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.