Monday, May 05, 2008

Feb information withheld (hotWatergate 11)

In previous posts on hotWatergate (for instance, see here), I've shown that information has been withheld from me (along with the three other GOP Council members). But that was mostly in relation to the attempted coverup between April 7 and April 18.

Having learned of this attempted coverup... on April 22, I reminded Council members of another hotWatergate incident that happened earlier in the year... it related to the February 13 Council meeting:And for those of you who don't remember what happened prior to the Feb 13 Council meeting, clicking here may jog your memory. At the time, I figured the lack of an agenda was a simple oversight on the part of the Town's Public Information Officer (see #3):

But now I'm beginning to wonder if the "Council packet" lacking:

1) an agenda
2) a resolution for 7E
3) supporting information for 7E

was just a simple oversight? Or was this information intentionally withheld from the "Council packets?" Who had access to the packets after they were prepared by the PIO, but before they were delivered to Council members?

Consider... the following day... the Town Manager sent this email to the Council:
So while we did get the Council agenda and the resolution for item 7E... we still didn't get any supporting information for 7E until we voted on Wed Feb 13.


I don't know. But this only makes me feel more strongly that there's a clear pattern of withholding information and that there's something fishy going on here.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

"Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton, 1870

Anonymous said...

The Attorney General should investigate the whole mess.

Anonymous said...

Something fishy going on here...

You think? If it were the actions of republican councilors in question, the dems would be all over this as would the Herald. This should be front page news in all the papers. Someone better get to the bottom of this and someone better be held accountable.

tim white said...

Someone better get to the bottom of this and someone better be held accountable.

But I was told... "these aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along."

Seriously though... I agree, but doubt anything will happen.

Anonymous said...

Let me get this straight.
Matt Hall recused himself during the discussion about the boiler because he had a conflict of interest by having a Bowman as a client. Then he is told about the possible litigation before the rest of the council?
Is that ethical?
Is that legal?
At what point do you bring in the state's attorney?
I am sure the Connecticut Bar Association would want to know about this.

tim white said...

At what point do you bring in the state's attorney?

Why bother? SAs have virtually no power because they have no power of subpoena. I've tried to address this through the Council's "legislative package," but the majority has repeatedly ignored me.