New Haven Independent

Posted by: elmcityguy | July 3, 2008 10:35 AM

Unreal.

**"If an employee willfully or maliciously violates somebody's constitutional rights, that's not something we feel the taxpayers should be liable for," Smuts said.**

Unless, of course, they were a high ranking official and helped drop charges against some clergy. Because we already know the City supports letting clergy do whatever it is they want, and just loves to settle with connected parties. Just raise our taxes again, we're made of money.

Posted by: RedScare | July 3, 2008 11:52 AM

We sure could use that $1.35 million to close the hole in the budget. Oh well. Just raise taxes some more.

Posted by: FairHavenRes | July 3, 2008 2:25 PM

Who were these two ministers that were politically connected? Were they the ones at the Second Star of Jacob on Chapel?

Posted by: facChek | July 3, 2008 4:46 PM

It is just as well The city's Litigation Settlement Committee voted unanimously to settle a suit brought against the city by former Police Chief Melvin Wearing, with their record of losses and losing committee decisions, more recently by a park department employee who sued and was awarded 500K due to discrimination by the park and HR departments, age discrimination decision to by pass him from consideration because of his age.

In the wearing case, the city fail to indemnify him even though the city routinely bonds all of it's department heads against such claims.
It is nothing short of amazing how the city can reach these ridiculous positions in the first place. The facts of the case indicates wearing, doing the course of debriefing police officer Tolnay gave him a direct order to leave the room and the conversation. Tolnay did not do so, Wearing suspended him. Tolnay did not win his union grievance against the insubordination suspension. In 2005 Tolnay won a decision in court claiming a violation of Ist. Amendment rights to free speech. Wearing was well within his rights to suspend Tolnay and the city necessarily had the responsibility to defend and protect this department head from liability.

In this new decision the city reverses it's original failed position.

Taxpayers get up another 1.3 M on top of the incredable Spector fire poor decision costing taxpayers 1.2M.

Posted by: Hooligan | July 3, 2008 5:05 PM

If my memory serves me correctly it was Hernandez of the Second Star of Jacob, and he left his pulpit in shame over an illict affair and question over missing money.....( sounds fimilar huh Boise ).

Mr. Wearing is a nice man I've had the pleasure of meeting at fund raisers, several times. It's a shame he let his ego get the better of him before he suspended that officer when he was doing his job.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | July 3, 2008 10:35 PM

Hey Brison how could you vote with the corporate plutocracy,Are you not a green?

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | July 4, 2008 8:49 AM

If we wind up keeping the $1.35M, this money should go to paying off debt and IOUs, not current spending. No back door ways to avoid dealing with current overspending and shortfalls. This could be an attempt to avoid dealing directly with the problem employing so many people does to our budget. Is this a way to back peddle on threats of layoffs?

Posted by: KAMB | July 6, 2008 8:38 AM

Officer Tolnay should get all of the money, but it should come directly out of the pockets of the old Chief and the Mayor himself. Why should the city have to back these two up when the decision that was made to cover up or drop the charges after a legal arrest was made. The old Chief and the Mayor actually did something that was illegal (pulling strings at court and unarresting someone prior to a court hearing) so the city should not back them.

The preachers should be re-arrested (I know its impossible) and made an example of, after the Chief and Mayor John pay the millions . . . . YEAH, in a perfect world.

Posted by: The Fonz | July 6, 2008 9:04 PM

Does our new $160,000 new police chief know all this? Anyone sent him this link? Is he still coming to New Haven?

Posted by: -fairhavener- | July 6, 2008 11:56 PM

I can't believe my previous post was deleted. There was nothing obscene or offensive.

If Tolnay expects $1.35 million from Wearing, I expect $5.31 million from Tolnay. Difference is, I will donate all my $5.31 million back to charitable causes and things that benefit New Haven residents.

Posted by: Sins of New Haven | July 9, 2008 9:00 PM

Someone should get a copy of the wage execution issued on Wearing as reported in the Advocate
http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=8702

That might tell more details about interest, penalties, marshall's fees, etc. The actual figure might be much higher than reported when all of those costs are factored in. The City is trying to hoodwink us all into thinking it's "only" 1.3 million.

The problem is that instead of hoping Melvin wins his appeal, the City should offer to settle with Tolnay. They're pinning all their hopes on an appeal and if they (meaning US the taxpayers) lose that appeal then we lose big time.

Isn't it better to offer something to Tolnay now?
Much like Vollero from the Parks Department, they could have settled for 60K but instead were obtuse enough to force an eventual 500K award.

I wonder what the bill was to defend this case too. Did the City use outside counsel back then? You have to factor that into the cost too if so.

Not the first and most assuredly not the last time the City finds itself totally guilty and acts irresponsibly by forcing future litigation which it eventually loses. Ask Casper Vollero.

Pretend the City is like an emergency room and someone comes in bleeding with a cut on their leg. At that point the City could either spring for a band-aid (at minimum cost) and apply it to the injury or wait until the cut becomes gangrenous and amputate.

Why does the City elect for amputation every time it is liable, culpable or guilty?

It's because the Administration acts on a personal basis - their own - and it's never about what's right for the taxpayers it's about the ego-factory that is 165 Church Street.