Saturday, July 05, 2008

"It was not up for consideration" (hWg 26)



“If you will recall it was not an agenda item on April 8th and as a result of that there was no information submitted to the Council because it was not up for consideration.

- Town Manager, Council meeting on April 22, 2008 – addressing my concerns about why the corruption memo was withheld from me.

“We received a letter from DEP informing us of the Bond Commission’s approval of funds for turf at Cheshire High School. A copy of the letter will be in your envelopes with the agenda packet for the June 24th meeting. Matt Hall has indicated that this item will be on the Council agenda for the July 8, 2008 meeting, and Superintendent Greg Florio and a representative from the Board of Education will be attending that meeting.”

- Town Manager, an email dated June 20, 2008 – offering information on the turf… even though “it was not up for consideration.” at the June 24th meeting.

So I guess there are times when it is appropriate to include information even though it was not up for consideration.

And to recap... the Town Manager did have knowledge of The Corruption Memo prior to the April 8 Council meeting… as did Chairman Hall:

And that information was withheld from me for more than ten days. And when the information was provided to me, it was buried in a stack of papers under this memo:

What’s happening in Town Hall? Will anyone question these people?

Tim White

11 comments:

matt said...

Just do what we want and no one gets hurt.

Don't worry, be happy.

Anonymous said...

Curious, Tim, as to the emailed information on turf that Milone sent you. Can you share any of it?

tim white said...

It's just a bunch of papers... all smoke n mirrors "these aren't the droids you're looking for. move along" type-of-stuff.

Though in fairness, this turf has absolutely nothing to do with the TM. This is one of the few times that I can remember the Rubber Stampers acting without direction from the TM (another example was when they rewrote the rules on political fundraisers to benefit themselves).

Maybe I'll upload some tomorrow or later this week.

Anonymous said...

Here is a post from Tim's blog going back to Nov.07 on the cost of maintaining grass vs turf. As you can see, there's no savings. I wonder what BS he's going to say on Tuesday. Watch him change the numbers.

Anonymous said...
TW,

The cost for the real grass field is $16,000 per year. That amount came from the Athletic Director during the budget season. The cost to maintain the "turf" field is slightly more, $20,000, same source. The decision cannot be made on maintenance costs differences. Duke University was caught watering their artificial turf fields a few weeks ago, during a drought. The reason was it provided for better grip and traction.

November 01, 2007 9:08 AM

Anonymous said...

Here's a question I never quite understood about HWG some time ago... perhaps you could shed light. Why didn't the TC vote on the 2nd NES boiler bid in January, prior to the 45-day exp? They had time; it is not on the Jan. agenda. How does the agenda process work and why wasn't it on there if it was time sensitive? Is this a TM function?

tim white said...

IMO, it is an administrative function and since the TM runs the administration... it was TMs failure.

Anonymous said...

How does it (an "action item") get from PBC to TC agenda? If you think things are "deliberately witheld", is it possible that somebody "deliberately" waited this out, maybe not understanding the cost implications, but trying to help out somebody? How much of a screwing do we get before this gets looked into? Do we have to hope for a lawsuit to get answers about our town govt? I don't see how this all happened with the Council voting and those votes getting undone afterwards without the Council knowing/voting again. The whole thing smells like rotten eggs.

Anonymous said...

Like rotten eggs... burning in a boiler. A lot of 'em.

Anonymous said...

It is easy to see conspiracy theories in anything, especially here in town. But is there a point there? How does a TC vote get put aside?

Anonymous said...

I would first check to see relationships with Mr. Bowman and the TM.
If he is the one responsible for the TC not voting on the 2nd bid, then that is the first place I would look. The only winner in this fiasco is Mr. Bowman.
Because of this screw up, this will cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars (potentially if a law suit happens). The TM should be held responsible and should take the fall!

Anonymous said...

blah blah blah.....