Hitchcock-Phillips House: Who has controlling authority?

The NHRs Luther Turmelle is reporting on the Town Historian story. Based on my limited knowledge of this discussion, it seems to me that there's a critical issue that should be explored:

legal papers filed with the court cite reasons that include an unspecified violation of the terms of the lease and termination of the original rights and privileges that allowed Gagliardi an office at the Hitchcock-Phillips House.

Gagliardi said he never received anything in writing that he believes would constitute a lease when the society agreed to let him have an office in the Hitchcock-Phillips House.

This is obviously an important issue that needs to be resolved. But before moving forward with a conclusion to any conflict, one should understand the issues from which the conflict arose.

My three questions -- questions which don't seem to be getting addressed -- for understanding the genesis of this conflict:

1) What is the structure of the "ownership" and "use" of the HP House?

2) Who has the authority to permit the use of the HP House?

3) Who authorized the Town Historian's use of the HP House?

I understand the answer to my first question is that the Town of Cheshire owns the HP House and leases it to the Historical Society. And I understand the answer to my third question is that the TM authorized the use of the HP House.

But that raises a potentially critical question, my second question.

In terms of the use and / or subletting of the HP House, does the TM have controlling authority?

Tim White

Hats off to Jimmy Sima and Anne Giddings!

For three years I've been the lone vote on the Council opposing the TMs contract on the basis of poor performance.* But tonight I understand the vote on the TMs contract extension passed 5 - 2. Jimmy and Anne were opposed and Steve Carroll and Patti Flynn Harris abstained.

I applaud Jimmy and Anne. I'm uncertain of their reasons, but I'm guessing that it was partly for the reasons I mentioned yesterday. In particular, it's nice to see elected officials who demand an end to the waste and mismanagement of the DPW. And as for hearing about how "hard-working" staff can be... I recall Council Chairman Slocum's recent Herald LTTE.

Just because one "works hard" doesn't mean one is effective. Someone could "work" 16 hour days. But if someone else can do the same workload in eight hours, then the 16 hour person may need to be replaced. So with regard to the whole "he works hard" argument, I dismiss it. Besides, most of the "hard work" is spent cultivating the nonsense message that he and his office are apolitical... and also simply controlling the information, reminding staff that they are not allowed to speak openly and that all information must be vetted through The Boss -- or else.

Again, I thank Jimmy Sima and Anne Giddings for their votes tonight in opposition to the Town's highly political and unnecessarily costly mismanagement.

I also understand that some sort of turf vote passed 5 - 4 with Anne Giddings, Tom Ruocco, David Schrumm and Jimmy Sima being opposed. I agree with my fellow Rs. The long-term liabilities facing the USA, the State of Connecticut and the Town of Cheshire are enormous. Cheshire has spiraling healthcare costs, an underfunded pension plan, a $30 million sewer plant coming toward us... along with about $60 million in existing debt and an annual operating budget of $100 million.

I believe we should be avoiding the addition of significant, long-term liabilities, such as the turf. And with the Washington Establishment still believing the ridiculous Keynesian economic theory that money grows on trees, I don't see America's economy improving for years. Unemployment will remain high and no elected official is going to want to see the turf replacement when it arrives in the 5-yr capital budget in only three years.

Tim White

* Two years ago, the vote was 5 - 4. But I only recall my colleagues opposing the raise... not the performance.

Council meeting - December 14, 2010

It'll probably be an interesting Council meeting tomorrow night.

First thing will likely be the appointments of Steve Carroll and Patti Flynn Harris to fill the vacancies of Justin Adinolfi and yours truly.

Then you'll see the turf vote. I'm uncertain of what way it'll go, but this was my whip count back in June: 4 favor, 3 oppose, 2 unknown. I had Justin listed in favor and myself opposed with David Schrumm and Anne Giddings opinions unknown.

And last, but certainly not least, the annual vote on extending the TMs contract. I don't know how this vote will go. But seven years ago I asked the TM to "make the trains run on time." Unfortunately, he's done far more than that. And since his last contract extension, he's:

1) Meddled in union affairs to influence the outcome of last year's election.

2) Ignored the crisis at the PD, in order to spend time in Hartford advocating for John Destefano's regional sales tax.

3) Accepted the waste and mismanagement at the DPW.

Judgment matters. He could do a good job making the trains run on time. But for him, that's not enough. He insists on playing politics and accepting poor quality work -- at the expense of the taxpayer -- while covering up for his cronies.

A TM should be a professional, not a politician. We can do better.

And on a related note... in case you hadn't noticed... we've had one TM since 2000. And if you go back to 1999, with one exception, the voters have switched Councils every two years. Anyone see a pattern there? Unfortunately for the taxpayers, they don't have the opportunity to vote on the Chief Executive.

Tim White

Regional taxation: The TM may get his wish

Back in April I questioned the TMs use of his office to advocate a regional sales tax. Immediately following my comments, Council Chairman Slocum echoed my concerns.



I appreciated Chairman Slocum's support, but now we see the TMs words coming home to roost. The CT Mirror's Keith Phaneuf reports:

With the potential for deep municipal aid cuts looming less than 10 months away, Connecticut municipalities' longstanding cry for a new alternative to the property tax could be answered next year at the Capitol.

For the full story, click here. No doubt about it though... in using his title as TM, Cheshire now faces an increased likelihood that we'll see regional taxes. Taxes that will likely offer benefits to residents that'll be pennies on the dollar.

Taking this into consideration, the Council has not yet voted to extend the TMs contract. I hope that my fellow Council members will remember how he used his office when we vote... and let's not kid ourselves. This behaving as if an unelected TM is an elected Mayor will continue until it is made crystal clear that a TM is not elected and such advocacy will not be tolerated.

Tim White

At least one more cop is leaving, but staff is great!...

...and don't worry. The departure has nothing to do with all that silly Deegan vs. Cruess stuff. Cuz Deegan retired. So everything is hunky-dory at the PD. And no more officers will be leaving. They - along with many other town employees - revel in the notion of getting up to go experience a hostile work environment on a daily basis. Yippee!

Or maybe I'm being sarcastic.

Sure would be nice though if the Council would publicly address the failed efforts - as well as the non-efforts* - of the Town Manager. And since his annual review will soon begin with the Personnel Committee, I hope the Council will have a serious discussion about this. Tolerating the hostile work environment and the never-ending quest to behave like an elected Mayor is simply unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

Tim White

* In particular, I'm thinking of the year that passed before there was any acknowledgement of problems at the PD.

Flashback: How the Council learned about the union report

Last fall, I detailed some of the indications of problems at the PD in this post. But I didn't really highlight the chronology of events of issue in particular - the report from the union to the TM. To recap:

1) May 21 - The union gives a report to the TM. The report voiced concerns about the Union / Chief relationship.

2) Memorial Day weekend - I learned of the report.

3) 2nd Tuesday in June - The Council's regular meeting occurs, but there is no mention of the report either in public session or executive session.

4) 4th Tuesday in June - The Council has a special meeting, but there is no mention of the report either in public session or executive session.

5) Early July - I contact the TM and ask about the report.

6) 2nd Tuesday in July - The Council's regular meeting occurs and the report is discussed in executive session.

7) This spring - the report is made public.

It seems to me that I should not have had to ask about the report. In my opinion, the TM should have had the good judgment to bring the report to attention of the full Council.

Tim White

And on a totally unrelated note, but since I try to be fair... I have to give props to the TM for an update I got from him on something he did recently. Not going to bother with the details, but wanted to mention it.

Staff: It's Deegan vs. Cruess, Deegan vs. Cruess, Deegan vs. Cruess... White: Oh, really?

Cheshire Police Union President Kerry Deegan is retiring. The NHRs Luther Turmelle offers his take on Deegan's retirement here. And the MRJs Jesse Buchanan also has a piece about Deegan's April 30 retirement.

Jesse asked me for my thoughts on the retirement:

Town Councilor Tim White said he didn't think Deegan's retirement would alleviate much of the tension within the department, rejecting the idea that the conflict was between Deegan and the chief.

"This is not about Deegan," White said. "It was the union that voted ... I believe (Deegan's retirement) will have very little impact."

FWIW, although staff angrily denied problems at the PD two years ago... there were acknowledged "concerns" by last summer.

And what were we told last summer and into the fall?

It's Deegan vs. Cruess. It's Deegan vs. Cruess. It's Deegan vs. Cruess!

So I guess everything is hunky-dory at the PD now. Right?

Unfortunately, that's not the case. And the Council should act to address the problems.

But the Council has no reporting relationship with the Police Chief or any officers. Rather, the Council has a reporting relationship with their boss. So I encourage the Council to deal with him and let him solve the problems at the PD.

Oh wait... he has had two years to do that and has failed to do so... most of the time denying any problems existed. He's had plenty of time to deal with this... and don't forget that he has a six-figure Personnel Director who has a job description that includes mediation.

It's time for the Council to address this situation in terms of the failures of the TM:

1) the failure to acknowledge the problem; and
2) the failure to mediate the problem.

Time for a change.

Tim White

Police Union President Deegan to retire?

From the NHRs Luther Turmelle:

Town officials and the attorney representing suspended police union president Lt. Kerry Deegan are close to reaching an agreement in which Deegan would agree to retire at the end of the month, but would be able to keep his full pension.

And deeper into the article:

A settlement, if handled properly, would help dial down the controversy surrounding the Cheshire Police Department that has raged since last fall’s no-confidence vote.

If a retirement happens, I'm not so sure there'll be much tension relieved. After all it was basically a unanimous vote. And as for what's happening beyond that... ya got me. As far as I'm concerned, I'm tired of talk and want action. Anything short of actual tangible action is meaningless. The Council should take a long, hard look at management and reassess if we have the right team in place. I conclude that we do not.

Tim White

The TMs defense of his advocacy of a regional sales tax raises more questions

Last week I brought to your attention the fact that our unelected Town Manager went to Hartford to advocate for a regional sales tax, saying “It’s far better to share a tax, than to not have the benefit of a tax at all”

As John Q. Public, I’m not too concerned about the TMs words. But he wasn’t speaking as John Q. Public. He was speaking as the TM. And I got a bit peeved about his use of the title for his own personal political agenda. So I asked him about it. Here’s his response:



Couple of points on this four minute exchange… he says:

“I was asked to make that presentation.”

OK. Who asked? It wasn’t the Council. So IMO, he shouldn’t have been there.

He continues:

“I was asked my opinion and I offered my opinion… I have to say that… ya know… I think my job is to represent the interests of the town and there are issues that come before me that have never been discussed with this Council and that I have to provide opinion on and that’s what I did.”

Again... “I have to provide opinion”

Really? Who says? Who pays his salary?

As the TM, he reports to the Council and as Chairman Slocum made clear, the Council did not direct him to advocate a regional sales tax… nor did the Council direct him to attend this event. So… no. The assertion that the TM "(has) to provide an opinion” is simply untrue.

He shouldn't have even attended a forum to advocate regionalism... without first receiving guidance from the Council... which he knows he wouldn't have gotten. So it's probably a case of "easier to ask for forgiveness, than ask for permission."

But not only is our unelected TM not required to advocate his personal agenda of regional taxation, his own words demonstrate that he’s not required to comment on important local issues even when asked by a reporter.

Who can forget this October 13 article by Luther Turmelle? In it, the CPD Union President stated that the TM was "misleading" the public about his true actions when he was supposedly mediating the conflict at the police department.

And how did the TM respond to claims that he was misleading the public?

The TM said he didn’t have time to respond.

But he has time to go to Hartford to advocate John Destefano's regional sales tax?

It seems to me that the TM has certain priorities. A top priority is the creation of a regional sales tax. A low priority is mediating the conflict at the PD.

Unbelievable.

I wonder… was that a vacation day he spent in Hartford? Or is the TM allowed to just take off willy-nilly advocating his own personal agenda whenever he wants... on the taxpayers' dime?

Tim White

Town Manager advocates a regional sales tax

I'm guessing that many of you missed this March 16 article in the NHR by Mary O'Leary on Mayors seeking a regional sales tax. I know that Cheshire has no Mayor, but we do have a chief executive who decided to opine on the possibility:

“It’s far better to share a tax, than to not have the benefit of a tax at all,” he said.

Personally, I'm strongly opposed to our unelected "leader" speaking about this topic. In fact, when I was elected to the Council six years ago I was very clear with him. I asked him to "make the trains run on time." In other words, I wanted an administrator - not a policymaker. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to find four other Council members who are willing to challenge The Boss and direct him to do his job - nothing more, nothing less - and manage the town.

I wonder how Cheshire's current Town Council feels about him advocating a regional sales tax? My guess is that they are unaware of these recent comments advocating more taxes. So I'm not too concerned about their silence on the issue.

And while I believe the current Council is doing a good job on such issues as moving through the budget process in an open manner (h/t to Mr. Schrumm) and taking much needed action on the pool (h/t to Mr. Sima)... I don't understand why some Council members seem enamored with a TM who is at the heart of the problems at the CPD... particularly any Council member who loves to talk a good game about holding the line on taxes.

So on this particular topic, as it is with many other topics that involve the relationship between Cheshire's chief executive and the Council... as I was quoted in last week's Herald:

I think the Council is living in denial. They are protecting management, the Town Manager in particular, and I don't understand it.

Tim White

p.s. My concern isn't about the appropriateness of a particular tax. In fact, annually the Council votes to request the state renew the conveyance tax on houses. And I'm sure I've voted for that in the past. Nope. That's not my point. My point is that unelected officials shouldn't be advocating significant policy issues without the direction of elected officials.

Reorganizing the TMs Office

If I'm unable to find five votes to hold the line on spending and defund the position of Personnel Director / Assistant Town Manager, I have another idea to reign in the spending in the TMs office.

Reorganize it.

Starting here:I'm thinking that the Council could eliminate two positions:

1) Personnel Director / Assistant Town Manager - $105,000 / year
2) Executive Assistant / Public Information Officer - $66,000 / year + overtime

And create two new positions with:

1) Chief of Staff - $70,000 / year
2) Executive Secretary - $44,000 / year + overtime

That small change would provide a savings of $57,000.

Tim White

Some 2008 history on my CPD comments

Last October the issues at the CPD became quite public, though regulars here already had an idea that there was trouble brewing. I detailed a 2009 history in this post, but never dug back to 2008.

Lately though there's been a lot of discussion about the CPD issues as a result of the whitewashing of the consultant fact-finder report and resulting FOI requests*, including:

1) Who knew what? and;
2) When did s/he know it?

To answer those questions, I offer this post to challenge suggestions by staff that these issues only became known in September 2008.

I first began trying to address the issues at the CPD in March 2008. And I did it privately because I felt that was best. But by May 2008, I realized my private efforts were in the fast lane to nowhere. So I began commenting here on TWL.

You can see a comment from me in May 2008 and a comment from me in June 2008. And it was no later than July / August 2008 when I had a very frank discussion with the TM. Unfortunately, I got the all-too-typical response - anger and defiance. The same response that - having seen it numerous times - made me eventually come to the realization that he had created a hostile work environment in Town Hall... a work environment that no one should have to tolerate.

With regard to the hostile work environment, here are some comments from me in August 2009 when I opposed the contract extension of the TM:



As for why the current Council tolerates this misbehavior by Management... I'm not sure. Perhaps you could ask the Council leadership?

Tim White

* I still have no idea what the Council was thinking when they decided to do this.

Budget of the TMs Office - what should be defunded?

Several people have voiced concerns over the years about the cost of overtime consumed by the Town Manager's Office. In relation to those concerns, the TM offered this spreadsheet at a budget meeting to defend the use of OT in his office:He defended the overtime by saying it's been decreasing over the years.

Nonsense. Though true, it's simply a diversionary tactic.

For someone who needs to control every aspect of information* that comes out of Town Hall and for someone who weighs in on every aspect of the budget... does it really make sense to have an hourly employee come to a budget meeting to present the budget for the TM's Office?

No.

It doesn't make any sense. So is it a sincere effort on the part of the TM to reduce overtime in his office?

No.

It's just more wasted money that's being slowly reduced over the years - not due to sincere efforts at cost reductions - but due to public outrage.

Regardless, I don't want to gut the TMO's budget. So I could live with an overtime budget, but stand by my proposal to defund the position of Personnel Director. I think the $103,000-per-year position is not nearly as valuable as a teacher in the classroom and cop on the streets. And the Council needs to set priorities.

But barring my ability to find five votes to defund the position completely, perhaps it could be reduced to 20 hours / week... or maybe there should be a reorganization of the TMs office? I wonder if anyone will speak to this proposal at the public hearing next week?

Tim White

P.S. - Can't wait to see the comments on this post!

* Anyone notice the Herald editorial mentioning the lack of comment from the PD Chief? Hmmm... wonder why?? Could it be another example of "control the information, control the agenda" ??

Connecting the dots and demanding accountability

IMO, today's Herald editorial on the CPD situation was spot on. Catching my attention in particular was the end:

it is a blackeye for everyone that the issues were allowed to fester to such a point... If mediation is to continue, new techniques and new individuals must be utilized. But the Town may be at the point where more permanent action is required, whatever that might be. (Cheshire Herald, March 25, 2010)

But do the Cheshire Town Government's problems end with the CPD?

Not as far as I'm concerned.

Let's not forget the Serenity Ranch development slipping thru in the middle of the night to which Councilman Schrumm wrote:

If the leaders of this community are so cowed into silence by a developer's legal tactic, they should quit and perhaps serve the Town in a capacity where courage in the defense of town residents is not needed. Was it really fear of the lawsuit or a convenient favor to the development community, who makes campaign contributions and provide work for real estate attorneys?

And who can forget hotWatergate and the related allegations of corruption? Personally, I don't think there's any corruption. But there was nearly unbelievable incompetence involved.

At what point do we connect the dots and begin to hold people accountable for their actions?

As I wrote back in October 2009:

If reelected, I will continue to push the Council to deal with the Town's failed management.

Tim White

Judgment matters

On Friday I received an email from Town Hall. It included the agenda for last night's Council meeting, including:

3. Executive session re: Town Attorney opinion on Freedom of Information requests for police department issue documents.

Based on my understanding of Monday's discussion, I felt the school meeting would be more important to attend. I figured all that was going to happen at last night's Council meeting was the release of the initial ICMA report... something I tried to make happen from the outset. And by the time last night's meeting rolled around, I thought it was going to be a very straightforward discussion and release of the initial report, perhaps with a few emails.

I was wrong.

As I vaguely mentioned in this October 2009 post on the timeline of the CPD meltdown,* there was a report issued by the Police Union in May 2009. It was not necessarily a factual report - it was opinion - but it did give a good sense of the Police Union concerns.

It also touched on police business that currently falls under a court-ordered gag order. For a sense of where I'm going, see the first line in some breaking news by the NHRs Luther Turmelle:

Criticism of Police Chief Michael Cruess that led up to last October’s no confidence vote against him by the patrolman’s union includes complaints of his handling of the department in aftermath of July 2007 Petit murders, according to information obtained by the New Haven Register.

I wish so much that I was at the executive session last night. As much as I believe in transparency, I also believe in justice. And there must be a reason for a judge's gag order, right?

Regardless, I have one question that I want answered now... before this information was released, did the Judge give authorization to release this information?

Or perhaps more broadly:

1) Who asked what? And
2) When did they ask it?

Judgment matters.

Tim White

* see Memorial Day Weekend

Staff efforts on U-Verse and energy conservation

I know that a couple of you enjoy suggesting that my statements about staff are exclusively negative, derogatory, etc. But despite such false claims, I do try to be fair and highlight when I agree with staff actions:



Of course, there are also times when I offer constructive criticism.

Tim White

Turmelle explains the Deegan suspension

Here's a great story apparently broken by the NHRs Luther Turmelle:

The suspended head of the town’s police union is being investigated because he used a key he had in his possession to look into the lockers of several other officers, sources told the New Haven Register.

Sources within the department say Lt. Kerry Deegan was never accused of taking anything from the lockers when the incident occurred more than a year ago. Deegan had the key in his possession for several years, having been given it during a previous supervisory assignment, the departmental sources said.

Based on everything I know, I don't question the legitimacy of the suspension and investigation. But assuming there was a significant delay between the incident and the suspension, I'm still wondering about the timing of the suspension. Specifically:

a) Who knew what?
b) And when did they know it?

I also want to know why the TM failed to inform the Council before the suspension was reported by the press?

I was hoping the days of control the information, control the agenda had ended. But I still haven't heard of any consequences for this all-too-typical misbehavior.

Tim White

Frankly, this situation reminds me of a funny little thought I had several years ago. I'd love it if I had the ability to bring former and current Council members (including me), several town staff and several other prominent town residents before a grand jury... place everyone under oath and let the questioning begin. I think shedding some daylight would work wonders for improving our town.

Political or apolitical?

Following the Town Manager's report during last night's Council meeting, I posed a couple questions to the TM:



It seems to me that town management that is apolitical in nature would not be discussing the timing of union business (in relation to an election) with union leaders.

Tim White

Union leader rebuts Milone claim

The NHRs Luther Turmelle reports:

The police union president is taking issue with Town Manager Michael Milone’s characterization of efforts made to get union leaders and Chief Michael Cruess in the same room to resolve a dispute.

Police union President Kerry Deegan disputed a claim made by Milone last week that union leaders were reluctant to meet with Cruess to resolve the dispute, which came to head Oct. 2 with a nearly unanimous no-confidence vote against the chief.

“What he (Milone) said is misleading,” Deegan said. “He said to us in May that ‘an intervention needs to happen.’ But the only meeting we ever had was one in which the chief set the agenda and ran the meeting, and he (Milone) came late. It was pretty disappointing.”

Milone declined to respond to Deegan’s comments.

The TM should not be involved in this. The Council needs to take charge.

Hopefully by next Wednesday, October 21... the League of Women Voters' Council Forum will force people to go on the record with their views. This situation has existed for a long time and the Police Union has followed the chain of command appropriately. The least the Council members / candidates can do is let people know what they intend to do about it.

Tim White

Labor attorney on the "no confidence" vote

The MRJs Jesse Buchanan continues reporting on the "no confidence" vote:

Without allegations of wrongdoing, there's very little likelihood of removing a police chief for management style, according to Cheshire town labor counsel Floyd Dugas.

The no-confidence vote "has absolutely no legal significance," Dugas said.

I agree. But the story continues:

He advised the Cheshire Town Council last week against conducting an impartial investigation, requested by the police union, since it could set a precedent and become politicized. Personnel matters should be handled by the employee's supervisor, in this case Town Manager Michael Milone, who is directly above Cruess.

So the Police Union unanimously votes "no confidence" and the Council is supposed to continue deferring to the TM? Make no mistake - the TM is part of the problem.

As I've said before, the Council should immediately begin an impartial investigation. But now I add one thing... the Chief doesn't report to the Council. The TM reports to the Council. The Council hires / fires the Town Manager. That's where the Council could / should take action immediately.

Tim White