Rumblings: Middletown March Madness Predictions!

Hey March Madness is on us and there have already been upsets in the Men’s brackets.  I predict that we’ll also see upsets at City Hall.

Bill Warner is retiring and going to work for Farmington.  That’s a plum position open and raises a lot of questions on how it’s going to be filled.  Extensive nationwide advertising; promote from within; got to live in town and attend St. Seb.  What about Rick Kearney’s position as the economic development person?  Wait it’s been said that our Treasurer has left his position at the Chamber.  As an elected official, Treasurer, would he have to give up that position if he were to take Rick’s old job?

We still have an acting director of Recreation, is Joe getting ready to slide over there?  Maybe Q would be better off as the Mayor’s right hand man?  Maybe then he could still be Treasurer?

We’re getting another Deputy Counsel; good thing cause there’s been another suit filed against the City and P&Z.  Does anyone know about any advertising or posting for that position?  Oh yeah there is also the position of Claims Adjuster open in that office, does anyone know the status of that?

How are things out at City Yard?

How about Fire Chief?  Posting, advertising, got to live in town??? Anybody?

Court Again Rules in Favor of City in Proto vs Planning & Zoning Commission Lawsuit

Proto vs. Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission matter is currently pending in Middlesex Superior Court.  Yesterday, the court granted the City Attorney's request to revise the plaintiff’s complaint and overruled the plaintiff’s objection .  As a result of the judge's orders, the plaintiff will have to file a revised complaint taking out the allegations that were outside the record. The judge ruled earlier these allegations against the Commission be removed, but they plaintiff filed a recent complaint in attempt to subvert the judge's ruling an attempted to re-enter the allegations into the record.

Read more about the lawsuit in a previous post: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/04/citizens-sue-p-commission-over-mx-zone.html 

Amended Complaint: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1OYjxtLEgUwZkxTSWxRSFJXMFE/edit?usp=sharing 

Ruling:  https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1OYjxtLEgUwS3F4VkxDZGhsa0U/edit?usp=sharing

City Prevails in Armetta Zoning Litigation

The City of Middletown prevailed in the Armetta appeal that was pending in Middlesex Superior Court. The Plaintiff,  Phil Armetta, appealed the Commission's decision to grant Dainty Rubbish Service, Inc. a special exception to allow a solid waste disposable facility at the premises located at 80 Industrial Park Road.  In dismissing the appeal, Judge Domnarski found that the appellant failed to sustain his burden of proof that the Commission's action in the case was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.  A copy of the decision is a below.
Link to Armetta v Middletown Planning & Zoning Commission Decision

City Wins Round 1 of MX Zone Change Litigation, Allegations Against City & Commissioners Dismissed

Judge Aurigemma sustained  the City of Middletown's Objection to the plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Record.  The  Plaintiffs, Jennifer and Jared Proto and their attorneys sought to add to the record 175 pages of e-mails and other documents the plaintiffs received via FOIA and to seek the depositions of Director of the Planning, Zoning & Conservation Dept. William Warner, Commissioner Ken McClellan (R), and Commissioner Molly Salafia (R) (despite Salafia's recusal  prior to the initial hearing before the vote).  The Court sided with the City and denied the plaintiffs' Motion.  The case is proceeding as submitted without these additional documents and without any depositions.  The Judge exonerates the commissioners and planning director of any wrong doing as the plaintiff's allege; finding there were in fact no illegal or unethical "ex parte" communications whatsoever.

The findings of the Judge and Motion  with counter allegations & criticisms from City Attorney Brig Smith are linked below:
Objection to the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Record
Order to Sustain Objection to Motion to Amend the Record

Letter to the Editor: Reaction to City Dept. Merger

Below is a essay by Middletown Republican Town Committee chair, resident, and veteran Ken McClellan. All opinions expressed are that of the author and not necessarily that of the Insider staff. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mayor’s Task Force on Efficiency in Government.

Thursday, May 2, at a hastily called Common Council meeting, the Common Council voted 10-2 to merge the Personnel and City Attorney departments, with the HR Director reporting to the city attorney.  There was not much publicity for the meeting, and attendance was sparse.  The meeting was called in order to allow a second vote on the ordinance change, as required by the city charter, within 90 days of the first vote.  The initial vote was taken on Feb 4.  The issue was removed from the April meeting agenda without explanation.

This was the first, and so far, the only recommendation implemented, out of 15 recommendations submitted by the task force.

In defending and justifying this recommendation, the Mayor and the city attorney, Mr. Brig Smith, in various meetings, gave a number of justifications for eliminating the personnel department, and placing that responsibility with the City Attorney.   Taken at face value these justifications make sense.  However, when examined, the justifications are not valid.
 

Reason 1:  Numerous municipalities and companies operate under this model. 

Mr. Smith and the Mayor stated during the Finance and Government committee that Lansing Michigan, and ‘numerous municipalities in Wisconsin’, and a number or ‘major corporations’ that operate under this model.  Mr.  Smith repeated this assertion at the special meeting on May 2.  Since Mr Smith is from Lansing, I would presume that he would have accurate information about that city.

Here’s what I found.   In Lansing, MI, HR and Legal are separate departments.  When questioned about the discrepancy between his statement at the Finance and government committee, and my finding, Mr Smith caveated his earlier statement, saying that the city attorney was also the personnel director of another agency.  I guess he misspoke at the Finance and Government commission.

Regarding Wisconsin, I checked the larger towns and cities, where there should be a Personnel staff. 

Eau Claire has separate HR and Attorney offices under Administration.

Racine, Wausau, Green Bay, Milwaukee, La Crosse, Madison, Wautoma, Onalaska, Fon du Lac all have separate offices.

Portage, Marion:  looks like the city clerk handles job applications, and Marion doesn’t have a city attorney.   In Grand Rapids, there is an Administrative Department with both HR and Legal as separate offices. That’s 2 cities with an Administrative Department, with HR and Legal as separate offices.  I’ll get back to that later.

As a further check I looked at Michigan.  Detroit and a number of other cities and towns of various sizes that I checked, all have separate Personnel/HR and Legal departments.

I checked a number of cities and towns in Connecticut, starting with cities with a population of around 40,000, like Middletown.  Among them: East Hartford, Milford, Stratford, Wallingford, Southington, Shelton, Groton and Norwich.  I checked Meriden, Glastonbury, Rocky Hill, Waterbury, Torrington, West Hartford, Greenwich, Bristol.  All of those cities and towns have separate HR and Legal.

I also checked a number of businesses, major corporations and small business in Connecticut and other states.  I could not find any that have the Personnel Manager reporting to the corporation counsel.  If this is as wide-spread a practice, I should have found one. There may be companies where the Director of Personnel is an attorney, but that would not be the same as merging the HR and Legal Departments.

Another example cited where the Personnel Department was supervised by the Legal Counsel was Southern Connecticut State University.  I wrote to the Personnel Director, Jaye Bailey. Here’s her response:  “..I serve as the VP for Human Resources and Labor Relations.  I don’t serve as the GC because only the Office of the Attorney General can act as the University’s counsel.  I report to the President. ”. 

So, what was the point of all this research?  At first, I did not believe that anyone operated with this model, but I wanted to try to find examples where it was used.  I found one.  In the interest of accuracy, I did locate one city that has the Personnel Manager reporting to the City Attorney:  Stamford.   Funny, that’s where Governor Dannell Malloy is from.  I found none in business.  If anyone can give me the name of a business that uses this model, I would welcome the information.  I will confirm that information with that business.  The conclusion is that the Mayor and Mr. Smith provided inaccurate, misleading information to the study committee and the Common Council when they stated that in ‘numerous companies and municipalities’ the City Attorney manages Personnel.   If Mr. Smith and Mayor Drew could provide specific, named examples where the Personnel/HR Department report to and is managed by the Legal Department, other than Stamford, I would like to see the list, and I will happily and publicly acknowledge any correction.  But, one city, out of the several dozen that I randomly checked, and not one business out of several dozen checked, does not make this a widespread practice.  Again:  Is Mayor Drew misinformed, or lying?

Reason 2:  Reduce the number of directors reporting to the Mayor

This reduces the total of 21 to 20.  I won’t comment on that, here, but I’ll get back to it later.

Reason 3: Efficiency gained by co-locating the City Attorney and HR. 

This could be done by a simple relocation of one office or the other.

Reason 4: Personnel is governed by laws and requires supervision by an attorney.

Legal concerns are not the extent of the Personnel department.  They do screening, hiring, training, promotions, performance evaluations.  Water and Sewer, Public Works, the Fire and Police Departments, the Common Council and Mayor are all governed by laws, so by the same logic, the Police Department, Fire Department, Council and Mayor should also be reporting to the Legal Department.  Sounds a little ridiculous, doesn’t it.

Those were the stated justifications for this merger.  If all of them are inaccurate, specious or ridiculous, what is the real reason for the merger?  Is there another reason that is not being made public?  

Reason not to merge

There is, however, one very good reason not to place the Personnel Department under the City Attorney.  The City Attorney needs to be an advisor to and resource for all city departments.  The city attorney represents the city in legal matters.  He or she should not be directly involved or managing routine operations of any department.  Department directors should certainly seek his advice as needed.

HR is responsible for recruiting, vetting, hiring, training and developing employees.  The Director of HR must at times hear work grievances, which could result in legal action against the city.  Would the Director of HR be a neutral hearing officer if reporting to the city attorney?  I don’t believe that is possible.  

There are 15 recommendations in the task force report. 

Here are a few, in the order they were presented in the report:

Establish a Technology Advisory Committee

Institute  performance appraisals with specific, measurable goals

            Supervisory and Management Skills Training

            Review City Personnel Rules

            Enforce Internal Controls and Checks and Balances

            Merge Information Systems and Tax Assessor into the Finance Department

            Reorganize the Finance Department and add a Grant Writer

            Merge Legal, Personnel and Human Resources

            Merge Arts and Culture Office and Building Division into Planning, Conservation

            Merge Senior Services into the Recreation Department

This is the order in which the recommendations were presented by the task force.  Merging the HR and Legal departments was Number 12 of 15 on the list.  Why did the mayor start with eliminating the personnel department? 

What is the status of the other 14 recommendations?  Will any be implemented?

During the meeting on May 2, Council members hinted that my opposition to this merger was political.  It is not.  I agree with a number of recommendations of the task force, and look forward to the mayor and council implementing those recommendations, including the Management Training, Performance Standards and Evaluations and enforcing Internal Controls. And I look forward to the improved service that will be provided to the citizens of Middletown by a more efficient, well-trained, well-led staff.

As a final  comment.  The Mayor’s task force was directed to reduce the number of directors reporting to the Mayor.  They went from 21 to 13.  I have a recommendation reduce that number to 4 Directors reporting to the Mayor, each with 4 – 7 Assistant Directors reporting to each Director.  The model I propose has been used by the US Military quite successfully, and is used in the majority of businesses across the country.  Group city departments and offices by functions.

Establish 4 Departments:  Administration, Safety, Public Works, and Services.  Take the current 21 Directors and group them as follows:

Administration:  Human Relations, Information Systems, Legal Department, Personnel Department, Tax Assessor Office, Town Clerk Office.  Include Finance and the City Treasurer in this department.

Safety:  Emergency Management, Fire Department, Health Department, Police Department.  Include Communications.

Public Works:  Planning, Conservation and Development, Public Works Department, Water and Sewer Department, Parking Department.  Include vehicle, building and grounds maintenance and custodial services in this department.  Include such portions of Parks and Recreation that do maintenance and landscaping.

Services:  Russell Library, Senior Services Department.  Include such portions of Parks and Recreation as Youth and Sports programs and Arts & Culture programs.

This organization:

1.      Reduces the number of directors from 21 to 4, saving money on salary, and reducing the number of direct reports to the mayor.

2.      Balances the number of direct reports to each director.

3.      Improves communication and coordination by grouping like functions.

4.      Places all vehicle maintenance under one supervisor, and consolidates purchasing of parts and supplies, maintenance management and supervision of repairs.

5.      Places all building maintenance and custodial services under one supervisor, and consolidates purchasing of parts and supplies, maintenance management and supervision of repairs..  This could be expanded to include building currently managed by the board of education. 

6.      Places all grounds-keeping/landscaping work under one supervisor, which should improve also resource usage and scheduling.

The proposal above is just that, a proposal, not a plan.  But I do have examples of this model being used successfully, and think that it is worth looking into.

Thank you for your attention,

Ken McClellan

Chairman, Middletown Republican Town Committee

City Department Merger Passes 10-2 With Bi-Partisan Support

Tonight the Common Council held a special meeting to vote on the merging of a variety of City Departments as outlined in the report by the Mayor's Task Force on Government Efficiency. Part of the merger consolidates the Personnel and Legal departments. Previously this year, Drew proposed  a memorandum of understanding between the city and Board of Education to use city attorneys. The new merger also  calls for the hiring of a third City Attorney.

To change the make-up of City departments, the Middletown Charter calls for a 3/4 majority. To reverse the decision, a 3/4 majority would again be needed. The Council had the option of the adoption of a sunset clause to try the new organization out and have it automatically expire if it did not work and then re-adopt by re-vote should it be successful. The Council, however, did not choose to exercise this option.The Charter also says that the Personnel Director must preside over the meeting of the Personnel Review Committee, how this will be addressed with the supposed elimination of this position has yet to be determined. The former Personnel Director retired this past December, and in order for the newly appointed police chief to be implemented, the assistant Personnel Director was made active in order to hold the Personnel Committee to vet the candidate.

In an article in the Middletown Press by reporter Jim Salemi, Republican Town Committee chairman Ken McClellan was quoted in regards to the merger, he said
“This is not a merger you want to make. The legal and personnel departments should be independent so they can render independent opinions,” he said. “It puts personnel subject to legal department. They are two separate fields of responsibility, they should be independent.” 
The full article can be read here: 

McClellan also provided additional analysis we published here

The special meeting was not televised on cable access like more City Council meetings. Mayor Drew was quoted in the media stating that the merger will save the City money; the Insider has published a variety of opinion pieces and analysis detailing fallacies in this argument. Republican Councilmembers Deborah Kleckowski and Linda Salafia (Salafia wrote a previously published letter to the editor detailing her reasoning) were the two dissenting votes.  Democrat Majority Leader Tom Serra and Republican Minority Leader Phil Pessina each gave speeches endorsing the Mayor's planned merger. 

Earlier in the month, Republican Minority Leader endorsed the Mayor's budget which included a 3.3% increase in taxes when he introduced Mayor Drew at the March 28th press conference where he presented the 2013-2014  budget to the public.

During Mayor Drew's first term, taxes went up 3.8%. The 2012-2013 budget passed 10-2 also, with the two dissenting votes being Kleckowski and Salafia. Last year,the Republican Councilmembers drafted and proposed and alternative budget that would have not increased taxes to that degree, which when brought the floor, was voted against by Councilmembers Pessina and  Deputy Minority Leader Joe Bibisi.  The Common Council conducted a public meeting on Tuesday where citizens could comment on Drew's proposed budget.

The Council votes on the proposed budget on meeting May 15. 

The full budget as proposed by Mayor Drew is available for download on the City website in Revenue and Expenditure packages:
http://www.cityofmiddletown.com/filestorage/737/776/2014Budget_Revenue.pdf
http://www.cityofmiddletown.com/filestorage/737/776/2014Budget-Expenditure.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's note:  Want to know more about the Government ReOrg?
Read the Insider Staff's analysis of the Government ReOrg here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/city-governmen-re-org-part-ii.html  
The misleading merge of City Legal & BOE Legal:http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/apple-oranges-boe-budget-hikes.html 
John Milardo spoke of the downsides of the Governmnet ReOrg in a previous Guest Blog piece here:://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/guest-blog-his-town.html
Councilmember Linda Salafia also comments on negative aspects here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/01/letter-editor-government-reorg-costly.html
Read the full report for yourself here: http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/mayors-task-force-on-efficiency-report.html

Letter to the Editor: Councilmember Salafia: City Dept. Mergers Don't Save Resources

Below is a essay by Councilmember Linda Salafia. All opinions expressed are that of the author and not necessarily that of the Insider staff. 

The City Reorg will be voted on at a special council meeting open to the public at 6 pm Thursday May 2, 2013 in the Council Chambers.

Salafia previously commented on this re-org in an earlier letter to editor:

Read full article here.

 

The objective of the task force appears to contain a predetermined remedy for what were yet-to-be discovered problems. Salafia points out that many of the positions will still have to be filled and therefore the cost savings is a false assumption. Kleckowski cited departments becoming dysfunctional as a concern. In a previously published letter from the actuaries hired by the City to City Finance Director Carl Erlacher, the actuaries expressed concerns that the pension fund be in trouble as early as 2014. Apparently, Mayor Drew knows better than the professionals.

Editors Note: Background Information and financial breakdowns:

The package is available to read here: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1OYjxtLEgUwUm9EZ1gzYUdsODQ
The smoking gun letter from the actuary is here:   https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B1OYjxtLEgUwUm9EZ1gzYUdsODQ

 Previously published posts on this subject can be read here:

http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/city-governmen-re-org-part-ii.html

http://www.middletowninsider.com/2012/12/city-government-re-org-part-i.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Councilmember Salafia's Letter to the Editor:

I want to respond to John Milardo's newsletter however I don't think the space for comments will allow me room to say what I want.

The vote on the merger of the Personnel Department into the Legal Department is scheduled for May 2, and most assuredly will pass.  However, I plan on voting no to that and to any other resolution presented as a result of the merger.  There are several reasons why I don't agree with this particular merger and don't think that it will either streamline, improve the efficiency of government or save money.

First, I don't agree with the report issued by the Task Force formed by the Mayor to improve efficiency in government shortly after he took office.  I believe that the Mayor gave them the charge to reduce the number of employees that report directly to him; not that the committee did an unbiased assessment of the workings of the city government.  The report stated that 20 employees reported directly to the Mayor, I'm having trouble coming up with those 20.  Also, I understand the concept of having outside eyes look at the procedures; however, they need to have a basic understanding of the current procedures before you make changes.  I had to point out to them that even though only one employee in a truck driver position was retiring that in reality they were losing up to 7 drivers who drive snow plows during storms.

Secondly, I don't agree with the numbers presented on how this merger will save money for the city.  As part of the package given to the Council outlining the savings, as John says, the second Deputy City Attorney position is included in the current funding column and also in the proposed column so that there is no effect on the bottom line.  While this is technically true, since the position of second Deputy Attorney is in the budget now, it was done so on the expectation of the merger happening.  It was not in the budget prior to this year and therefore should be included as a new expense.

Thirdly,  I truly believe that the Personnel Department has different duties and functions that although could often use the advise of attorneys, they should remain separate and distinct.  The volume of work needed to handle the hiring process of the city by itself should illustrate the need for a separation of duties.  Now you will be filtering the public and employees through the City's Legal Office.  The Personnel Department was a department of 4 employees and that had been reduced to 3; this merger is proposing 2 for this function.  I find it difficult to believe that 2 people are going to be able to handle the required duties without additional help considering what's on the horizon such as needing to hire a new Fire Chief, and the review and filling of the other positions that are open as a result of the retirement incentive given.  (That's another whole article about why I didn't agree with that either - as far as, I can see, there's been no actual savings with that.)  Paralegal has come up in discussions.

Also, included in this merger may be a change in the council committees which is going to be another problem and will require another whole discussion and I believe that should happen before any merger or change takes place.

Therefore, based on those reasons and more, I will not be voting in favor of this merger.  
 

Sincerely,

Linda Salafia

Councilperson, R

Guest Blog: Department Merger Begins by John Milardo

 Below is a essay by John Milardo. All opinions expressed are that of the author and not necessarily that of the Insider staff. The essay in its original format can be downloaded here:https://docs.google.com/file/d/1JdYt1P4HN0CPb-B3Mi8qtOXC4yIWrbTyQ7VJbNEG-cDgCfYmgxL7H_1mziVX/edit?usp=sharing

The Common Council will the vote on Mayor Drew's proposed budget just around the corner, the Council will be voting on the government re-org soon. Milardo discusses the impact below. See the Editor's note at the end of the article to read our past posts on the same subject for further background. Past newsletters from Mr. Milardo can be accessed on our site by typing in "And Justice for All" or "John Milardo" into the search area at the top of the page.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 “And Justice For All” is a newsletter involving my opinions, views, and commentary as a life long
Middletown resident. In my capacity as a former employee of Middletown (retired) for over 41
years, I have a different perspective regarding how and why public figures do what they do.

The merger of City of Middletown departments begins according to an article in the
Hartford Courant by reporter Shawn Beals. ( http://www.courant.com/community/middletown/hc-

middletown-legal-personnel-0426-20130425,0,1041366.story )

The article states that City officials estimate a yearly savings of $92,000 for the taxpayer,
and more efficiency in government because the present Personnel department will be on
the same floor as the legal department. The below is an excerpt from the Courant article.

The city attorney's office and the risk management office are on the upper level of city hall,
while the personnel department is in the basement. The three offices frequently have to
work together on labor issues and other matters, and Smith said proximity would boost
productivity.

"Being in the same office, it's going to have much more efficiency and shared knowledge,
and that comes to saving tax dollars," said Council Democratic Majority Leader Thomas
Serra. Smith said he plans to have weekly staff meetings.

Mayor Daniel Drew said the merger of the three departments, a major shift in internal city
operations, would ensure a smarter approach to labor and legal decisions.

"We're consolidating operations by putting our personnel function in our legal office,"
Drew said. "It will give us the ability to avoid future problems by ensuring that personnel
decisions are not made in a vacuum in terms of the legal effects personnel decisions have."

The newly hired City Attorney Brigg Smith comes from Michigan, and has absolutely no
knowledge of how Middletown government operated. Councilman Serra should know that
just because a department is moved within another does not guarantee more productivity.

Consolidating may have the reverse affect on productivity if the City Attorney is a micro-
manager and there are personality conflicts within the proposed consolidation. Various
past ways to get around the two floor difference was by using phones, emails, stairs, and
the elevator.

Mayor Daniel Drew’s statement: "We're consolidating operations by putting our personnel
function in our legal office," Drew said. "It will give us the ability to avoid future problems
by ensuring that personnel decisions are not made in a vacuum in terms of the legal effects
personnel decisions have."

What past problems is he referring too? His statement about personnel decisions being
made in a vacuum is total hogwash! Every Mayor before him instructed the Personnel
Director which way to proceed on any given matter, and approved the final decision of
ALL personnel issues. That is the Mayors primary function as the immediate supervisor
of all department heads. Let’s call a spade a spade… the Mayor does not want to be
bothered having more than a handful of directors talking to him. That will put a damper
on the amount of time he spends in Hartford.

How the City Officials came up with a $92,000 per year savings is beyond me. Before this
current reorganization of departments, the City Attorney’s Office consisted of one (1) City
Attorney ($120K) and one (1) secretary ($54K). The Personnel Department consisted of
one (1) Director ($102K), one (1) Deputy Director ($87K) and an Assistant ($54K).
Total of $363K.

The newly proposed “Legal Counsel” department will consist of a City Attorney ($130K),
two (2) Deputy City Attorney’s ($120K per attorney), a Human Resources Director
($102K), and a legal secretary ($54K). Total of $526K.

Now, these wages do not include benefits, and are cost out at their maximum wage, as it
seems that is how Mayor Drew likes to hire people. So, let’s do the math; $526,000 minus
$363,000 = $163,000 increase. What! An increase? Can’t be! I must have hit the wrong
keys on my calculator. Let me check my numbers again. 526 minus 363 = 163 no, no, no,
I mean a savings of $92,000 a year. Yeah, that’s right, a savings of $92K a year. Damn
calculator! It just kills batteries.

Perhaps the Officials calculator has different function keys, and can show how there is
such a huge discrepancy – their $92K decrease to my $163K increase – a $255K
difference. It could be moving from two floors to one is where the savings is?

More interestingly though will be to watch the competitive hiring process for the 3rd
Deputy City Attorney. Curiosity is building to see if the top candidate just HAPPENS to
be a former City Councilwoman…

I guess the only fact of this entire article is that Mayor Dan, his Democratic
Councilpersons, and two Republican Councilpersons, believes that the public doesn’t
know how to add.

Stay strong. Stay involved. Stay together. Seek the truth.

 John Milardo

Guest Blog: The Malloy Connection by John Milardo

 Below is a essay by John Milardo. All opinions expressed are that of the author and not necessarily that of the Insider staff.
The essay in its original format can be downloaded here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/1hG3LNoxp6zqztie5Lkg7dNbpYiubr042XnUFYZ5ufa9WL5WZnKv-K0VVDNtT/edit?usp=sharing
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“And Justice For All” is a newsletter involving my opinions, views, and commentary as a life long Middletown resident. In my capacity as a former employee of Middletown (retired) for over 41 years, I have a different perspective regarding how and why public figures do what they do.

When Daniel Drew lost his first mayoral bid attempt to then republican Mayor Sebastian Giuliano in 2010, the local democrats had enough. Giuliano was a three (3) term republican Mayor in a democratically controlled city, and that had to end. (Quite frankly, in Middletown, any mayor who has more than a couple of terms under their belt is ripe for the picking – anyone being elected as mayor past three (3) terms is pretty amazing.) What could the democrats do to win the mayoral seat back?

The local democrats ran to Governor Dannel Malloy, and asked him for help. He endorsed democratic mayoral candidate Daniel Drew in 2012. The Governor made some personal appearances, and made sure Drew was in the public eye as much as possible – Drew became Mayor. We know Drew spends a lot of time in Hartford rubbing elbows with everyone. Maybe Malloy has bigger and better things planned for him? As like many politicians, I presume the Governor’s motive is power and control over Drew. He’s got Middletown’s mayor on his side for support no matter what the issue may be.

Why would Governor Dannel Malloy bring novice Mayor Daniel Drew with him on a trip to China? What could Drew offer Malloy or the Chinese? Did Drew learn about communism, poor wages and working conditions or forced labor? Did they bring back anything to the citizens of the State of Connecticut that would enhance our technology or manufacturing industries? I haven’t seen anything that the Chinese trip has done for our States economy.

One of the first things Mayor Drew did when elected was to authorize a committee to look into reorganizing and consolidating City of Middletown departments. It is said to be for the purpose of saving money and being more efficient. I can assure you it is for other reasons. Mayor Drew put the committee together and made sure it contained Governor Malloy insiders.

When negotiations began between the City of Middletown and Teamsters Local 671, Mayor Drew hired a law firm that had connections to the Malloy campaign. I can assure you, as I have first hand knowledge, that Mayor Drew is not very labor oriented or friendly.

When Governor Malloy recently informed Connecticut towns that State grants and subsidies were going to be eliminated and/or severely reduced, Mayor Drew said nothing. Other towns and Cities, no matter whether they were democrat or republican Mayors, decried the loss of State funding. Mayor Drew and his democratic council members have been silent. Get ready for July…. “Got Your Tax Bill… Round 2”.

Mayor Drew recently hired a new City Attorney named Brigham Smith, from Lansing Michigan. How could there be a Malloy connection? No way! Mr. Smith wants to be close to his family who moved back to Connecticut, and if you look really, really close … perhaps the former Mrs. Smith has a Stamford connection.

You can’t make this stuff up!

Stay strong. Stay involved. Stay together. Seek the truth.

Yours in Solidarity.
John Milardo

Your Daily Spin by the Middletown Mess:When the Numbers Don't Add Up

Daily Spin: Response to City & BOE Consolidation of Legal Services

http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2013/01/19/news/doc50f9defb8c1b4595879930.txt

There has been an article in some of the news outlets regarding a memorandum of understanding between the City and the BOE regarding the BOE using the City's legal staff rather than hire outside attorneys.

The article stated that the administration wanted to go back to pre-2008 staffing levels.  For this year, 2012, the City is increasing it's current staffing levels from an Acting City Attorney, vacant Deputy City Attorney position and a secretary to a City Attorney (already hired), two Deputy City Attorneys (one already hired and one scheduled to be hired in the spring) plus the secretary.  The Risk Manager's part of the department currently has three full time employees.  This is leading us to believe that the City previously had

that level of staffing.  However, in the approved budget for the year ending 6/30/2009, there was a City Attorney, one Deputy City Attorney and a Legal Secretary as had been budgeted for the year ending

6/30/2008.  A second Deputy City Attorney was requested but not funded.  At one time, for a short time, the office was staffed with a paralegal who first started as a part-time employee and then becamefulltime; after that employee received her law license, she was appointed as an additional Deputy City Attorney.  She subsequently left the City for other employment.  Should be noted that this former employee was one of the original applicants for the City Attorney position and not chosen.  The article is misleading in that except for a short period of time, the office has only had ONE Deputy City Attorney.

Also, the article claimed that the City has been able to settle some 30 some odd pieces of litigation stating further that numerous grievances and suits were settled by working with the Mayor, BOE and the union.  It should be noted however that the majority of the "30" legal issues were union grievances that did not necessarily require legal representation on the part of the City or the BOE.  These were grievances filed the employee through the union and were to be heard by a panel at the state labor board; the fee to do so is approximately $25.00 per party and did not necessarily rise to the level of requiring the attendance of an attorney at several hundreds of dollars per hour.  As part of the agreement the BOE insisted on keeping the illegal hire , Councilwoman Hope Kasper's son inlaw, whom she had a direct hand in hiring. Hmm. The hearing of grievances by the Labor Board is a matter of stating the facts and the specific part of the union contract violated to the panel and then waiting for their response; sometimes, the panel will request that the positons of both sides be submitted in writing

but generally it's straightforward: how did the employer violate the contract??  BTW, there is still a grievance out there to be heard and also an outstanding law suit not settled as of yet.

According to the paperwork handed out by the BOE at the workshop regarding their budget for object code 392 Legal Services for 2011-2012 the actual expenditure was $147,177.48; $100,000 was

appropriated bor the 2012-2013 budget and for the 2013-2014 budget $154,220 is being requested, an additional $54,220.00 over the current budgeted amount.  In the overall budget for the BOE, $147,177 doesn't seem extreme but it should be noted that much of what was paid for the outside attorneys for services rendered for the issues between the BOE and the City were paid for from the City's Insurance and Claims Fund and not the above referenced object code in the BOE's budget.  Monies in the Insurance and Claims Fund are reserved generally for payment for pending claims and suits against the City plus claims resulting from storms etc. and deductibles, and should the fund be insufficient after the payment of funds not planned for, an appropriation from the General Fund will be necessary to meet those obligations when and if

they arise.  If the BOE is expecting to have to pay less for legal expenses, one would assume that we will see the request for $154,220 be reduced.  Right??

City Personnel Conundrum

Earlier in the week, Mayor Drew made Deputy Personnel Director "Acting" Personnel Director. Why is this relevant? The whole idea behind Mayor Drew and his super duper special Task Force on Government Efficiency was to eliminate the Personnel Department and consolidate it into the City Attorney's office to "save tax payers money." Or so was Mayor Drew's cover story for offering  golden handshakes and pay-outs to a few departmental director's he wished to give the boot to make way for more politically advantageous individuals of his and the Democrats' choosing. The issue? This document called the Middletown Charter.
     According to the Charter, (and why the Mayor is only NOW reading this is another cause for concern), the Personnel Director must preside over the Personnel Review Committee. Now that Mayor Drew wants to get Officer Michael Timbro sworn in as Deputy Police Chief as fast as possible, this process becomes is cause concern. The third City Attorney position is rumored to be promised to Attorney and former Democratic Councilwoman Phrances Szewczyk. 
     According to sources,the position, which has not been posted as of yet, is being left unfilled until April when Szewczyk's prior commitments end and it is convenient for her to step into the job. The Government ReOrg report aka "Blue Ribbon Report" has the third City Attorney taking on the role of the Personnel Director's duties. How this will work when it does not adhere to Charter rules has yet to be determined and is a quesiton for new City Attorney Brigham Smith. Sources claim that Smith has close ties to Fairfield county and  Govenor Malloy; if true this  could explain how an Attorney from Michigan found such a position. A more reasonable explanation than the attorney was visiting family in Farmington and fell in love with Main Street. Whatever. The Insider welcomes Smith to our humble abode and wish him well.
     If the Personnel Dept. is not to be eliminated the the Democratic Majority and Mayor are leading the public to believe is the whole purpose behind the reorganization, where is the cost savings that justified the  retirement packages ?

Guest Blog: Giuliano Speaks Out

Hush and Rush! Why fill position so fast?
 Former Middletown Mayor Seb Giuliano speaks out.
When I took office, we had 3 attorneys in the legal department.  It had been my intention to assign each of them two related areas of concentration: labor and personnel matters to Adrienne DeLuca, land use and contractual matters (other than labor) to Tim Lynch and public safety and municipal liability to City Attorney Trina Solecki. Outside counsel would continue to be retained for complex litigation.

Deluca left to take a private sector job with a labor law firm (specialty in representing management) and, within a few more months, Solecki retired. This left only Lynch, who was named Acting City Attorney, which position he continues to occupy. In the meantime, the legal department was reduced from 3 to 2 lawyers and the qualifications for the City Attorney position had been made more - and subsequently less - stringent. Obviously, any concept of a three lawyer office, with each of them being responsible for specific areas of legal expertise, was shelved. Also, a logical consequence of having only one lawyer in the office was more reliance on outside counsel, with its attendant costs.

At one point, I felt it helpful and logical to send Geen Thazhampallath, my Administrative Assistant (not "Chief of Staff"), who is a lawyer, to the legal department as an acting deputy city attorney.  Council Democrats objected that, under the Charter, nobody could hold a city job and, at the same time, be the mayoral AA. I thought their argument was misplaced, but it was not an argument worth getting into, so I brought Thazhampallath back to my office and left Tim Lynch by himself.

There are those who have suggested that we eliminate the legal department altogether and use outside counsel for everything. This is not a position I support. I believe that it is more cost effective to keep ordinary municipal functions "in house", and only outsource for those needs that arise infrequently. For a small, “general practice” law firm, which the City’s legal department essentially is (even though it has only one client), litigation is something that should be handled by outside counsel. Most small law offices would be brought to a standstill by litigation, especially federal litigation. This detracts from the City Attorney’s ability to advise the municipal departments (e.g., planning, conservation, municipal development, personnel, finance, tax assessor, tax collector, health, public works, parks, recreation, human relations, purchasing, sanitation, et c.), to negotiate and review contracts, to advise and assist the City’s enforcement officials in the exercise of their respective duties, or to issue legal opinions when requested or authorized by the Mayor.

Clearly, I have no quarrel with the concept of a three-lawyer legal department along the lines I previously described. That, however, does not completely describe what is being proposed. The Mayor - and his "blue ribbon" commission (just who awarded them this blue ribbon and what they did to earn it still to be explained) are proposing that the legal department take operational control of a city department, i.e., personnel, an idea that is rife with potential - if not actual - conflicts of interest. The client of the City Attorney is the corporate entity known as the City of Middletown, which includes all of its departments, boards and commissions, and its ethical responsibility is to represent that entity fully, To place municipal management functions within that office is to compromise the ability of the office to exercise its true function, to be the City’s lawyers.

Sebastian Giuliano,

Middletown, CT

Early Retirement Pay Outs Costly to Taxpayers & Other City Pensioners

Click to download & view

    The following is a draft of a memorandum of understanding proposed between the City and the Teamsters Local #571 offering certain employees an incentive to retire prior to their normal eligibility.  The following is a draft and has not been formalized or accepted by the Council and could change.  We understand that the employees have until November 7th to indicate their interest in the package and until that point the actual cost to the City has not been determined.  

     However, this is going to be an expensive package if implemented:  there are between 40 and 50 members of the union and of course it's unknown how many will take the offer so there are no numbers regarding the impact on the general fund as of now.  For those directors that are not part of the union, it is rumored that the City is offering up to 5 years of service;  so say you've 18 years of service, that could be now 23 years of service which at 2.5% would be 57.5% of the average of the highest 3 years of salary.  If the average salary is $90,000, the annual pension would be $51,750 or $4,312.50 per month.  Now they would be able to start collecting this pension 5 years earlier than they normally could have.

     Pensions from the City are capped at 70% of a set average salary, however this union's contract has adjusted that cap to 80% based on the retiree paying a higher percentage for their health insurance.  This draft offers some employees who have been with the city for 35 years or more a cap at 85%.  If their average salary were $100,000 (which is possible since overtime is included in their base salaries for the calculation), an additional 5% is $5,000.00 per year.

     However, the general rule of thumb has been that a golden handshake only saves money if you don't replace the retiring members; that doesn't seem to be the case here. If the building official retires, are you not going to replace him?  From the council agenda, it appears that the intent is to replace the Director and or Deputy Director of Personnel with Deputy City Attorneys, savings?? 

     Also, during the budget process this year, the pension funds was not funded to the extent that the actuaries had indicated and a special committe was to be formed to review the pension funding.   By giving the highest paid employees effectively a minimum of an additional 5% to their pension for their lifetime is going to be a tremendous hit to the pension fund.  These numbers of course are not available as of yet.  Remember, this union just won at the state labor board a case against the City and BOE where a union member retired and was replaced by a non-union worker, so they've a history of protecting their positions.

     Health insurance should be mentioned here also cause it's not mentioned in the offer at all; so not paying any more or less as a result of getting a higher pension.

     These seems to be an expensive way to get people to retire.  Offering 5 additional years to those employees who are not members of the union just to get them to retire is very generous!  Seems that it would be less expensive to negotiate with those employees who you wish to have leave on an individual basis rather than give away the farm to the whole management tier.

     Drew is cleaning house of directors who did not support him under the "guise" of saving money, however; the fact is that this will over in-flat city government departments and cost more.One can only speculate whom Drew and the Democratic majority/Serracrats have in mind to place in possible new director positions....
Lisa Santangelo? Another unqualified relative of Councilwoman Hope Kasper?

City 411:New Superintendent Contract in Plain English, Grievances, Settlements, & Dumbed Down Hiring Requirements

    The Middletown Insider has become aware of rumors afloat that there will soon be a special council meeting called to vote on the appointment of a new city attorney.  The city attorney position has been vacant for several years now since the retirement of Trina Solecki.   Deputy City Attorney Tim Lynch was appointed Acting City Attorney under Mayor Giuliano's administration.  When Mayor Drew took office, he decided to advertise for the position which the Personnel Office did.  There were applicants who were certified as qualified by the Personnel Department including the current Acting City Attorney.  At the June Common Council meeting, the job description for the city attorney position was changed in that the required number of years of experience was reduced from 7 to 5 years on the premise of widening the recruitment pool with no change in salary. 
    This was passed by a vote of 7 to 4 (Serra, Klattenberg, Bartolotta, Daley, Santangelo, Kasper and Berch in favor; Faulkner, Pessina, Bibisi and Salafia dissenting and Kleckowski absent).  The new job description reads:  Jurist doctorate with five years of municipal law related experience with an emphasis on employment law, labor relations experience.  It would be now assumed that the recommended candidate is going have a very solid 5 years of experience in that area.   It should be noted that the acting city attorney has indicated that he will be retiring from city service and had withdrawn his name from consideration.  Please note that there is also residency requirement attached to this position.
    At the time the job re-posted, the qualifications were still the more stringent, seven years' experience in municipal law, labor relations version. The Council, over the objections of the Republicans, led by Councilwoman Linda Salafia (if you recall, it was she who asked whether Dan Drew had someone specific in mind, as there appeared to be no other reason why anyone would lower the bar when there were three candidates who already met the higher standard) reduced the seven-year requirement (which had been inserted two years earlier at the insistence of Councilman Loffredo) to five years. Because this was done AFTER the posting was published, the posting had to be extended.
      Also, rumors are out there about the Council being asked to approve a job description for a second deputy city attorney.  This is coming from the recommendation of the Mayor's Bipartisan Task Force on Efficiency in Government, April 2012.  However, this we believe will require an appropriation as only one Deputy Attorney was budgeted.  After the interview for the City Attorney position, that Attorney Phrances Leverton Szewczyk was the choice along with the Michigan candidate and another attorney "from Middletown" (what that means is unclear, as it does not appear that it is currently a resident, but is someone who is "moving in.” The Insider reported before that Szewczyk does not appear to meet even the lowered qualifications, however, is a member of the Democratic town committee.Reader here. Readers should not that Councilman Tom Serra made on the record comments regarding  appointed Chief Patrick McMahon as not being a Middletown resident even though he bought a house here and was in town 5 nights a week- Serra objected and said on record  that McMahon wasn’t a true Middletown resident because he “didn’t worship here.” So kind how is someone from Michigan going to fit the precedent of strict enforcement of residency Serra set forth in the past?
   This report has not been officially presented to the Council, vetted by the Council or accepted by the Council; however, the Council is being (or as rumored d going to be) presented with accepting one of its recommendations that being the hiring of a second deputy city attorney.  This in effect would increase the legal staff in the office from one currently to three.  According to the report issued, the Task Force consisted of three members of the common council and 6 other members of the public plus Attorney Ryan Barry and Joseph Samolis as staff for the Task Force. 
     From the second paragraph of the final report: " Mayor Drew also asked the Task Force to make specific recommendations for consolidations and efficiencies within city government to the Finance and Government Operations Commission of the Common Council, and to make specific recommendations regarding the structure and hierarchical organization of city government."  It would seem that this was not an unbiased study of the mechanisms/ structure of the government operations.  The report indicated how much was spent on outside legal services during the past three years however, it was just a number inserted in the report without detail or explanation or history or comparison to current outside expenses or part expenses.  Oh, and no report or receipts from China... 
      There is a special council meeting scheduled for Tuesday at 7 to appropriate funds and approve a settlement agreement between the City and Local 466.  This settlement agreement will basically draw a line from which the city, the BOE and the union start fresh.  We could spend hours and hours debating the history behind the need for this settlement agreement and probably never come to a consensus on the cause.  We've a new administration now at the BOE with a new Superintendent of Schools so we hope that the atmosphere of intimidation and retaliation has ended and it seems as if it has.  However, this agreement comes with a dollar cost attached which is not insignificant, but again we will probably never be able to all completely agree as to responsibility.  Many hours were put into coming to this agreement and much discussion, it was not easy but a settlement agreement has been worked out that both sides seem to be able to work with.  Thankfully the despicable work environment that some of the men and women of 466 had to endure is over, they should be applauded for coming forward and being whistle blowers and doing what is right!
     The story broke today with headlines the Mayor Drew settled 30+ grievances and that according to him "the slate is clean." However,this is highly misleading. Basically, the City has chosen to pay out to the Union for the BOE administrations mistakes and infractions that the State Labor Board declared the BOE administration under Dr. Frechette did in fact commit. As readers should recall, Frechette refused to pay workers who were part of emergency operations at the storm shelter during last summer’s hurricane, and  communicate at all with former Mayor Giuliano when he called for an investigation into the missing $1 million dollars from the BOE budget. Read past explanations of the confusing paradigm here. 

Other grievances and lawsuits against the BOE still exist and have not been resolved; Drew's statement  that they all have is false. 

 Part of the deal is also that Councilwoman Hope Kasper's son in law illegal hire- Josh Berger, former real estate agent, gets to keep the job as Business Adminstrator at the BOE that was created for and given to him by a hiring committee that Kasper was on. 

     Last week the Insider published the Superintendent's contract ( here) Dr. Patricia Charles .
The legalese is not always easy to understand; so we have broken it down below and done the yearly percentage increases:
 
For 2012/13 Charles will receive:   Base Salary $187,000 + $15,000 to her retirement fund, $3,000 bonus for having a doctorate degree + $6,500 for mileage = $211,500.00 for the year
For 2013/14 Charles will receive:  Base Salary a minimum of $191,675 + $19,168 to her retirement fund,  + $3,000 for having a doctorate degree + ,$6,500 for mileage = $220,343 for the year
For  2014/15 Charles will receive: Base salary a minimum of $196,467 + $19,648 to her retirement fund, $3,000 for having a doctorate degree and $6,500 for mileage = $225,615 for the year.
 
The base salary for the last two years is tied into the  district’s highest  principals' salary.  The principals’ contract is up as of 6/30/2013, so school principal's will be negotiating a new contract; basically if they get a raise, Charles will probably get a raise too; to keep the spacing the same.  It appears Charles makes $50,000 more than the top high school principals, and because the contribution to the retirement fund for her is 10% of salary that would also go up.
     Superintendent Frechette also got a payment to a retirement fund in addition to his salary plus money for being a phd, and the mileage stipend. Charles is getting credit for the previous time that she worked for the BOE towards her retirement for medical insurance, plus the BOE are giving her back, reinstating, previously accumulated sicktime that she lost when she left her principal’s position.
Other superintendent contracts and salaries from Ct are available online, and it is a positive note that Charles chose to release the terms of her contract to the public. Superintendents in Ct are typically paid in the six figure range; Frechette's highest salary was approximately $154,000.

Common Council will also decide on upcoming Deputy Police chief position soon. Read background information &  one reader's concerns here: