Ethics, Hartford, Hartford Baseball Stadium, Luke Bronin Ethics, Hartford, Hartford Baseball Stadium, Luke Bronin, Sara Bronin
The Wait, What? post on Saturday, October 31, 2015 was entitled – Stadium Developers give big to Luke Bronin – Sarah Bronin responsible for approving big changes that Stadium Developers want.
In recent weeks Hartford mayoral candidate Luke Bronin has taken tens of thousands of dollars from the developers of the Dunkin Donut Baseball Stadium despite that fact that Luke Bronin’s wife, Sara Bronin, is the chairperson of the Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission and the developers are seeking approval to make major changes to the scope of the Stadium and DONO project.
With a Special Meeting of the Hartford Planning and Zoning Commissioner scheduled for Wednesday, November 4, 2015 -the day after Election Day – to approve the changes the developer is seeking, the immediate question is whether City Officials will act on the Bronin’s conflict of interest and remove Sara Bronin from her position as Chair of the Hartford PZC?
The following is the repost of the Wait, What? article on the Bronins’ and the Stadium.
Stadium Developers give big to Luke Bronin – Sarah Bronin responsible for approving big changes that Stadium Developers want
The City of Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a special meeting on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 260 Constitution Plaza, Plaza Level Conference Room, Hartford, CT 06103 at 6:00 p.m. on the developers plan to modify the DoNo Hartford Development Project.
Sara Bronin, wife of Harford mayoral candidate Luke Bronin, is the Chair of the Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission.
The contact between the City of Hartford and the developers of the Dunkin Donut Baseball Stadium and the entire DONO Downtown North Development Project required that construction on Phase II (Parcel E), which includes the desperately needed north-end grocery store, was to begin no later than November 1, 2015.
However, the developers failed to fulfill that responsibility and now want permission from the City of Hartford to delay and modify the construction plan related to Phase II (Parcel E).
The conflict of interest that Sara (and Luke) Bronin face is obvious.
As reported in a Wait, What? post on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 entitled, Bronin reports another $174,000 collected with seven days to go until Election Day, the Greenwich native who moved to Hartford and now wants to be Hartford’s next mayor revealed in his latest campaign finance report that he had raised another $11,750 from the developers of Hartford’s new Dunkin Donuts Yard Goats Baseball Stadium and the DONO Project.
The latest bundle of stadium money comes in addition to the thousands of dollars Bronin had already collected from those whose who are directly benefiting financially from the stadium contract. (See: And now Luke Bronin is collecting big bucks from developers of the Hartford Dunkin’ Donuts Stadium)
Having sharply criticized the stadium project earlier in the campaign, Bronin waited until after the reporting deadline for the September 16, 2015 Democratic primary to start collecting a large amount of campaign money from the contractors hired to build the DONO project including the new baseball stadium.
In recent weeks, Luke Bronin has raised tens of thousands of dollars from a number of the DONO contractors including Centerplan Development, Centerplan Construction Company, JCJ Architecture, Freeman Companies, BETA, McDowell Jewett and Greenskies Renewable Energy.
Four of the leading companies involved in the DONO Development Project are owned by lead developer Bob Landino who is a former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives. The developers are represented before the City of Hartford by the law firm that is led by Tom Ritter, the former Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives.
While Luke Bronin’s flip-flop on the stadium issues is newsworthy on its own, the immediate and more incredible news development may very well be that the developers of the Hartford Stadium donated to Luke Bronin at the exact same time that the stadium developers are seeking to modify the project after having failed to break ground, as required, on Phase II of the DONO project.
With no construction taking place on the grocery store, housing and other elements of Phase II (Parcel E), Luke Bronin’s wife will be convening a Special Meeting of the Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday – the day after Election Day – to approve changes that release the Stadium Developers from their commitment to begin Phase II and to make significant changes to the scope of Phase II.
While the developers have sought to trivialize their change in plans, their failure to follow through on their commitments concerning Phase II has a profound impact on the project and the credibility of those behind the entire Hartford Downtown North Development scheme.
The Hartford Courant reported on importance of Phase II this past summer in an article entitled, Developers To Break Ground On Downtown North Grocery Store In October,
City officials and developers of the Downtown North project, which includes retail, housing and a baseball stadium, said Wednesday that they will break ground on a parcel that includes a grocery store by late October.
Yves-Georges A. Joseph II, vice president of development for Centerplan, said the developers don’t yet have a supermarket operator on board, but they are in conversations with operators.
Joseph, who attended a forum on the Downtown North project Wednesday at the city’s public library, said the deadline to begin construction is Nov. 1.
The area, known as Parcel E, is the first phase of housing and retail in the project. The parcel, which would include 328 apartments, a grocery store, a fitness center, other shops and parking, would be located across Main Street from a 9,000-capacity minor league baseball stadium.
Joseph said Wednesday that if developers don’t reach a deal with a supermarket operator, “we as an organization will own or operate a supermarket.”
The Hartford Courant’s June 2015 story ended with,
Panelists at Wednesday’s forum, sponsored by Hartford 2000, expressed skepticism about the developer’s ability to bring in a supermarket.
Denise Best, a North End activist, said many promises have been made and broken by city leadership.
So now October has come and gone and there is no sign of any construction related to the grocery store, or the associated housing, fitness center, shops and parking.
What has occurred over the last few weeks is that the developers have become a major source of campaign donations for Luke Bronin’s campaign for Mayor and, the day after Election Day, Bronin’s wife will be chairing the Commission that is supposed to hold the developers accountable for their failure to produce as promised.
Campaign Finance, Democratic State Central Committee, Ethics, Malloy Campaign Finance Reform, Democratic State Central Committee, Lobbyists, Malloy
Connecticut state law prohibits registered lobbyists from contributing more than $100 to any candidate participating in the state’s Citizens’ Election Program. A gubernatorial candidate who violates that law would be prohibited from getting the $6.5 million grant in public funds that comes with Connecticut’s “Clean Election program.”
However, tomorrow – January 7, 2015 – when Governor Dannel Malloy is sworn into office for a second term, there will be nearly sixty registered lobbyists in the Capitol beaming with pride that they were able to funnel more than $95,000 to help fund Malloy’s re-election effort.
The fact is that some of these lobbyists donated well over $5,000, even $10,000, to help cover some of the governor’s recent campaign expenses.
How did Malloy and the lobbyists do it?
In the closing weeks of the 2014 gubernatorial campaign, the Malloy campaign sent out a series of direct mail pieces that were aimed at winning back the support of Democratic households.
Like any candidate mailing, the pieces featured pictures and quotes from the candidate, including lines like, “DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR DAN MALLOY HAS PUT US ON A PATH OF PROGRESS,” and “On November 4th, Vote for Progress, Dan Malloy for Governor.”
But the pieces weren’t paid for by Dan Malloy’s campaign committee, even though they featured Malloy and included his campaign website, Facebook and Twitter Account.
The money for the mailings came out of the Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account.”
Last summer, Malloy and his campaign committee collected and cashed the $6.5 million check they received from the State Elections Enforcement Commission for agreeing to participate and abide by Connecticut’s public financing system. The campaign committee used those funds to pay for television ads and a variety of other campaign expenses.
During the last two years, however, Malloy’s fundraising operation also collected just over $5.1 million for the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee’s “Federal Account.”
Under Federal law, the Democratic Party is allowed two accounts.
A “State Account” that is used to pay for state and local level campaign activities and the other, called the “Federal Account,” which is supposed to be used to support candidates who are running for federal offices and for other “party building activities.”
Of the $5.1 million raised into the “Federal Account” during 2013-2014, a significant portion came from Connecticut lobbyists, state contractors, political action committees and large donors who had directly benefited from Malloy’s corporate welfare program.
By depositing the funds into the Democratic Party’s “Federal Account,” the Malloy campaign claimed that it could legally circumvent the state law that clearly prohibits large contributions from lobbyists and those who do business with the state.
Whether the maneuver was illegal has yet to be determined.
The repercussions from the Malloy campaign’s antics will be play out as the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the Federal Elections Commission investigate the issues and potentially take action against the abuses.
But one thing is certain.
When Malloy was facing possible defeat and public opinion polls indicated that a majority of Connecticut residents didn’t like the governor or approve of the way he was doing his job, a group of generous lobbyists and state contractors came through with the money Malloy needed to fund various political operations including a series of campaign mailings aimed at persuading Democrats to cast their vote for Malloy.
The sad reality is that the political landscape has changed significantly since Connecticut adopted its landmark 2005 campaign finance reform legislation.
The original concept, which passed following the first conviction of Governor John Rowland in 2005, was that in return for a multi-million dollar grant in public funds, gubernatorial candidates would agree to forgo private funds raised from state contractors, lobbyists, political action committees, the wealthy and other special interests.
When the legislation passed, Speaker of the House Chris Donovan wrote,
“Almost 230 years ago, the founding fathers took a huge risk when they signed the Declaration of Independence and set the wheels in motion for the world’s greatest democracy. Today, this historic campaign finance reform legislation reaffirms that this is a government for the people, not special interests. This campaign finance reform bill is our declaration of independence. We can look our constituents in the eye and say we created the strongest campaign laws in the United States.”
At the same time, State Senator Don Williams changed his official biography to read,
“Since his election as Senate President, Senator Williams has been a leading advocate for cleaning up government. He authored legislation to reform the State Ethics Commission and supported sweeping changes to the campaign finance system and the state contracting process. With the creation of a publicly funded campaign finance system in 2005, Connecticut now has the strongest reform laws in the nation.”
Even Governor Malloy claimed allegiance to Connecticut’s campaign finance law, telling Connecticut Magazine in 2011, “Quite frankly, anyone who is not willing to participate [in Connecticut’s campaign finance program] is really just attacking the system.”
When writing about Malloy’s first year in office, The American Prospect magazine observed,
“[T]he secret behind the Democrats’ success was sweeping campaign-finance reform enacted six years earlier. Reeling from the embarrassment of a corruption scandal that landed a governor in federal prison, Connecticut legislators grabbed the national spotlight in 2005 by stopping the flow of millions of special-interest dollars, banning lobbyist contributions, and instituting a public-financing system that record-setting numbers of candidates have embraced.”
But all that was before Malloy and the Democrats in the Connecticut General Assembly torpedoed many of the most important elements of the law over the past three years.
So, while Malloy swore off special interest money in his 2010 campaign, he embraced the tainted funds in 2014.
The final campaign finance reports have yet to be filed, but according to the reports that are available, at least 58 Connecticut lobbyists or their spouses donated a total of more than $95,000 to the Connecticut Democrats “Federal Account” during the 2014 campaign cycle.
At least four lobbyists donated in excess of $5,000 including Craig LeRoy and Tom Ritter, and about a dozen more helped Malloy’s campaign by donating at least $2,000 to the Democrats’ “Federal Account”.
Even lobbyist David O’Leary, who served as disgraced Governor John Rowland’s former chief of staff, kicked in $250 to the effort.
As disturbing as the lobbyist money is, just wait till you see what political action committees, state contractors and those who have benefited from Malloy’s corporate welfare program kicked into Malloy’s campaign operation.
Connecticut General Assembly, Ethics, Malloy, State Budget Connecticut General Assembly, Ethics, Malloy, State Budget
Define fiscal irresponsibility….
While most Connecticut residents feel a growing unease about the Malloy administration’s irresponsible and underhanded approach to state budgeting, I’m often asked to give specific examples of how Governor Dannel “Dan” Malloy has handled the Connecticut budget during his term in office.
Long-time readers may remember this one, but here is a prime example for readers who are newer to Wait, What?
In January 2010 there was a tragic school bus accident on Route 84 in Hartford that killed a young Rocky Hill student who was attending one of the CREC magnet schools.
As politicians are wont to do, state legislators kicked into action, and on May 1, 2010 the Connecticut General Assembly passed Public Act 10-83. The new law created a special protected trust account called the Connecticut School Bus Seat Belt Account and required the Department of Motor Vehicles to administer a program to use the funds to help Connecticut school districts pay for the cost of equipping school buses with lap/shoulder (3-point) seat belts.
To pay for the program, the legislature increased the cost associated with restoring a suspended driver’s license from $125 to $ 175 and directed that $50 of each license restoration payment be deposited into the Connecticut School Bus Seat Belt Account. The Office of Fiscal Analysis estimated the higher fee would raise about $2.1 million a year.
Now fast forward two and a half years…
Governor Malloy had been in office for two years and none of the $4.7 million collected for school seat belts had been spent.
And then, rather than using the money for its intended purpose…
We witnessed the following;
As part of the December 2012 “deficit mitigation bill” Governor Malloy and the legislature included language that overrode the existing law and quietly transferred $4,700,000 from the School Bus Seat Belt Account into the General Fund to help eliminate the projected FY 2013 $415 million deficit.
Gone was the money for school seat belts.
For more go to: http://jonathanpelto.com/2014/05/31/define-fiscal-irresponsibility/
Does it really only cost $30,000 to get Governor Malloy to veto a good bill?
Over the past few months Governor Malloy and his political operatives have raised more than $30,000 from major insurance companies and their corporate executives. The funds were deposited into the special Democratic State Central Committee account that will be used to augment the $6.2 million that Malloy will be getting from the State’s public financing system.
Then late last week Governor Dannel “Dan” Malloy stunned healthcare advocates when he vetoed an important bill that would have required insurance companies to provide data about how much substance abuse coverage and related mental health care they were actually providing Connecticut residents.
The legislation was a product of a major study conducted the Connecticut General Assembly’s bi-partisan Program Review and Investigation Committee, a committee I chaired in 1993 during the last year I served in the Connecticut House of Representatives.
The Program Review and Investigation is the only committee charged with fully investigating major public policy issues and developing comprehensive solutions.
In this case, the committee produced a comprehensive report entitled, “Access to Substance Use Treatment for Privately and Publicly Insured Youth.” Phase I of the report, and its corresponding legislative initiatives, was adopted on December 18, 2012. Phase II of the report was adopted on June 7, 2013.
This past legislative session, one of the legislative proposals arising out of the report, was introduced in the form of House Bill 5373, An Act Concerning the Reporting of Certain Data by Managed Care Organizations and Health Insurance Companies to the Insurance Department.
The bill was a common sense, first step toward ensuring insurance companies actually pay the bills they are supposed to be paying.
More at: http://jonathanpelto.com/2014/06/01/really-cost-30000-get-governor-malloy-veto-good-bill/
And then this one…Will the Working Families Party stand up for working families in this year’s election
Bridgeport, Corporate Welfare, Ethics, Malloy, Mayor Bill Finch, Sarah Darer Littman Bridgeport, Connecticut Politics, Corporate Welfare, Ethics, Mayor Bill Finch, Sarah Darer Littman
As measured by the number of college graduates Connecticut is among the most educated states in the nation. As measured by per capital income Connecticut is wealthiest state in country, and if we were our own country we’d be one of the wealthiest and best educated countries in the world.
And yet there is a sickness that is increasingly evident in Connecticut politics. It takes the form of elected and appointed officials who display a level of arrogance, greed, entitlement, and what appears to be an growing level of outright corruption…in both political parties.
In Sarah Darer Littman’s latest MUST READ column entitled “The Environmental Racism of Bridgeport’s Carnival of Corruption” in this weekend’s CT Newsjunkie, Sarah Darer Littman shines the bright light of truth on a complex deal in which Bridgeport ’s political and corporate leaders are conspiring to move Bridgeport’s Harding High School on to a severely polluted superfund site in order to make room for Bridgeport Hospital’s expansion plans.
The political wheeling and dealing stretches from Bridgeport to Hartford and back again.
By the time their effort is over, the cost to Connecticut taxpayers will exceed $100 million or more, and that doesn’t even begin to count the cost to Bridgeport’s public school students, teachers and parents who are but pawns in the deceit that has become the hallmark of Connecticut’s political environment.
Sarah Darer Littman introduces her piece with the following,
If the window of government transparency in Connecticut has become foggy lately, in Bridgeport it’s turned into a funhouse mirror.
The latest to come from Mayor Bill Finch’s Carnival of Corruption was a vote Thursday evening to proceed with phase one of a deal to build a new Harding High School on 17.2 acres of a 78-acre brownfield site on Boston Avenue, currently owned by General Electric. This would enable Finch and his allies to sell the current Harding High site to Bridgeport Hospital.
According to federal law, a brownfield site refers to “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.”
The aforementioned brownfield site is, according to a piece in the CT Post, “contaminated with lead, arsenic, petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile compounds.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offers helpful information about School Siting Guidelines, and why they are so important:
“Children, particularly younger children, are uniquely at risk from environmental hazards. They eat, drink and breathe more in proportion to their body size than adults. In addition, environmental contaminants may affect children disproportionately because their immune, respiratory and other systems are not fully developed, and their growing organs are more easily harmed. This means they are more at risk for exposure to harmful chemicals found outside where they play and in the environment where they spend most of their time — school and home.”
As might be expected, parents and those representing the community have concerns — especially since most of the process for this deal (like so much of what goes on in Bridgeport) has taken place behind closed doors. Indeed, in the minutes from the Bridgeport School Building Committee meeting on January 3, 2013, Finch Deputy Chief of Staff Ruben Felipe reports that GE asked the administration to keep their conversations confidential. Thus both the sunlight and the community were kept out. Helping to keep things under wraps was the fact that the School Building Committee failed to file their statutory notices with the town clerk’s office until February 2014, evidenced by this email from Frances Ortiz, assistant City Clerk.
There’s been some gob smacking chicanery involved, because, let’s face it, this wouldn’t be Bridgeport if there weren’t.
A petition to the City of Bridgeport Planning and Zoning Commission was filed in the name of the City of Bridgeport Board of Education (File 13-74). It was signed on Dec. 3, 2013, by John Eberle of Stantec Consulting Services and on Dec. 18, 2013, by Marian Whiteman, executive counsel for Transactions & Brownfields at General Electric.
On Jan. 13, 2014, Sauda Baraka, chair of the Bridgeport Board of Education (in whose name the Planning Petition was apparently being made) wrote to Melville T. Riley, Jr, the acting chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission, asking that the item not go forward with a public hearing for the application because the education board hadn’t voted to approve a site plan nor a special permit concerning that property. In what is a reflection of the incredibly sad state of affairs in Mayor Bill Finch’s Bridgeport, she was forced to ask the Planning Commission for copies of any application filed on the behalf of the Board of Education. How ridiculous is it that an elected Board of Education should have to ask another city body for copies of planning applications being filed in its name?
Probably as a result of Baraka’s letter, the planning application was withdrawn from the Jan. 13 meeting.
But by Jan. 16, the Finch administration was able to work magic with fairy dust — or White Out — and Lo! The exact same application with the exact same signatures (on the original you can see the correction fluid) and now guess what? It reads “City of Bridgeport School Building Committee”! Suggested new campaign slogan for Bill Finch: “If you can’t beat ‘em, erase them!”
And Sarah Darer Littman’s column goes on from there with some of the most disturbing elements of the story yet to come.
You can read her whole column at via the following link,
As you read the piece ask yourself, is this Connecticut our citizens deserve?
Alliance Districts, Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER), Ethics, Malloy, Stefan Pryor Alliance Districts, Connecticut Council for Education Reform, Malloy, Office of State Ethics, Stefan Pryor
As Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor and his agency must adhere to the Connecticut ethics laws that apply to public officials and public agencies.
The Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER) is a corporate funded lobbying and advocacy group that is working to support Governor Malloy’s education reform initiatives. As a lobbying group, CCER must adhere to the ethics laws that apply to lobbying organizations.
But when it comes to the relationship between the Connecticut Council for Education Reform and Pryor’s state agency, something is significantly amiss.
CCER was part of the $6 million record-breaking lobbying effort that led to the passage of Governor Malloy’s corporate education reform industry initiative in 2012.
The Connecticut Council for Education Reform’s Board of Directors includes the retired Chairman and CEO of The Hartford Insurance Company, the President and COO of the Travelers Companies, the President and CEO of Yale New Haven Hospital, a Managing Director at First Niagara Bank, the Lead Director at Webster Bank, the Chair of Nestle Waters North America, former gubernatorial candidate Ned Lamont and others.
The Executive Director of CCER is a registered lobbyist and the organization retains one of the state’s better known lobbying companies.
When it comes to their rhetoric and propaganda, CCER stays true to the corporate education reform industry’s agenda. Recently CCER put out a press release stating,
“We will oppose any delay in implementation of the Common Core State Standards.”
But as reported earlier this year on Wait, What? this education reform lobbying group has been playing an increasingly significant role in the internal functioning of the State Department of Education.
At last month’s State Department of Education’s quarterly Alliance District Convening meeting, the Executive Director of the Connecticut Council for Education Reform, Jeffrey Villar, was a lead presenter at a session entitled, “District Strategic Planning.”
The meeting agenda read:
“CCER will share best practices and tools for district-wide, long-term strategic planning. This will include strategies to establish Board of Education goals, develop district indicators of success, and design a process to monitor implementation. Districts will also learn about how the CCER can help districts workshop their Year 3 Alliance and Priority School District consolidated applications.”
Katie Roy, the Connecticut Council for Education Reform’s Chief Operating Officer also presented to the group of local school administrators, teachers and parents.
This means that at an official meeting between the State Department of Education and officials from Connecticut’s 30 Alliance Districts, participants were told that the lobbying group known as CCER “can help districts workshop their Year 3 Alliance and Priority School District consolidated applications.”
A lobbying organization can “help districts workshop their Year 3 Alliance and Priority School District consolidated applications”?
That is more than a bit odd…
First off, CCER is a corporate funded lobbying group and has no expertise with Alliance Districts, the State Department of Education or the Alliance District and Priority District funding grants. Their expertise is trying to persuade legislators to support Governor Malloy’s education reform efforts.
Second, what makes the whole situation even stranger is that as a result of a series of Freedom of Information requests filed with the appropriate state agencies, it turns out that there is NO CONTRACT between the State Department of Education and the Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER).
So how did CCER get the job of “helping” Alliance Districts and who is picking up the tab for these “services.”
The State of Connecticut isn’t paying CCER, but if the lobbying group is “donating” the services to school districts then that raises a slew of ethics and legal issues.
And to make matters even more suspicious, the lobbying reports that the Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER) has submitted to the Office of State Ethics doesn’t come close to showing the time and costs CCER has already devoted to the task of “helping” Alliance Districts.
Stefan Pryor’s State Department of Education has instructed Alliance Districts that a lobbying group with no expertise is available to help them prepare grant applications that will then be approved or rejected by Pryor and the State Department of Education.
In the real world we call that a conflict of interest.
It is time for the Malloy administration and the Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER) to come clean on exactly what role CCER is playing at the State Department of Education and whether Commissioner Pryor or CCER are violating any Connecticut laws in the process.
Campaign Finance, Democratic Party, Ethics, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy Campaign Finance, Democratic Party, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy
Last April, Governor Malloy attended the “the star-studded White House Correspondent’s Dinner.”
His ticket and travel expenses were picked up by People Magazine.
The trip sparked a lot controversy including blog posts here at Wait, What? (Dannel’s Spring Break 2013 – The White House Correspondent’s Dinner April, 27 2013 and Wait, What? Malloy Reimburses People Magazine…)
At the time of the trip, Malloy’s office released a statement saying, “Instead of shifting the cost to the taxpayers, the Governor is personally paying the cost.”
Actually Malloy told Channel 8 news, “I could do it with state dollars, or I could do it with someone else’s dollars. I thought doing it with somebody else’s dollars made a lot of sense,”
But six months later, the Governor’s Office finally responded to a Freedom of Information request about the trip.
The documents that were released to NBC news revealed that while Malloy did “pay his own way” to the White House Gala, taxpayers picked up the $4,808.58 bill for his security detail.
When confronted about the conflict with the earlier statement, Malloy’s spokesperson explained that the Governor never said he was paying for all the costs associated with the trip to the Correspondent’s Dinner.
Instead the spokesman explained, “What we said was the Governor, rather than saddling taxpayers with the cost for his travel expenses, he paid for it himself.”
It campaign speak it is called “political spin.” In the real world it’s called never quite telling the whole truth.
Now questions are raging about Malloy’ recent California fundraising trip.
Both the governor’s office and the Connecticut Democratic State Party have refused to reveal details about the trip that Malloy took last Friday and Saturday.
According to the media reports, the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee paid for Malloy’s trip…but that excludes the costs incurred by the state troopers who went with the governor.
So despite what the Governor and his operation said about the Democratic Party picking up the tab, the cost to Connecticut taxpayers for Malloy’s trip ran into the tens of thousands of dollars.
Furthermore, as the Hartford Courant reported, the governor’s fundraising trip apparently including a stop to raise money from a California Democrat whose company has had “lucrative state contracts.”
But Malloy’s office and the state Democratic Party also refused to provide answers about the possible solicitation of a state contractor.
The Courant explained, “According to press reports, while on his fundraising trip, the governor was a guest of Lenny Mendonca, a prominent Northern California Democrat who co-founded the public sector practice at McKinsey & Company,” which has had contracts with UConn totaling $4 million over the past two years.
The Courant quoted Republican State Senator John McKinney as saying, “The revelation that the governor met with a state contractor while on a fundraising trip for the Democratic Party raises a number of questions. If the governor was soliciting a state contractor, or his employees for political contributions, then he clearly violated the spirit of Connecticut’s campaign finance laws, if not the laws themselves.”
The Courant added,
“There was no response from the governor’s office. Malloy’s director of communications, Andrew Doba, referred questions to the state Democratic Party. The party’s spokesman, James Hallinan, had this to say: ‘The governor always follows all rules and regulations.’
But did Malloy meet with Mendonca, as Peterson’s tweet suggested?
Hallinan would not answer that question. Instead, he said: ‘Again, we don’t comment about [Democratic Party] finance issues. That’s just our protocol. The governor always follows all rules and regulations.’”
At a press conference yesterday, reporters asked Malloy, once again, about the California trip and whether he met with the state contractor.
About the trip, Malloy said “talk to the party.”
About raising money from Mendonca, Malloy said, “I think I did have contact with such a person but not in connection with raising — to the best of my knowledge — money for Democratic causes.”
Such a person?
To the best of my knowledge?
Whether you call it political spin or not telling the whole truth it is a sad commentary about Governor Malloy’s “commitment” to transparency, open government and telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Corporate Welfare, Economic Development, Ethics, Malloy, Prosperity for Connecticut PAC Corporate Welfare, Economic Development, Ethics, Malloy, Prosperity for Connecticut PAC
Thanks to Governor Malloy’s corporate welfare program, Connecticut’s taxpayers provided a Connecticut company with a $100,000 loan and another $26,320 grant to pay for their move from Bloomfield to Hartford.
Malloy said the grant would help Connecticut’s jobless problem by retaining 11 jobs.
In a press release as the time, Governor Malloy explained, “Hybrid Insurance Agency LLC is a full-service, underwriting management and wholesale insurance brokerage firm. This is a fast-growing insurance group, beginning operations in March of 2010 in Windsor, a year later opening a satellite office in Columbus, Ohio, and a service operation in Kathmandu, Nepal. They currently have 11 employees in their headquarters and approximately 650 retail agents and brokers. A $100,000 loan and a $26,320 matching grant will go toward the relocation of the headquarters to Hartford. The project will retain 11 employees.”
Now the owner of Hybrid Insurance Agency reportedly works from home, most of the employees are apparently no longer employed and the company has defaulted on the loan that it received from Malloy’s economic development operation.
Hybrid Insurance is also is under investigation for allegedly failing to pass along $670,000 in premiums to two of the City of Hartford’s insurance carriers.
According to a story written by Hartford Courant columnist and blogger, Kevin Rennie, the Hartford Internal Audit Commission has been asked to investigate Adam Cloud, Hartford’s City Treasurer, “for what they called a possible conflict of interest involving Hybrid, which is at 30 Lewis St. — a building owned by Cloud, his brother Christopher and their father, Sanford “Sandy” Cloud Jr.”
Rennie reports that “Paula Altieri, the city school system’s chief financial officer, stated in a memorandum that Cloud’s office “moved” an insurance policy from one broker to Hybrid around February 2012 “without the need to compete.”
Meanwhile, Hybrid Insurance made an appearance earlier this year in a Wait, What? post when it was noted that the lobbyists for Hybrid Insurance were among those that attended the Prosperity for Connecticut Political Action Committee fundraiser in Hartford.
Prosperity for Connecticut is the PAC affiliated with Governor Malloy and that raised over $235,000 thanks to 15 fundraisers held over an 18 month period. Governor Malloy apparently attended all 15 fundraisers, with three held in Washington D.C., three in New York City and the rest in Connecticut.
Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman joined Malloy at the Hartford event which was targeted to raise donations from Connecticut lobbyists.
Hybrid Insurance has worked with the lobby firm of Camilliere, Cloud and Kennedy for the past two years, paying the lobbyists a total of $26,900. Christopher Cloud, Adam Cloud’s twin brother, is one of the partners and the lobby firm’s offices are located in the same building that “houses” Hybrid Insurance and is owned by the Cloud brothers and their father.
Today Hartford City Treasurer Adam Cloud had a letter to the editor in the Hartford Courant clarifying his role in the whole affair. Adam Cloud wrote;
“I would like to clarify some points made in recent articles about the Hartford treasurer’s office and Hybrid Insurance Group [Oct. 11, news, “Officials Call For Audit Of Treasurer”; Oct. 10, Kevin Rennie column, courantopinion.com, “Who’s Got Hartford’s Missing $669,997?”].
There are two insurance policies being discussed. First, the smaller pension fund policy was recommended by an insurance agency that had solicited a reduced-cost proposal from Hybrid. The bid was approved by the office of the corporation counsel and the pension commission, not our office.
As for the insurance coverage for the city and the schools, the selection of the insurance was made by an independent committee that neither I nor anyone in my staff was a member of. My office did not approve any business relationship between the city and Hybrid.
It is the finance department, which does not report to the treasurer’s office, that processes payments to vendors. When our office was notified that the carrier had not been paid by Hybrid, and the city could be in danger of an insurance coverage lapse, I engaged the finance department. In consultation with former city Finance Director Julio Molleda, we transferred the funds.
This is not an uncommon occurrence in managing the finances of a large city. It was my intent to protect the city from any potential financial dangers with no insurance.
The fact that Hybrid has an office in a building in which my family and I have an ownership interest had no bearing on this decision. Upon becoming treasurer, I relinquished any management responsibilities of this building.
Finally, it is important to note that in accordance with state law, at no time was the city uninsured. The city does not have to recoup the payment or make any additional payments; this is the carrier’s responsibility.
I strongly support the state Department of Insurance investigation of Hybrid and the city’s internal audit department’s review.
Adam Cloud, Hartford City Treasurer.
And lest it falls through the cracks, the only person who raised concerns about Malloy’s gift to Hybrid Insurance in the first place was Bloomfield’s State Representative who asked why state funds were being used to persuade a company to move from his district into Hartford.
At the time Baram said, “The loan program should primarily focus on growing small businesses in the local community where they are located… “I will be conveying my disappointment to the governor’s office, urging the Department of Economic and Community Development to award future loans and grants that will allow companies to remain local.”
Al Barbarotta, Ethics, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy Al Barbarotta, Ethics, Gubernatorial Election 2014, Malloy
Wait, Can you run that by me again…?
Over the weekend, three Connecticut Hearst Media Group reporters, Kate King, Neil Vigdor and Ken Dixon published a front-page story in the Stamford Advocate.
Considering it was the last “real” weekend of the summer and the newspaper’s primary readership is in Stamford, most Connecticut residents might have missed it.
However the piece should definitely be marked “MUST READ” since we’re likely to be hearing a lot more about this growing controversy.
The piece explores the relationship between Governor Dannel Malloy and contractor Al Barbarotta.
Malloy is renting his Stamford house for $8,000 a month. Barbarotta, a Stamford contractor who made tens of millions thanks to city contracts when Malloy was Stamford’s Mayor is “managing the house” for Malloy while he lives in the Governor’s Mansion.
Some of the newspaper’s findings are more than a bit breathtaking.
The Stamford Advocate piece starts with a description of a moment during a recent Stamford Board of Finance meeting in which a Hearst reporter asks Al Barbarotta, “if he’s aware of the unauthorized use of a city truck by a city employee whom Barbarotta hired to do landscaping at Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s Stamford home, where Barbarotta is caretaker.”
“’No, I haven’t heard,’ he says sarcastically, smirking as he pulls the cell-phone from the pocket of his khaki pants…He brashly invites the reporter to look at the screen, which shows two missed calls from “GovernorMalloy.” Barbarotta likes to describe himself as the governor’s “best friend.” Cell- phone titles aside, he routinely calls the governor “Danny.” But the relationship between the two men extends far beyond the realm of friendship to the world of politics, power — and money.”
As the paper explains,
“Barbarotta’s construction company, AFB Management, has earned millions of dollars in outsourcing work in the city where Malloy was mayor from 1995 to 2009 and references that money can’t buy. In addition to Stamford, the firm’s reach extends from New Haven to Waterbury and Barbarotta’s hometown of Trumbull, with AFB managing 11 million square feet of public school facilities throughout the state and hundreds of acres of parks and beaches.
But controversy inevitably seems to follow the 62-year-old Barbarotta, a major bundler of campaign cash for Malloy, whose close ties to the governor have previously raised questions of impropriety and cronyism.”
As some will recall, Malloy and AFB Management were investigated by Connecticut’s Chief State’s Attorney just before Malloy ran for Governor in 2006. The corruption investigation was base don’t he allegation that “Malloy used his influence to award city jobs to contractors who worked on his home.” Malloy and AFB were eventually cleared of any wrongdoing.
Now Malloy and Barbarotta are back in the news, but Malloy is not bound by municipal ethics laws and apparently the relationship is outside of the jurisdiction of State Ethics laws.
In response to the Stamford Advocate, Malloy’s spokesperson acknowledges the close friendship between the two, but brushes aside any suggestion of an improper alliance between the first-term incumbent and the construction manager…’It should be noted that Mr. Barbarotta is not a lobbyist, is not a pre-qualified state contractor and does not do business with the state of Connecticut whatsoever,’”
But what is the relationship?
The weekend Stamford Advocate reports on Barbarotta’s role with the Newtown School following the December 2013 Sandy Hook Massacre.
“In the days after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, the governor needed help with the sensitive task of relocating students from Sandy Hook to a moth-balled Monroe school. Malloy turned to his friend Barbarotta, much to the confusion of other contractors at the site.
A series of emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act questioned Barbarotta’s role in the move, including an exchange between Trumbull First Selectman Timothy Herbst and Newtown First Selectman Pat Llodra on whether contractors should send their invoices to AFB. Barbarotta’s company manages school facilities in Trumbull, where he has traded barbs with Herbst.
‘I do not know what legal authority Mr. Barbarotta would have to tell subcontractors working on behalf of the town of Newtown to send invoices to his office,’ Herbst wrote.
Herbst provided the newspaper a copy of AFB’s directive to the contractors who were assigned to the Sandy Hook Elementary School relocation, as well as correspondence from Newtown counterpart Llodra.
‘I am remembering a conversation I overheard when Newtown first met with the team from Monroe at Chalk Hill School,’ Llodra wrote. ‘Al Barbarotta indicated to the group gathered that he was assigned by the governor to handle the entire project, including all the invoicing and the information about costs and donations would be turned over to the governor’s office.'”
Meanwhile, as noted, Barbarotta is taking care of Malloy’s Stamford house. The Stamford Advocate reports,
“In the Stamford landscaping work on Malloy’s property, city officials are now conducting their own internal investigation into whether Ron Markey, who is the city deputy tree warden and was working as a subcontractor on the governor’s property, violated the municipal code of ethics.
‘Ronnie Markey works for the city,’ Barbarotta said Tuesday. ‘AFB manages the city’s parks department. I’m an independent contractor so I do work all over the state. The governor asked me to help oversee his house. I called (Markey) up – the governor had no clue I called him.’ On Thursday, Malloy’s office released a copy of a bill for $1,596 for the tree work that Doba said the governor plans to pay and includes the customary 5 percent management markup fee assessed by Barbarotta.”
And the connection and relationship goes deeper and deeper.
According to the Stamford Advocate,
“The day before Hearst reported on the work at Malloy’s Stamford home, which the governor is renting out for $8,000 a month, Malloy showed up in shorts and a polo shirt for the grand opening of Parker’s Steaks & Scotch, a Trumbull restaurant Barbarotta is a partner in.
‘He has known the governor a long time,’ said DiNardo [Connecticut’s Democratic State Chair], who was also at the opening. ‘He is certainly supportive of the governor. In his business, he has tried to be bipartisan.'”
The paper also reveals,
“Barbarotta, his family and his employees are major supporters of Democrats, contributing $7,700 to political action committees and candidates in 2009 and 2010, including $4,250 for Malloy and now Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman.
In a process called “bundling” several AFB employees gave money that was recorded at the same time. On May 21, 2010, eight AFB employees contributed $100 each to Wyman.
When Malloy won the governorship by a mere 6,500 votes in 2010, Barbarotta co-hosted a victory party for his friend at the Old Town Hall in Stamford.”
There is a lot more to the story and the story is undoubtedly only the first of many.
Readers can find Saturday’s Stamford Advocate piece at: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/The-man-Gov-Malloy-has-on-speed-dial-4758969.php#photo-5078635
A Better Connecticut Education Reform Lobbying Group, Achievement First/ConnCAN, Charter Schools, Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER), Ethics, Excel Bridgeport Inc., Malloy, Michelle Rhee, Stefan Pryor, StudentsFirst, Teach for America, Wendy Lecker A Better Connecticut, Achievement First, ConnCAN, Ethics, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, Stefan Pryor, StudentsFirst, Wendy Lecker
Pro-public education commentator Wendy Lecker has written another “must read” piece, this time pointing out the fact that corporate education reformers are either unwilling or unable to tell the truth as the spin their political stories to try and convince elected officials and the public to support their “education reform” agenda.
Lecker, like many of us, has heard the latest round of ads that side-step the truth in a politically self-righteous attempt to convince us that we can improve out public education system by handing it over to private corporations and charter schools.
This new $1.5 million advertising campaign by a front organization called, ironically enough, A Better Connecticut, is just one more step in the most expensive lobbying effort in Connecticut history.
Here are the latest numbers;
To date, since Governor Malloy took office, the corporate education reform industry has spent at least $4,650,721.54 on lobbying, breaking all Connecticut records for the most expensive effort in history to buy up Connecticut Public Policy.
The following chart reveals the players in this scheme.
Following the chart is a link to Wendy Lecker’s latest piece in the Stamford Advocate, Bridgeport Post and other Hearst media outlets.
|Corporate Education Reform Organization
||Amount Spent on Lobbying
|Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now, Inc. (ConnCAN)
|Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Advocacy, Inc. (ConnAD)
|A Better Connecticut
|Students First/GNEPSA (Michelle Rhee)
|Achievement First, Inc. (Dacia Toll/Stefan Pryor)
|Connecticut Council for Education Reform (CCER)
|Students for Education Reform (Michelle Rhee)
|Connecticut Charter School Association/N.E. Charter School Network
|Teach For America
|EDUCATON REFORM LOBBYING EXPENDITURES
Wendy Lecker: Imagining where all that money could have gone
“Proponents of corporate-driven education reforms seem to believe that the notion of telling the truth is a low priority. Take for example the false claims being made by charter school advocates about the size of waiting lists for charter schools.
In as diverse locations as Massachusetts and Chicago, charter lobbyists having been pushing charter school expansion by claiming lengthy waiting lists. In both locations, investigations by journalists at the Boston Globe and WBEZ revealed that the waiting list numbers were grossly exaggerated, often counting the same students multiple times. As a Massachusetts legislator noted, raising the charter cap based on artificial numbers “doesn’t make sense.” Unless, of course, your main goal is charter expansion rather than sound educational policy
Another common theme promoted by charter schools is the questionable claim of amazing success. Recently, Geoffrey Canada of the famed Harlem Children’s Zone gave an online seminar in which he boasted a 100 percent graduation rate at his schools. However, if one looks at HCZ’s attrition rate, the true graduation rate is 64 percent. Many have also noted that Canada kicked out two entire grades of children because of sub-par test scores.
Here in Connecticut, ConnCAN, the charter school lobby, is the prominent peddler of shaky claims and half-truths about charter schools.
Recently, in an effort to promote the expansion of charter schools in Bridgeport, Jennifer Alexander, the CEO of ConnCAN, Inc. declared that nearly 80 percent of charters outperform their host districts. However, data from the State Department of Education reveals that about 90 percent of Connecticut’s charters serve a less needy population than their host districts: fewer poor children, fewer English Language Learners or fewer students with disabilities, with most having a combination of two or three of these categories.
Considering poverty, language barriers and special education needs are the prominent factors influencing standardized test scores, it is not much a feat to have higher test scores with a less challenging population. ConnCAN’s claim is hardly an indication of success or innovation.”
Read the rest of Lecker’s commentary piece here: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Wendy-Lecker-Imagining-where-all-that-money-4526450.php#ixzz2TlStOU64
Corporate Viewpoint, Ethics, Malloy Corporate Influence, Ethics, Malloy
At the very moment Governor Malloy’s political operation was weighing the political fallout of his trip to the White House Correspondents Dinner and whether he should “reimburse” People Magazine for $1,000 or so (we still don’t know how much taxpayers shelled out for Malloy’s security detail), the U.S. Security Industry Association was releasing a press release that Malloy would be this year’s “Keynote Speaker” at their Security Industry Association Government Summit next month in Washington, D.C.
According to the Security Industry Association (SIA), the event is the “premier annual public policy conference in the security industry.”
The press release explained that Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy will serve as the keynote speaker and that, “Gov. Malloy’s remarks will precede a panel on school safety on day two of the Summit. Violent events in our nation’s schools have demonstrated that these “soft targets” are not sacred to those seeking to do harm. Understanding there are many factors that can contribute to secure learning environment, this panel will examine those factors as well as the contributions the industry can make to provide safe educational facilities.”
The press release goes on to note that, “The SIA Government Summit provides attendees with unique insights that help them better understand how policy drives business in the security industry. The exclusive nature of the setting allows one-on-one conversations with government decision makers.”
According to the Security Industry Association’s website, they are “the leading trade association for electronic and physical security solution providers. SIA protects and advances its members’ interests by advocating pro-industry policies and legislation at the federal and state levels; creating open industry standards that enable integration; advancing industry professionalism through education and training; opening global market opportunities; and collaboration with other like-minded organizations. As a proud sponsor of ISC Expos and Conferences, and owner of the Securing New Ground Conference, SIA ensures its members have access to top-level buyers and influencers, as well as unparalleled learning and network opportunities.”
Interestingly the press release did not reveal whether Governor Malloy’s trip to Washington D.C. would be paid for by the Security Industry Association or the taxpayers of Connecticut.