FOI Proposed Final Decision: Town Held Secret Meetings

During the campaign, while this blog was suspended, a hearing was held on the FOI complaint I had filed against the the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee. The hearing was my first experience in such a setting and I’m happy for the experience.

I received notice from the FOI commission that a final decision will be made on the complaint on December 2nd. As I expected the the proposed decision finds that the Real Estate Committee did hold illegal secret meetings on May 14th and 19th and failed to post the minutes of the May 14th meeting. As I also expected the decision will not void the meetings on the 14th & 19th. Perhaps I could have pressed for that a bit more strongly by filing a written brief following the hearing, but in light of the way business is conducted in Town Hall, and reflecting on the statements made by the Town’s legal representation at the hearing that the Real Estate meeting on the 14th didn’t matter, I felt that particular piece of fruit was not worth climbing for.

Here is the proposed decision.

FOI Proposed Decision

FOI Response – Documents Conclusively Show No Law Was Followed.

UPDATE: It seems I forgot to attach the PDF scan of the documents. The link is now at the bottom.

I received a rather thick stack of papers from the Town Council Office yesterday in reply to my FOI request. As expected the FOI demonstrates that the legal process for the town to dispose of town property was ignored while the town made up their own process as they went along.

At the bottom is a rather large PDF (180 Pages) which comprises the entire packet I received. I encourage you to review it. It contains the RFPs that went out in 2006 and 2008 as well as responses. The rest consists of various communications, memos and meeting minutes regarding Daley Court. Also there is one lone set of minutes evidencing the approval of the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan from back in 1997.

To summarize how the law was broken the following procedures required by 10-19 are evidenced not to have been followed:

The Mayor did NOT recommend the disposition of Daley Court in writing.
The Council did NOT refer this recommendation to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT determine whether to seek bids or negotiate directly.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT issue an RFP.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT publicly open RFP responses.
The Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee did NOT bring all the bids along with a recommendation to the Town Council.

What did happen is that the development department in conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency decided they wanted to dispose of Daley Court which as evidenced by Jeanne’s own communications with the Mayor was NOT owned or controlled by the Redevelopment agency which means the redevelopment agency had no authority to dispose of the property or issue bids. The Redevelopment Agency referred their RFP to the Town Council who referred it to the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee who approved it, something they had no authority to do.

In fact, the Redevelopment Agency doesn’t even have the authority to take the Daley Court Property because the Burnside Avenue Redevelopment Plan doesn’t appear to have ever been re-approved by the town council. State law is clear that a redevelopment plan expires after ten years if not amended or re-approved. The plan expired in 2007.

http://cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap130.htm#Sec8-127.htm
(c) (1) The approval of a redevelopment plan shall be given by the legislative body. The plan shall be effective for a period of ten years after the date of approval and may be amended in accordance with this section. The legislative body shall review the plan at least once every ten years after the initial approval, and shall reapprove such plan or an amended plan at least once every ten years after the initial approval in accordance with this section in order for the plan or amended plan to remain in effect. With respect to a redevelopment plan for a project that is funded in whole or in part by federal funds, the provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the extent that such provisions are prohibited by federal law.

What’s really interesting is that the RFP response by Sheldon Oaks is not the project that was approved by the Redevelopment Agency or the Town Council. In fact the original response by Sheldon Oaks is easily not the best proposal received. How is that Sheldon Oaks was able to change their project and acquisition price AFTER the RFP? The Council never voted to negotiate with any bidder so how was it that negotiations were made? Was any other bidder given this same consideration?

There is only one thing for the Council to do now. They must rescind the motions approved and immediately refer this issue to the Investigation and Audit Committee to determine why nobody followed the law and why the Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, Mr. Bill Horan, didn’t insist that the law governing the actions of his committee be followed.

FOI DOCS

Daley Court – Video and Documents

Finally I have processed the documents and video from the hearing last Tuesday. Video is below and the documents are at the bottom. You be the judge. I’ll be glad to answer questions through the comments section.

History shows that Mr. Horan reads this blog. Here is a challenge Mr. Horan, as Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, show me the law that WAS followed in the council’s disposition of the property because I have listed the law that I believe wasn’t.

Council Calls Public Hearing To Order
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271804&dest=-1]

Chair of Redevelopment Agency Speaks
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271847&dest=-1]

Developers Bill & Dan Speak
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271869&dest=-1]

Jon Searles (Me) Speaks
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272018&dest=-1]

Mayor Currey Addresses Council
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272025&dest=-1]

Council Debates and Passes Transfer and Sale Motions
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272154&dest=-1]

** If any of the below documents give you an error please update your adobe reader to 6.1 or better or let me know about the problem so I can down convert the document for compatibility.**

Town Fact Sheet
State Response to EHRA Eminent Domain 06-18-2001
State Refusal to Authorize Property Sale – 2000
Sheldon Oak Central Windfall Profit
RFP 08-043
Redevelopment Minutes 02-27-03
Property Card 2009
Property Card 2003
Koteen Offer 12-02-2002
Karno Letter Pushing Koteen 06-21-2002
HUD H 08-08
Hud 202 Guidebook
Hovanec EHHA appraisal 09-08-2000
GIS Property Card 2009
EHHA to EHRA update on deal 12-05-2000
EHHA to EHRA on expedition of emminent domain 07-02-2002
EHHA EHRA Solicitation 03-22-2000
East Hartford Town Ordinances Chapter 10 – Finance & Taxation
CGS 8-137
CGS 8-24
Certificate of Taking – Eminent Domain – 08-13-2002
Sheldon Oak 2007 990
New Samaritan 2007 990
EHRDA vs Beatman Emminent Domain 06-14-1999
EHRDA vs Karabetsos Emminent Domain 04-20-2000
ToEH vs EHHA Emminent Domain 07-19-2002
Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee FOI Appeal
Town Council Agendas Page 1
Town Council Agendas Page 2
Town Council Minutes
Town Council Subcommittees
Town Council Minutes 05-14
East Hartford Notices 04-15 to 05-11
East Hartford Notices 05-11 to 05-20

Mayor's budget passes unanimously almost unchanged.

The East Hartford Town Council voted unanimously this evening for the Mayor’s proposed budget with just a few changes, the details of which I’m unsure because I couldn’t figure out what Council Member Marcia was saying, or trying to.

Once again the best show awards go to Bill Horan and Rich Kehoe for presenting themselves in a manner becoming a Council Member during discussion of the budget with Bill pulling a bit ahead of Rich.My only complaint with Bill’s monologue was the suggestion that the Town Council would love to spend more money if we were in better economic times. I could have sworn it was the duty of the Town Council to exercise restraint every year, even the few which could be classified as flush in comparison to this.

There wasn’t any of  the heat that characterized last year’s budget meeting which provided little opportunity for embarrassment to anyone with the result being a very short meeting.

One odd bit came from Marcia’s comments after the budget was adopted when she read her speech, for lack of a better description. It sounded like she was commending the Council or Mayor for not neglecting maintenance items like rolling stock in the budget because such neglect would result in hardship down the line. Yet, unless it was in the part of Marcia’s budget motion which I couldn’t make out, the budget as proposed does indeed fail to fund maintenance items such as rolling stock.

The 2 million effectively put in escrow for the board of education also struck me as a false savings item. It was described that if state funding should fail to come through as expected the 2 million would be transferred to the Board of Education to make up the gap. What happens if the state does come through? Can we expect another elevator to the Mayor’s office? Maybe an escalator this time?

At the end of the day no tax increase is what the residents of East Hartford, myself included, needed and that’s what we got. While I am certain further cuts could have been made I’ll take this as a start that we can build on next year.

CORRECTION – Councilman Bill Horan Will Not Defend BoE Pawlowski After Drunken Rampage

Bill was kind enough to set the record straight in a comment below. I will repost it in this entry for clarification.

Bill Horan Says:
January 8, 2009 at 4:18 pm edit

First, let me say that Hank is a very good friend of mine, has served the citizens of East Hartford very well for a great number of years, and that I have the utmost respect for him. Second, let me clarify that I have NOT been retained by Hank to represent him in this case. I did speak to a friend that informed me of the incident Wednesday, and I called the EHPD to inquire whether he would be arraigned Wednesday, be held overnight and arraigned today (Thursday), or be released and arraigned on a later date. My plan was that if Hank were arraigned yesterday or today, and I had not yet heard from him, I would go to G.A. 12 and be available to represent him in his arraignment if he had not made other arrangements. He is my friend, and I wantted to be there for him if he needed me. I learned Wednesday afternoon that he was released and given a Court date later in the month.

As of this moment I still have not spoken with Hank and I have still not been retained to represent him. When I do speak with him I will apologize for this mix up, as apparently something was taken out of context and it was assumed I had indeed been retained by him. Hopefully we will speak soon, as I want to express to him my support as his friend, and my encouragement that people are human and everybody makes mistakes, and that this chapter in his life will be behind him someday.

A lawyer from South Windsor who is a friend of mine represented a Superior Court Judge in Court recently for a DUI, and said something to the effect that a person’s character needs to be determined by their accomplishments throughout their lifetime, and not just by a moment of indiscretion frozen in time. The same should, and hopefully will, be said about Hank. I wish him the very best of luck in dealing with this matter, and I know he has the strength of character to weather this storm. –BILL HORAN

ORIGINAL ENRY:

The Gazette has it’s story up about Hank Pawlowski’s arrest this morning. You can check it out here:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20236720&BRD=1642&PAG=461&dept_id=10299&rfi=6

There is something that bugs me in that story.

Pawlowski is a 10-year Democratic member of the East Hartford Board of Education. Those who know him expressed shock and disbelief at the news of his arrest.

He is being represented by William ‘Bill’ Horan Jr., a member of the Town Council and a defense attorney with Webber, Jacobs, Murphy & Horan of Hartford.

It seems that of the thousands of defense attorneys in CT the least appropriate one is a fellow member of the local government. As Mr. Horan is a sitting Council member and a member of the Democratic Town Committee along with other Democratic Board of Education Members he would have the potential to exert improper influence on other Board of Education members in the handling of this incident. While I’m sure Mr. Horan’s scruples wouldn’t permit him to do such a thing the possibility is there.

Being a principled person my ethical flags go up quickly. Do you think this is a conflict?

[polldaddy poll=1256975]

..

*Tax Payer Abuse* Genga donates state funds to EH Democratic Town Committee

According to Genga’s latest filings it appears that rather than campaigning, which he doesn’t need to do since he has no opponent, (so why take our money?) Henry Genga has been utilizing his election grant, also known as our tax dollars, to support political and pet organizations.

So far Henry has used our tax dollars to support the Podunk Music Festival, a Democratic Town Committee Golf Tournament and The East Hartford Summer Youth Festival. While I encourage Henry to support these organizations on his own, it’s wrong plain and simple to be using a reelection campaign as a front for taxpayer abuse.

I can only hope that Genga will return the remaining 7K of his state funds and LeBeau will return his 30K or so. Or, maybe we’ll see a barrage of LeBeau/Genga ads come Monday night.

As an aside, sitting Town Councilor and MDC commission member Bill Horan is Genga’s treasurer. Sitting by while Genga abused us by receiving state funds in the first place and not stepping down as treasurer when seeing our tax dollars abused in this manner makes Bill just as culpable.

Also, town halls was swamped with last minute registrations tonight. Turnout will likely be through the roof Tuesday.

*Update*

Here is Genga’s SEEC30 filed Oct. 10th.

Video: Town Council – August 26th

The agenda for the council meeting Tuesday night was considerable and unfortunately I ran out of battery before the council ran out of agenda. The video of what I got is below. I believe I only got about 2 minutes through the adult ordinances discussion.

There were some very notable items on the agenda Tuesday.

Officer Todd Mona and his dog Primo were recognized for their receipt of the 2007 Daniel Wasson Memorial K-9 Award.

The EHPD K-9 Division was recognized for their accomplishments in placing 1st as well as receiving multiple best in show awards in the 2008 Canine Olympics.

The Allstars softball team received recognition for their second championship domination in a row. Councilman Weinberg expressed his excitement at this second win being proof that the first wasn’t a fluke.

The council also discussed and passed the adult ordinances as recommended by the ordinance committee. What was notable in the discussion was when Chairman Kehoe was describing why and what changes were made from the prior version which was spoken on at the public hearing. Although Councilman Horan spoke precisely as required in describing the purpose of the legislation, mitigation of secondary effects, Kehoe and Weinberg betrayed this purpose.

At one point Weinberg made a statement that although federal law (failing to realize it is the constitution not federal law which requires it, or not recognizing the difference in the two) requires us to permit adult businesses in town these ordinances are going to make them not want to come to town. In other words these ordinances are in his view intended to or will have the effect of causing someone who wishes to open or operate a protected adult business to censor their own speech by choosing not to do so. That is unconstitutional as well.

Kehoe in his explanation of the changes to the ordinances explained on multiple items how they were changed in this final version because their lawyer, Mr. Gerard, told them they were indefensible since they could not come up with any plausible way they would mitigate secondary effects. In short, Kehoe admitted through the words that lay between the lines that in drafting these ordinances the primary concern of the council was preventing adult businesses from operating in town with secondary effects being an after thought considered only for constitutional defense. Are these public betrayals of the intent and purpose statement which preface the ordinances enough to give Attorney Silver or Coleman some some rope to hang them with? That I don’t know. Let us hope not.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8509558925591775998&hl=en]