New Haven Independent

Posted by: concerned in ct | May 17, 2007 2:20 PM

Paul,

"a poster who would identify himself only as 'Concerned in Connecticut.'" You make it appear as if I am trying to hide something since I did not use my name. I have posted on this site under my on name in the past, and have been viciously attacked. I am not the one getting taxpayers money here. The fact that Kica put together "an independent group from outside government reviewed proposals for the summer youth grants and chose the winners" means nothing. There are many non profits in New Haven doing good work with youth, some of them have been highlighted on this very website. Why did Rafeal's group merit getting funds over the other groups? Why did his group get 13% of the funding? Who comprised this mysterious group of "independent" persons who made the decision on who to fund? What did the other groups get? Who was denied funding and why?

Come on Paul, we all know that you have a very friendly relationship with Rafael and Kica, I do also. Despite this, you have to admit that there are too many unanswered questions here. And as I said earlier, even if the ethics board says OK to this deal, we all know it smells fishy, and should NOT go forward. If Rafael's group is so deserving of funding, then go out into the free market and get it, why continue to pick the pockets of us New Haven tax payers?

Posted by: SWHAT | May 17, 2007 2:36 PM

this is a shame because they obviously took the proper steps to ensure that the kids could benefit from this investment of city dollars. However people like to jump on their bully pulpit and use the conflict of interest to arrive at their conclusions. what does conflict of interest mean any way where he gets no benefit from the money? If COI were to be applied this broadly no one in new haven- at least the social activist types could do anything, the dam town is so small!

Posted by: John Padilla | May 17, 2007 2:53 PM

New Haven is a small town so it is not unusual that something like this could happen. That said, it sounds like Ms. Matos and Mr. Ramos were well aware of the potential for conflict and took appropriate steps to mitigate that perception and make sure they were removed from the awards process. Since it doesn't appear Mr. Ramos is pocketing any money in this deal, let's make sure the young folks who benefit from Bregamos Theatre don't get penalized because some of us want to make a point -- regardless of whether the conflict is real or percieved. I don't want to minimize the perception of conflict, but it appears to have been dealt with appropriately. Let's move on and not create an environment where talented people don't create, participate and innovate within our community for fear of their intentions being called into question.

Posted by: concerned in ct | May 17, 2007 3:51 PM

What appropriate steps were taken? Who was on this "independent" selection committee? What process was used to make decisions about funding? What other deserving youth and programs were denied funding because this group was chosen? How and who did the chosing of this "independent" committee?

So what if he doesn't get paid. Does he make the decisions as to who does? Who at the organization will get paid? Are any of the employees city staff? Are any related to Rafael or Kica, or any other high ranking city official?

Until these questions are anwered, it smells fishy to me, and it should to you all.

Posted by: Rafael Ramos | May 17, 2007 4:18 PM

Concerned In CT, " You make it appear as if I am trying to hide something since I did not use my name. I have posted on this site under my on name in the past, and have been viciously attacked.

So now you hide and maliciousuly and viciously attack others ?

Posted by: Cobra1 | May 17, 2007 4:44 PM

I find it obnoxious that the Alterman from West River would object to the funding of a program that will keep some young people from the streets

CONGRADULATION RAMOS!! YOUTH TAKE NOTICE. VOTE! VOTE!

Posted by: Joanne@SolarYouth | May 17, 2007 7:14 PM

Bregamos is a great program and deserves the City's support. As youth service providers, we expect to "win some and lose some" when if comes to grants. This is not because there are too many providers - the need is far greater than we could possible meet, even if we all tripled in size. Rather, it is based on the limited pool of resources. To truly address the tremendous needs of our City's youth we must do two things - first increase the pool of resources for effective programming - on the local, state, federal and private donor level. But also, we must encourage and nurture those rare individuals who have creative solutions and a passion for providing supports and opportunities to youth - because its hard, hard work. Even if they do earn a paycheck from the City.

Posted by: Matthew Short | May 17, 2007 8:51 PM

You don't have to be a major taxpayer (or a taxpayer at all) to be concerned about ethics issues so all of this discussion about who is a bigger shareholder in the public good is irrelevant. The problem with this anonymous posting stuff is that I can't tell the difference between concerned citizens and political mudslinging from a safe vantage point ( and I don't think this is the West River Alderman). Paul, I really hope you'd change that at some point. Either way, I would give the same response to what I've read:

I would like to attest to the fact that neither Rafael, nor any other member of the group that comprises Bregamos, is compensated. That seems to be an issue that concerns people. The activities of Bregamos DO subsist primarily on private giving and the grant money will not take away from the work done to raise private funds, but will instead go to achieving the goal of both Bregamos and of the City's Youth Initiative, which is to serve more of our City's youth by providing even more programming.

I sit on the board of Bregamos and I do so because I believe that the progamming is good for kids and worth spending my time and money on (I am also a contributor). Again, ethics questions are reasonable, and I'm sure that if you look more deeply into the matter, rather than smelling things, that you will find the work Bregamos does to be worthwhile and the methods appropriate.

Warm Regards,

Matt Short

Posted by: Julie | May 17, 2007 10:07 PM

Hey Raf,

Don't let them get you down. They are few...albeit loud but few. They have not seen what Bregamos can do. They have not seen a Bregamos production. They have not seen young people, who have never been given the chance to perform or even learn about production, take a break from the angry streets and transform into creative, productive individuals. These few sit in front of a computer reading headlines. They make it their job to exploit, under cover of an alias, the bad news and never bother to find out what we do day in and day out to bring everyday services to them. The good we do. The good you do. We chose public service. We are educated, motivated and marketable. IBM? Microsoft? No, the City of New Haven. And we love it! On top of working late and weekends, you also chose community dedication. I am a number cruncher and Public Service plus volunteer Community Service does not equal a man rich in cash. However, it does equal someone selfless, devoted and quite frankly probably off his rocker...but in a way for which we ALL should strive. I am in awe of your commitment to the overnight summer camp program that you have made possible for dozens of intercity youth EVERY year. Your commitment to the City of New Haven does not end at 5:00pm now that you operate a REAL community theater. And all free of charge. Shame on residents of New Haven who do not want or believe that a dedicated public servant can also be a valuable community service provider. Shame on residents of New Haven who are quick to cut the good ones down while never for one moment saying, "Hey, what can I do to help." "Do you need more volunteers at Bregamos?" SHAME ON THEM. Conflict of interest? This has nothing to do with a conflict or the actual funding for that matter. It has more to do with grudges and agendas that belong to a few haters. This is not an Us versus Them situation. Improving our communities and helping our youth requires a holistic approach. I ask them, "How about spending your energy actually helping us to help you...and your kids...and your neighbors? We volunteer, do you?"

Posted by: concerned in ct | May 17, 2007 10:09 PM

Rafael,

When did I "maliciousuly and viciously attack others"? What did I say or do other than ask questions, which I should be able to do as a taxpaying citizen. Why are you folks so upset with a few questions being asked? Now I'm beginning to wonder what you are trying to hide.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | May 18, 2007 7:45 AM

It is very disturbing to read these posts on this subject and others in which friends of the administration, city employees and others demonize and characterize as "haters" those who question expenditures, taxes and contract awards.

The City of New Haven has a long history of being an insiders game and there are real and perceived conflicts just about wherever you look. It is hardly because we are such a small city -- there are more than 120K people living here. You need only look at the construct of the NH BOA to see conflicts in the budget process; look at these high ranking city officials and see where they came from and watch the direction of their departments as a consequence; contract awards and political contributions; and there are more that will come to light in the near future.

I would like to know who made up the independent review committee -- if it's truly independent and Ramos' group won the grant on its merits only -- fine. But that should be disclosed and it should have been addressed upfront before it raised eyebrows. To Ramos' credit, there was a review by corporation council but that's pretty minimal as this office has been a chronic poor performer for a long time as has been noted in numerous news reports.

This situation should always have been subject to review by the Board of Ethics -- it's where it should have been placed even before the grant was submitted knowing full well where this can lead.

Having said that, it sounds like this program is good one - that kids learn and are exposed to something different and interesting, perhaps even life changing. I hope funding comes forward from somewhere if not approved by the Board of Ethics.

Posted by: Outta-order | May 18, 2007 8:12 AM

Dear concerned citizen,

Your question was to Raf, but let me attempt to answer it. You claim to know Rafael and Kica well enough. If you were truly concerned about the issue you raised, you would have gone to them and posed those questions privately. How were you malicious? You get on a widely read online paper, using a pseudonym to cast aspersions about the man and his motives.

But guess what, you chose the wrong person. Raf works his butt off for the city of new haven and for causes he cares about. With the work that this guy puts in, the city gets him at a bargain. And,unlike some of you , it has never been about the money for him.

Posted by: Moses | May 18, 2007 8:18 AM

Hello to all:

I'd like to commend all who use the comments section to voice opinionss. Though the questions & opinions are tough, they are healthy for "good gov.t" This is a unique situation cause we don't want to discourage city officials and employees to not get intimately involved in good work, but we also want to maintain a ligitimate process. I would believe that any org that receive money from the city would leave their books open for review by the very taxpayers who support them. We do not want to let at-risk teens suffer!!!

Posted by: da hill | May 18, 2007 12:26 PM

Just had to add my $.02 to the discussion...First, the dialogue created by these forums is priceless. Being anonymous or in person doesn't matter. As long as valid points are made, and healthy discussions are had. As for Ramos...I would have to agree that there is an inherent conflict of interest when you are a city official who is to receive grant monies for an organization that you personally oversee. Before you grab your pitchforks and torches, let me be the first to say that I completely support the theater, and what it does for our children. It is a beacon for many within the new haven community. However, this is not the point. I personally do not believe that there will be misappropriation of the grant monies; I know personally that Ramos is of the most upstanding character. The fact remains that this is not proper. Within LCI, you cannot purchase sliver lots at the discounted rate if you're a city employee, despite what the use will be. The theater could not purchase a sliver lot as a 501(c) (3) organization for the purposes of building a theater for the kids...Why not? Because of Ramos relationship with the City. These are inherent conflicts of interest. Ramos is probably the most deserving of these funds, but it is not proper.

Posted by: concerned in ct | May 18, 2007 3:44 PM

Moses and Da Hill,

Amen!!!!

Posted by: Outta-order | May 18, 2007 4:37 PM

Amen? your analogy is quite poor da hill. In purchasing the lot a benefit inures to him immediately. He can turn around and sell his house and get more money for it because it now sits on more real estate. I think everyone agrees that there is the real concern that a conflict might be perceived, however the parties took the necessary steps to ensure that there is no conflict nor were they hiding anything. There will be "inherent" conflicts if government employees choose to participate in civic life in the city that they work and live in. What is important is that they take steps to ensure that these potential conflicts don't fatten their pocketbooks. You are not interested in the validity of the process used in awarding the grant to this group. I am quite sure there are other mechanisms that you can use to obtain this information....unless of course you expect to community service director and mayor to employ the paul's blog to have a dialog with you. Being concerned about conflicts in government is one thing. Looking to slander people online is another thing.

Posted by: da hill | May 19, 2007 7:02 PM

out of order,
In the analogy used, a reference to a 501c3 organization was used to illustrate the creation of a non-profit organization. Hence the benefit would not be to a person, but rather to the non-profit recieving the grant/land. In this discussion, we need not concern ourselves with the value of the grant (land vs. money), but with the fact that there is something of value changing hands. I think all would agree that if the proprietor of this group was a member of the Board of Alderman, we would not feel as warm and fuzzy. This example is extreme, but it gives us a vantage point for attempting to discuss where the line is to be drawn. I guess the bottom line is that it does not pass the smell test. The smell test being if something does not smell right, then its probably not right. Due to everyones seemingly knockledge of all the positives that Mr. Ramos has brought to the city, community, etc. We are all confident that the monies will be used for their intended purposes. This, as mentioned earlier, is not the point. Who is able to recieve funds and who are not needs to be clearly defined. The hypothetical regarding sliver lots, has been established as a no no for city employees...clearly defined. It does not matter if the employee has a track record for greatness with building child care programs. It says no...If Che dawson, former Executive Director of LEAP, pushed to give leap some extra funds for after shcool care...what would be our response? Now we all know that LEAP has changed the lives of many of our children and it is a wonderful resource, so does it make a difference due to Che's current relationship with the city? of course it does. Folks would question if his current relationship with the city had any bearing on his former employer reaping the benefits. And, so I believe the same holds true with this situation, despite how great I peronsally believe the Bragamos Theater to be. We cant divorce ourselves from the rules and guidlines we have in place to govern us, but we can more clearly define them when it is necessary...and this is a time where it may be necessary. For good or bad.

No one is taking personal shots at anyones character or their credibilty. These are healthy discussions intended to amuse, inform, and maybe even educate. So stop making a personal issue. And please dont comment on the annomous thing either, I dont want you to know who I am. I could be the Mayor, I could be Raphel, I could even be your mother, so watch your mouth....

Peace

Posted by: HeavyD | May 19, 2007 7:11 PM

So let me get this straight. A non-profit group with a proven track record and a volunteer staff applies for funds, anticipating a potential appearance of conflict of interest and addressing the issue directly. Now, people droning on about wasted tax dollars think we need to expend additional resources appointing a committee to research this $13K grant in order to go digging for improprieties? This may be 13% of the youth grants, but frankly, that's a small pot of money and the group *still* went out of its way to head this off. Shouldn't we invest our complaints and investigative efforts elsewhere?

Posted by: MARYROSARIO | May 20, 2007 11:29 AM

OMG if the steps were taken by kica to see if there is any conflict of interest then let it alone.Also if rafael is not getting paid what is the problem? The program is a very good one.please dont take away the program for the kids its just another stupid thing we do and who suffers not us the kids do.