Mayor: Next Year the BOE Budget Will Be In Same Form as Town's

With regard to the Board of Education Budget, Section 703 of the Charter provides, in part:  The Board of Education shall have the same duties [as the Town] and follow the same form and procedure with respect to its budget...(emphasis added).

This has never been done; the BOE Budget has always been in a different format that contains much less information than the Town-side Budget and has far less transparancy.

This won't happen ever again because at last night's Town Council Meeting, Mayor Pat Murphy announced that  -- as the Charter mandates -- next year's BOE Budget will be in the same format as the Town's.

ALICE IN WONDERLAND ... "I WONDER WHAT CAN WE SEE?"

CONNECTICUT FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW

---

Report from attorney’s investigator can be withheld in employee discipline case Posted: 23 Apr 2010 04:00 AM PDT One of the most important exceptions to Freedom of Information Act’s is a provision that allows public agencies to deny FOI requests for documents that are “communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.”  See Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-210(b)(10). This issue comes up frequently when employees act improperly and a public agency is confronted with how to investigate and discipline employees.  If the discipline is significant, a freedom of information request is often the first sign that an employee intends to put up a fight. When an attorney is retained to provide legal advice regarding the discipline, documents that are produced by the attorney for the purpose of providing legal advice are privileged and, as such, can be withheld even if an employee files a freedom of information request asking for every document under the sun. But what if the attorney hires an investigator to look into employee misconduct? Is that investigator’s report, which may not have been produced by an attorney, privileged and protected from disclosure under the FOIA? According to a recent Freedom of Information Commission, the answer is yes. If an attorney hires an investigator to assist that attorney in providing legal advice regarding employee discipline, that investigator’s report is privileged and an agency or town is not required to produce that report in response to a FOI request. See Anderson v. Superintendent of Schools, Derby Public Schools, FOIC Docket No. FIC 2009-166 (Mar. 10, 2010). But what if an agency conducts its own investigation before retaining counsel? In most instances, any reports produced during that investigation would be subject to a FOI request even though an identical report produced by an investigator working for an attorney could be withheld.  As is often the case, the lesson to be learned from Anderson is that public agencies are often better off if they involve counsel in employee discipline matters at the earliest stages.

Board of Education Intra-Account Transfers of Funds

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2010

Board of Education Intra-Account Transfers of Funds

I have received many questions about the legality of the Board of Ed transfers that have been identified on nmbudgetfacts.com

INTERESTING WEB SITE FROM NEW MILFORD.  NEW FAIRFIELD NEEDS AN EFFECTIVE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION.  SHOULD ANYONE BE INTERESTED PLEASE CONTACT ROGER C. WISE AT rogercwise@gmail.com for details.

Here's the question:  May Connecticut Boards of education transfer money from one account to another even though its Budget was passed by the voters with specific amounts in specific accounts?  The answer is yes.  Here's the Statutory authority.  Section 10-22 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides, in part:

...The money appropriated by any municipality for the maintenance of public schools shall be expended by and in the discretion of the board of education...any such board may transfer any unexpended or incontracted for portion of any appropriation for school purposes to any other item...

For those of you who might be interested in School Law, I highly recommend Tom Mooney's book, A Practical Guide to Connecticut School Law.  It is the best treatise on any legal topic that I have ever read.  It is comprehensive, well-written and extremely well organized.  Mr. Mooney is a partner in the Hartford firm Shipman and Goodwin.  He's the best education attorney in the State.

REFERENCE: http://newmilfordtownhall.blogspot.com/  Jay Lewin

SAYS SELECTMEN DIDN'T DO THEIR PUBLIC DUTY

Published Newstimes: 05:23 p.m., Friday, April 16, 2010

The assistant director of the Park and Recreation Department was found to have embezzled at least $50,000 of municipal funds. Her letter of resignation effective Jan. 22, 2010 was forwarded to First Selectman John Hodge on Jan. 19, 2010.

A settlement agreement that was drawn up was approved by the Board of Selectmen in the secrecy of executive session meetings. The following is a quote from page one of the agreement.

"WHEREAS, in restitution for Barbara Coelho's wrongful actions, the Coehlos have offered to pay the Town of New Fairfield the sum of $50,000 to settle all claims and charges the Town has or may have against Barbara Coelho arising out of her employment and the Town of New Fairfield has agreed to accept such sum as restitution."

The agreement also includes an article that commits the town to confidentiality.

The terms of this settlement agreement amount to nothing more than a blanket cover-up of the felony act of embezzlement perpetrated by a town employee.

Our first selectman, who is also the administrative chief of police, is not only supposed to uphold the laws, he must also enforce the laws that govern this municipality. Instead of enforcing the laws, he chose to cover up the embezzlement with full confidentiality.

The town carries a bond insurance policy that would have covered such a theft. Had a claim been filed, the Travelers Insurance would have taken over the case with no expense to the town. In this particular case the insurance company would have covered all but a small deductible of $250.00.

Never have I seen a Board of Selectmen display such disregard for the welfare of the people they are supposed to be representing. Never have I seen such disregard for the laws they took an oath to uphold.

Art Azzarito

NEW FAIRFIELD

FINANCE BOARD WILL CHALLENGE TOWN CHARTER INTERPRETATION

SOUNDS FAMILIAR ...  Finance Board Will Challenge Town Charter Interpretation

By: Leda Quirke 04/14/2010

OXFORD - Saying a recent interpretation by the town attorney of the town's charter could jeopardize the town's bond rating and also damage the town's fiscal health, the Board of Finance last week voted to send a letter advising the Board of Selectmen of its intention to engage an outside attorney to challenge the interpretation in court. Members said that the notion spelled out by Town Attorney Francis Teodosio that selectmen can forward to a town meeting, without a favorable recommendation from the finance board, a resolution to expend up to 1.5 percent of the current town budget was, in their opinion, "dangerous." Based on Attorney Teodosio's interpretation, the Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 last Wednesday to forward to an April 15 town meeting the question of installing a metal roof and solar panels at Great Oak Middle School. The project was recommended by the Great Oak School Roof and Solar Panel Committee and approved subsequently in a resolution by the Board of Selectmen. The finance board, on March 22, rejected the proposal, saying residents should be given a choice between the metal roof, which is projected to cost $1.79 million, and a less-costly asphalt shingle roof. Figuring in grants from the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund, the American Reinvestment Recovery Act and state Board of Education reimbursements, the cost to residents for the metal roof and solar panels will actually be $767,014. At a special Board of Finance meeting last Thursday, member Tom Kelly said Attorney Teodosio, the prior evening, opined that, because the proposed action was a capital expenditure and not an appropriation or bonding issue, it was all right to go to town meeting without finance board approval. Finance board members said they found it odd that Attorney Teodosio would say that the project only needed a recommendation, either favorable or unfavorable, from them. Finance board members said, in their opinion, there is no such thing as an unfavorable recommendation. By definition, the word, "recommendation" implies favor, they said. Mr. Kelly noted also that the call for the town meeting did not identify a source of funding for the project. If residents approve the project, "where will the money come from?" he pondered. "Someone wants to get a project in front of people but I don't know where it's going to go from there," Mr. Kelly added.  Mr. Kelly said, because the town has no line item in the budget for a roof and selectmen do not intend to bond the project, the money may have to come from special taxation. The board agreed that adopting the attorney's interpretation as fact could put the town in jeopardy financially because it would enable selectmen to forward to a town meeting projects costing up to $3.5 million without its approval. "I think this is dangerous because of potential abuse," Mr. Kelly said. The freedom to spend that kind of money without restraint would not be looked on favorably by the town's bond rating company, they surmised. Members agreed that the roof needs to be replaced, but they said they were more concerned with the town's financial health. "We need to protect the town," said Chairman Lila Ferrillo. Under the circumstances, the board voted unanimously to advise selectmen of their intention to hire an attorney to challenge the interpretation. The action was unanimous among the four Republican members who a attended the meeting. Democrats Nancy Schmitt and Michael Lyon did not attend.

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR ... AAA RATING IS WORTH WHAT?

Connecticut sues S&P, Moody's, claims tainted ratings'
By Douglas Appell
March 10, 2010, 3:10 PM ET

WELL, WELL AND JUST THINK NEW FAIRFIELD PAID FOR ITS AAA RATING! 

FOR THE VOTERS, EVEN HONESTY IS A FINANCIAL SPECULATION IN NEW FAIRFIELD!   

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today filed a state lawsuit against ratings agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor's, alleging that the two firms knowingly assigned “tainted credit ratings” to risky investments backed by subprime loans to earn “lucrative fees” from issuers of structured finance securities.

In a news release, Mr. Blumenthal said “these credit rating agencies gave the best ratings money could buy,” and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The lawsuit seeks an order stopping the two firms “from deceiving consumers, as well as civil penalties and disgorgement of ill-gotten profits,” according to the news release.

An e-mailed statement forwarded by Moody's spokesman Michael N. Adler said, “The state attorney general's suit is without merit, and we are confident that we will prevail once we have an opportunity to present the facts of the case.”

Steve Weiss, a spokesman for S&P parent company McGraw-Hill Cos., said, “We believe the claim has no legal or factual merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against it.”

Separately, Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray in a statement today said he was “encouraged” by the Connecticut lawsuit. Mr. Cordray filed a lawsuit in November in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the rating agencies on behalf of Ohio's five statewide pension plans, alleging the agencies provided “unjustified and inflated ratings of mortgage-backed securities in exchange for lucrative fees from securities issuers.”

Contact Douglas Appell at dappell@pionline.com

LIE, STEAL, EVADE ... OH, NO PROBLEM ... HERE'S YOUR PENSION!!!

State Policies Governing Termination or Garnishment of Public Pensions Compiled by NASRA Updated July 2008

A state judge may revoke or reduce state and municipal pensions for criminal convictions arising out of on-the-job corruption regarding embezzlement of public funds; felonious theft from the state, a municipality or quasi-public agency; bribery; or felonies committed through the misuse of a government office or job. 

The law requires that the state attorney general apply for a court order to reduce or revoke a pension. Effective October 1, 2008.

POLICE CHARGE MAN IN THEFT FROM STUDENT ACTIVITY FUND

Police charge man in theft from student activity fund

by CTNewsjunkie Staff | September 20, 2007 4:55 PM
Posted to General News

Hartford police reported today that they have charged a former Hartford Public Schools employee with stealing $114,000 from the Bulkeley High School student activity fund.

Police say they have charged Jesse L. Henderson, 41, of 138 Palm St., Hartford, with larceny in the first degree in connection with the misappropriation after a lengthy investigation prompted by a tip in January from H. Patrick Campbell, Hartford’s chief auditor.

Police said Henderson was taken into custody today at his place of employment in Cheshire. He was released on a $20,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in Hartford Superior Court on October 3.

Click here to see Nancy Mulroy’s news release, including Henderson’s photo.

	City of Hartford Police Department 50 Jennings Road Hartford, Connecticut 06120 (860) 757-4000www.hartford.gov
Daryl K. Roberts Chief of Police		Eddie A. Perez Mayor

CRIME SOLVERS TIPLINE:  860-527-TIPS
NEWS RELEASEFor Immediate Release:  Thursday, September 20, 2007

HARTFORD POLICE MAKE ARREST IN BULKELEY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ACTIVITY FUND INVESTIGATION

(Hartford) - Prompted by a January 31st, 2007 complaint to Hartford Police by Chief Auditor for the City of Hartford H. Patrick Campbell of suspected fraud/larceny in connection with the misappropriation of funds from a Bulkeley High School student activity fund, and following a lengthy investigation, Hartford Police have arrested Jesse L. Henderson, 41, of 138 Palm Street, Hartford, charging him with larceny in the first degree in connection with the misappropriation of an estimated $114,000 in Bulkeley High School student activity funds.
Henderson, a former Hartford Public School System employee,  was taken into custody by detectives of the Hartford Police Department's Major Crimes Division and Fugitive Task Force at his place of employment in Cheshire, Connecticut.  He was released on $20,000 bond with a scheduled appearance in Hartford Superior Court on October 3, 2007.

Jesse Henderson, DOB 5/14/1966, 138 Palm Street, Hartford

-###-

Contact:   Nancy Mulroy, Public Information Officer, Hartford Police Department,  (860) 757-4021
Visit www.hartford.gov for more Hartford Police News
Return to Press Releases 
HPD News Home

HOMEOWNERS ATTENTION PLEASE ... A LICENSE FOR YOUR HOUSE!!!

Homeowners attention Please: Our Government is simply NUTS!!!  Your Democrats in Congress At Work! Check out the sites at the end of this note.... A License Required for your HOUSE? If you own your home you really need to check this out. At the end of this email is the Google link to verify.  If the country thinks the housing market is depressed now, wait until everyone sees this. We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representativesand are being considered by the Senate. A License will be required for your house...no longer just for cars and mobile homes....Thinking about selling your house?  Take a look at H.R. 2454  (Cap and Trade bill).  Beginning one year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this  "Cap & Trade" bill, passed by the House of Representatives. If it is also passed by the Senate,  it will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year . No one is excluded.  However, there will be provisions to assist lower income individuals. Thus you, Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class will pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.. But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won't be able to sell your house without some bureaucrat's OK. Yes, you read that right. The caveat is that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be required to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act, to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell.  And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program  (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress. Then the Administrator can set new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 - Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .  Beginning one year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with its energy and water efficiency standards. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (expen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (that includes YOU?) and prevent you from qualifying for the grants.  Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in." Sect. 204 - Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act." This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energywill get an additional $20M each year to help the EPA. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year... Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California? It would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate.  Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 - Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that one year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards. CHECK OUT a few of the sites;  Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home http://www.nachi. org/forum/ f14/cap-and- trade-license- required- your-home- 44750/ HR2454 American Clean Energy & Security Act:  http://www.govtrack/ ..us/congress/ bill.xpd? bill=h111- 2454 Thinking about selling you House? Look at HR 2454: http://www.federalobserver.com/2009/10/01/thinking-about-selling-your-house-a-look-at-h-r-2454-cap-and-trade-bill/ www.google.com/ search?hl= en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859- 1&q=A+License+ required+ for+your+ home-+Cap+ and+Trade&btnG=Google+ Search

THE OTHER SIDE OF EMBEZZLEMENT

Non-profits and their volunteer staffs have been directly impacted by the recent New Fairfield Park & Rec $50,000 embezzlement.  Their virtue and good deeds through financial, in-kind and other support through the many non-profit organizations in New Fairfield have been given a solid "a slap in the face"; and have been ravaged by the theft of good deeds and virtue of their volunteers by the Board of Selectman.

The Board of Selectman not only sold out their constituents, but sold out their principles "cutting a deal with an embezzler" over grand larceny felony, oath of office, public trust and disrespecting the citizens of New Fairfield.  Their "confidential back room deal" completely ignored the impact on the good deeds and virtuous activities of many non profits and volunteer activities in New Fairfield.  Their collective actions including the Town Attorney, an officer of the court, Director of Park & Recreation and Finance Department is myopic, inexcusable, deplorable and a legal felony.  

  

Let's count the ways in the up coming Summer Programs: NASA: Journey into outer space, Summer Theater Workshop, Culture Camps, Green Engineering, Robotics Design, Pardalis Basketball Camp, Musical Theater Boot Camp, ... are just a few of more than 50 summer programs!  

Will the many non-profits change their donations policy to a Town that will not prosecute an embezzler of the public funds, especially children funding?  For example, The Derx Foundation gave $177,000 for after-school study and enrichment programs.  The New Fairfield Community Thrift Shop annually donates tens of thousands to the community for individual need as well as summer programs.  Where is the apology from the Town for the "slap in the face" to all those volunteers, the Woman's Club, Lion's and the many other charitable non profits?

CHIEF OF POLICE, TOWN ATTORNEY IGNORE FELONY LAW?

Deal doesn't do justice to New Fairfield

Published: 05:02 p.m., Monday, April 5, 2010

The "confidential" settlement agreement between the New Fairfield Board of Selectmen and the former Park & Recreation employee is more of a scandal than the embezzlement it was designed to "cover-up."

The way I see it, this "cover-up" deal is not in the best interest of the town and serves no purpose other than to spare John Hodge and the director of Park & Rec from having to publicly explain and be accountable for the embezzlement of at least $50,000.

John Hodge's explanation that this deal somehow saved the town money by avoiding litigation is bogus, since it doesn't cost the town anything as it is handled by State's Attorney's office as a criminal matter. Also, the Board of Finance has asked for the details of the embezzlement and Hodge has told them it's none of their business!

The whole thing smacks of "cover-up" and the matter needs further investigation. Why a secret deal for one criminal and prosecution for another? What kind of law and order exists in a town where a crime of this magnitude goes unpunished?

In handling criminal matters in this manner, a dangerous precedent has been set in New Fairfield and justice is not being served. This confidential settlement agreement was a vehicle designed to keep the public unaware of this crime and the mismanagement that exists in Town Hall and is a disgrace and disservice to New Fairfield.

Lucy DiRocco

NEW FAIRFIELD