New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 29, 2009 3:14 PM

"Or are they pandering and doing something that is illegal to get political support?" "
Hmmmm I know the answer (as she raises her hand) I know I know!!

Thank god Kimber is in the national lime light for who he is! Can't hide from this one!

Posted by: Doriss Day | June 29, 2009 3:27 PM

Good scoop du jour. I appreciate this fair and accurate behind-the-scenes picture of what may really be going on in Ricci v. DeStefanano. The bottom line is that nothing will change until, or unless, King Johnny's dethrowned. (Don't forget: "It's for the children"!?! Puhleeze!?!)

Kudos to Atty. Karen Torre. This was not exactly a walk in the park. She deserves a lot of credit for believing in this cause celebre.

Posted by: jawbone | June 29, 2009 3:35 PM

It really stinks that Mayor DeStefano and people like Rev. Kimber continue to put their self interest and preservation above those of the people of New Haven. Now it's become a national news item...New Haven is corrupt. Imagine that. Talk about doing more harm than good.

Time to vote these cynical people out of power.

Posted by: EB | June 29, 2009 3:44 PM

Having only lived in New Haven about 8 months, I'm surprised that DeStefano has remained in office so long after reading the ruling and opinion from Alito. I was not aware of the ties between Rev. Kimber and the Mayor. I wouldn't say that Kimber is the person to blame behind the city's or CSBs decision, but I am just more concerned as to why/how Rev. Kimber is able to keep his influence in city matters when it appears this will only hurt DeStefano in the next election.

Regardless, the right decision was made today by the Supreme Court. I hope Ricci and the other firefighters party to this case receive the promotions they have long deserved. Thanks goes out to all of the great New Haven Firefighters for the service they do our city every day!

Posted by: Peace Frog | June 29, 2009 4:04 PM

Most city mayors have relationships with influential figures, especially in the clergy, within their communities. This is an important conduit for efforts by the city to improve the quality of life of its citizens by engaging them in city programs. Rev. Kimber is no exception--Mayor Destefano has personal relationships with many influential clergymen in New Haven, and he utilizes those relationships to bring the community together, particularly around youth issues. The Mayor came to my church recently to talk about several youth and prison reentry programs that he wanted to involve the community in. I would agree with Justice Ginsberg in saying that Rev. Kimber, while well-known by virtue of the media, does not seem to have a particularly special relationship with Mayor Destefano--most of our community leaders are equally important voices in our city, get the same type of attention from the government (if not from the press), and none were involved in the Ricci case.

Posted by: jawbone | June 29, 2009 4:12 PM

Nice suit. Nice smirk. The John Dillinger look isn't working anymore.

Posted by: Resident | June 29, 2009 4:30 PM

EB:

Surprised are you? That's what happens when a city is host to a bullied, ignorant and apathetic population. Educate yourself, vote and run against this clown if you're so inclined.

Posted by: Bill | June 29, 2009 4:40 PM

Ginsburg: "or did they realize, at least belatedly, that their tests could be toppled in a disparate-impact suit?"

Seems like jumping to an unproven conclusion Mr. Days.

Posted by: James | June 29, 2009 4:42 PM

I am completely amazed at the utter naivete that Ginsburg displays in her statement.

She then points out that neither Kimber nor the mayor's staff made the call to disregard the exam results. The mayorally appointed Civil Service Board, "an unelected, politically insulated body," in Ginsburg's telling, made that decision.

Sure, Alito gets a little Chinatown in his description and gives Kimber too much credit. But at least he's pointing in the right direction. I know that this case was not decided based on the Justice's individual views of Kimber, but how could she possibly be so off base? How many other SCOTUS decisions are based on such a flawed interpretation of the environment surrounding a case? Really, I'm stunned. Does she think that this is how the world works?

PS. Sad day in America when a small-time hustler like Kimber makes his way into a SCOTUS decision.

Posted by: blue dog democrat | June 29, 2009 4:47 PM

Peace Frog:

Most ministers I know of are convicted felons or have State Marshalls make sure their cars don't get towed. Can you name any besides Kimber?

Posted by: FOI ? | June 29, 2009 4:50 PM

Rev. Kimber is very involved in matters involving the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven. One may want to research his employee hiring recommendations, procurement and contract award recommendations. ...

Posted by: Get Real | June 29, 2009 4:51 PM

Alito's opinion is borderline nutso. It is unlike any Supreme Court concurrence I have ever seen.

It might as well have talked about the crazy black people taking over the plantation or black helicopters coming to take people away to FEMA concentration camps.

It was based in paranoia and had no relevance to the case at hand. It was a low point for the Supreme Court.

Alito was presented as an intellectual during his confirmation. His opinion reflected him more as the weird dweeb who sits in his basement making crazy inventions no one ever needs.

He concocted an opinion out of whole cloth using facts irrelevant to the case at hand. It is scary that he got onto the court.

If you want to appoint conservatives, go ahead. Same with liberals. But could we get someone who does not appear to have been scared of black kids 40 years ago on the playground and finally got a chance to show one up so did so?

I'm no fan of Kimber but the concurrence was just plain ignorant, scary and pathetic.

Instead of piling on (since many people share my opinion of the reverend), I would suggest that people consider that we really don't want our Supreme Court to stoop to this level.

Posted by: cba | June 29, 2009 5:01 PM

Is this not the same Kimber who ran out of a New Haven eatery to save his suv from being towed for unpaid parkingtags ? Too Bad, Marshall Criscuolo didn't sit on the Supreme Court, then Kimber would have won!!! Rule of Law wins over political Cronyism, the next application fo the rule of law should be on Marshall Criscuolo.

Posted by: jim blunt | June 29, 2009 5:07 PM

SEVEN TERMS??? What is this town and the democratic party thinking????

It is shocking to me that so many people support JD no matter how crime ridden New Haven gets, no matter what scandals come to light, no matter how bad the economic condition of New Haven... NO ONE credible will run against JD and if someone does, NH residents vote him back in. New Haven seems more and more like a freako mafia run town from the twilight zone.

If you voted for JD or did not vote, you are getting don't complain about ANYTHING in New Haven... you are getting exactly what you asked for!

Posted by: James | June 29, 2009 5:26 PM

@GET REAL
I agree that his description was a little over the top, but it bears more resemblance to reality than Ginsberg's land of rainbows and unicorns where everybody tells the truth and does what they're supposed to do for the good of the community. Would you disagree?
....

Posted by: robn | June 29, 2009 6:55 PM

Much ado about nothing. The idea that Kimber has an influence as a vote puller doesn't hold water and SCOTUS should be collectively embarrassed that mention was made of him in the high chamber.

The NHFD promotional exams occurred in 2004 and the mayor had no problem in the previous two elections. Why pander to Kimber?

2003 Primary : DeStefano 7,769 (64%)- Killans 4,299 (36%)
2003 General : DeStefano 10,929 (85%)- Ferrucci 2,002 (15%)
2001 Primary : DeStefano 9,859 (62%)- Looney 5,974 (38%)
2001 General : DeStefano 14,107 (76%)- Schiavone 4,465 (24%)

His weakest show was and is an electoral landslide.

Posted by: Norton Street | June 29, 2009 9:29 PM

Jim Blunt,

when destefano came into office there were 20,000+ violent and property crimes a year. Since the late 90s/early 2000s there have been less than 10,000 of the same type of crimes.
The economic condition of the city has less to do with the mayor and more to do with the decentralization, industrialization and influx of unskilled workers (who came to previously unskilled job-saturated cities, only to be welcomed with nothing that the european immigrants were) of urban centers that occurred (also has been occuring since) mid 20th century.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | June 29, 2009 9:42 PM

Please, Please keep it real!! Kimber does NOT have that much, if any, power in Newhallville. Which votes has he delivered in this neighborhood? Anybody who thinks that, is WAAAAY our of touch with this community.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | June 29, 2009 10:26 PM

When less than 10% of the population votes for the mayor, he needs every vote he can get. After all these years in office, the best he can muster is this lame vote count? That's why he needs Kimber.

Posted by: morris cover | June 29, 2009 10:29 PM

there's your sinner right there - Kimber threatens the AA vote and JD pulls out all the stops to appease him. The damage done is irreversible and I hope BK & JD and in misery for what they did to the tax payers.

Shame on both of those sinners!
www.anyonebutdestefano.com
www.sinsofnewhaven.com

Posted by: Peace Frog | June 29, 2009 10:49 PM

@ Blue Dog Dem:
My point here is not that Rev. Kimber isn't a unique figure--he certainly is. My point is that the relationship he has with City Hall is very standard for popular (no matter what you can say about his record, he has a number of devoted followers from inside and outside his congregation) community leaders. The quip about Mr. Criscuolo is, again, not about Rev. Kimber's relationship with City Hall nor is it about his standing within his community--it is again about Rev. Kimber's personal relationships with other people in the city. If this seems a little take-it-or-leave-it, well, it is. I don't believe that city governments can have significant influence over peoples' personal lives. What they can, should, and in this case, did do, is to play by the rules and hold the responsible parties accountable when people abuse the law--exactly the way they did in both cases.

Posted by: Rita | June 30, 2009 3:58 AM

Congratulations on achieving justice. I heard the latino firefighter on the news and that he has an accent. He must have studied so hard with English being his second language. I am so happy for him. It shows me that if you try as hard as you can, work as hard as you can, you can make life better for yourself, because it is recognized and rewarded.
Thank You New Haven Firefighters!

Posted by: ACR | June 30, 2009 7:38 AM

Norton Street said:

"...when destefano came into office there were 20,000+ violent and property crimes a year. Since the late 90s/early 2000s there have been less than 10,000 of the same type of crimes."

What was the population of 15 - 25 year old's during both periods?

Seeing as New Haven is among the few large cities in the country that doesn't cooperate with the FBI as it regards crime rate compilation; it's difficult to obtain any meaningful data on actual crime stats for the city.

Posted by: Streever | June 30, 2009 8:06 AM

@Peace Frog
Kimber also didn't pay property taxes for 15 years on his house.

I hate allegations of corruption when there is no evidence, but this isn't one of those cases. Kimber does get special treatment & has been given numerous roles & jobs he's not qualified for.

Posted by: kamb | June 30, 2009 8:07 AM

DESTEFANO AND KIMBAR ARE CROOKS!!!!!

CONGRATS TO THE FIRE FIGHTERS WHO TOOK THE TEST AND STUDIED!

WE ARE CREATED EQUAL!!!!

Posted by: robn | June 30, 2009 8:38 AM

CHW,

Agreed that turnout is pathetic, but my vague reccolection of sparsely reported ward stats (which I can't seem to dig up online) suggest that East Rock, East Shore and Westville do most of the voting in this town (the last presidential election excluded, of course). If I'm wrong about this I'd love to see the stats. If I'm right, then the argument that the mayor was pandering for votes would only make sense if the low-scoring-firefighters were from Roland Lemar's neighborhood/racial background....not that he would complain about something on that basis...unless there's an enclave of noisy aggrieved Canuck firefighters living in East Rock...but I digress.

Posted by: LisaB | June 30, 2009 9:06 AM

Very scary that this person is a "Reverend" Would not want to be in his congregation.

Posted by: westvillecairns | June 30, 2009 9:07 AM

Congratulations to the perseverance of Karen Torre and the brave firefighters who stood up to all the opposition inherent in a so-called reverse discrimination suit. Being called racist for studying for an exam instead of expecting a shoe-in is unfair. Frank Ricci is dyslexic and had to be tutored and use flash cards to achieve the score he did. This exam was thoroughly vetted by the CSB before administration.

Posted by: Westville Mom | June 30, 2009 9:26 AM

Question for Norton St.: Not sure about your stats. Population has also declined over time. Better crime stats would be "per capita." Comparing different New Haven years using the FBI uniform crime list would be okay, but New Haven refuses to submit its stats to the FBI every year. What are they afraid of? (Scrutiny, maybe?)
Most recent year:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/table_4co-id.html
I have personally been more affected by crime in NH in the last 15 years than I had been in the previous 13 or 14. ... Which makes me suspicious that there is something statistically fishy going on. Have the criteria perhaps changed over time for recording and defining "crimes?" Manipulated data? Relationship between Yale stats and city stats? Question authority.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 30, 2009 11:20 AM

Robn fould these facts

Posted by: Bill Saunders | November 7, 2007 7:54 PM

File this one under "Fun Election Facts"....

1). Since the 2005 mayor's race, New Haven's voting rolls have decreased by 5% (2758 citizens). And I thought our city was growing.

2). 1797 fewer people voted in this election than in 2005. That equals 13% more disinterest.

3). The Top Ten Wards (ranked by actual # voted) have a combined voting power greater than the other twenty wards (in other words, the top 10 wards account for 53% of the total vote, all the other wards 47% of total vote). The neighborhoods represented by those contiguous top wards are, of course, Westville, the East Shore, and East Rock.

4). a). In the Top 10 voting wards, representing
6385 actual voters, the anti-Destefano
sentiment was 35%.
(Wards 8,9,10,11,16,17,18,25,26,27)

b). In the Middle 10 Voting wards,
representing 3268 actual voters, the
anti-Destefano sentiment was 26%.
(Wards 6,7,12,14,19,20,21,24,28,29)

c). In the Bottom 10 Voting wards,
representing 2248 actual voters, the
anti-Destefano sentiment was 14%.
(Wards 1,2,3,4,5,15,16,22,23,30).
I officially dub these worst wards the 'Mushroom Plantation'. Keep keeping them in the dark, and feeding them shit. (I'm Ward 23,btw)

5). Top Three 'Protest' Wards:

1). Lighthouse Pt.(Ward 18) - 49%
2). Cedarhill (Ward 10) - 43%
3). Orange St. (Ward 8) - 40%

6). It would appear that Johnny's support in Fairhaven (Wards 14,15,16) jumped from 66% in '05, to 75% this cycle. There were also 202 fewer voters in those wards this year, so where is the democracy?

Posted by: Morelegalbills | June 30, 2009 12:15 PM

How much in legal bills does the taxpayer get stuck with once again as a result of the mayors politcs?
Another sad reality and wasted taxpayers money.

Posted by: robn | June 30, 2009 12:40 PM

CHR,

WOW...good find!.. and assuming BS is right, props to him for the stats. If the stats are correct, then it proves my point.. that Kimber's support has recently been statistically irrelevant.

Posted by: FOI ? | June 30, 2009 2:00 PM

From the decision: On January 12, 2004, Tina Burgett (the director of the City's Department of Human Resources) sent an e-mail to Dubois-Walton to coordinate the City's response to the test results. Burgett wanted to clarify that the City's executive officials would meet "sans the Chief, and that once we had a better fix on the next steps we would meet with the Mayor (possibly) and then the two Chiefs." Id., at 446a. The "two Chiefs" are Fire Chief William Grant (who is white) and Assistant Fire Chief Ronald Dumas (who is African-American). Both chiefs believed that the test results should be certified. Id., at 228a, 817a. Petitioners allege, and the record suggests, that the Mayor and his staff colluded "sans the Chief[s]" because "the defendants did not want Grant's or Dumas' views to be publicly known; accordingly both men were prevented by the Mayor and his staff from making any statements regarding the matter." Id., at 228a.1

The next day, on January 13, 2004, Chad Legel, who had designed the tests, flew from Chicago to New Haven to meet with Dubois-Walton, Burgett, and Thomas Ude, the City's corporate counsel. Id., at 179a. "Legal outlined the merits of the examination and why city officials should be confident in the validity of the results." Ibid. But according to Legel, Dubois-Walton was "argumentative" and apparently had already made up her mind that the tests were " 'discriminatory.' " Id., at 179a-180a. Again according to Legal, "[a] theme" of the meeting was "the political and racial overtones of what was going on in the City." Id., at 181a. "Legal came away from the January 13, 2004 meeting with the impression that defendants were already leaning toward discarding the examination results." Id., at 180a.

Posted by: End the Waste | June 30, 2009 4:02 PM

Rev Kimber has imposed undue influence at the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven for the past few years. .... After reading the court decision and the named City employees, it is not surprising that the influence has continued from the City Hall to the Housing Authority...

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | June 30, 2009 10:42 PM

I'm not real fond of Kimber or his track record, but Alito went way over board in making this about Kimber. He makes Kimber out to be an all-powerful Jackson or a Sharpton with huge power, able to deliver major voting blocs. He's not all that. It's not about personalities, as Drew Days says, it's about policies and the law. I agree with Anthony Kennedy - the city determined the test was flawed only when when it looked at the color and race of those who had passed. That's not fair. The city should have certified the results. Now I fear taxpayers will have to shell out major bucks for damages. Ugh.

Posted by: Moreorless | June 30, 2009 11:52 PM

Hey Drew--Ginsburg got it right if you believe in the Fire Service a an entitlement program--and that is all. The other 5 justices got it right, that it why there are 9 and not 1 like you apparently would love to have. Oh--and a Clinton guy--who'd a thunk it that you would support Ginsburg? Your not too obvious.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | July 1, 2009 3:45 AM

Cedarhill,

Thanks for the repost. Yes, those are the real statistics, RobN. I will show them to you over a beer if you so desire.

But frankly sir, you miss the finer points.

Statistically irrelevant?

The power of church over minority communities may very well account for the low voter turnout in these wards.

I know for a fact that discontent for the administration is high in these communities.

Where is the (stifled) voice?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | July 1, 2009 8:09 AM

Bill That was my thought to. They are there to keep the vote down. To keep the racial tension alive and well. It is a long political strategy to never let all the groups unit as one. Imagine the change that could happen if all community's worked together! It reminds me of a talk the Brian McGraph (sp) had witha group of Yale students. Where he boasted how he was able to pit the black against the Italians to get the vote results they wanted. My guess in Kimber is in that realm of personality.

Posted by: greg | July 1, 2009 8:26 AM

Kimber is exposed on a greater scale for what he is, and so is King John. This whole thing is not about race, gender, black or white. Its about votes, period. The city looks ridiculous, and the Fire Birds are like children who cant take no for an answer. Its all about votes.

Posted by: ROBN | July 1, 2009 9:09 AM

BS,

I'm not judging...just observing who votes and therefore who has influence. Your logic seems to be that Kimber suppresses discontentment with apathy and resignment, dissuading people from going to the polls? I hate to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, but how do you prove the negative?

Posted by: Bill Saunders | July 1, 2009 11:59 AM

RobN,

Are you a mouthpiece for plantation politics?
I am not trying to 'prove' anything. I am presenting an opinion.

People need to understand how their franchise is manipulated by the system. When a common voice arises, with no fear of reprisal, more dots can be connected.

Everyone has stories about the lack of genuine public process. The power mad bully at city hall needs to go away at all costs.

Posted by: ROBN | July 1, 2009 6:43 PM

BS,

I'm trying to be a mouthpiece for as much factual information that I can dig up. If (as you wrote) 53% of votes come from three neighborhoods unreelated to Mr. Kimber and those three neighborhoods overwhelmingly support De Stefano then Mr.Kimber's influence is statistically insignificant in an election and probably should not have come up in a Supreme Court conversation.

Posted by: Bill Saunders | July 2, 2009 8:40 AM

RobN,

Since Boise Kimber is named as a defendant in the case, along with DeStefano, and DuBois Walton, why is mention of him and his antics out of line?

Posted by: robn | July 2, 2009 9:19 PM

BS,

Hmmmm...just checked the opinion...did not realize that...I stand by my argument about his statistical irrelevance in recent voting but thems thar juicy reading in the opinion (threats of race riots and such). I'm gonna have to hunker down and read this whole thing...seems like a potboiler.

Posted by: Fire Hoser | July 2, 2009 11:13 PM

Was Kimber the culprit? Hmm, did OJ do it?
I hear Sharpton couldn't make it on Monday to help his constituents in New Haven because "there were far more important media matters in Encino, Harlem (and Neverland) at the time."
Sharpton could only say on his B-Berry, "I'll have to catch up with you later, much later. Soon, but not sometime soon."

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | July 3, 2009 12:11 AM

The opinions are very interesting to read. They show how both sides on the bench (Alito-conservative) and Ginsburg (liberal) took inaccurate interpretations of what takes place in New Haven to jump to their preconceived conclusions. Alito got carried away with his false notion of Kimber as Jackson-like kingmaker who made the mayor quake with fear. And Ginsburg got carried away in maintaining the Civil Service Board acted as an insulated citizen body, independent of mayoral influence. We can see here that the justices twisted what takes place in New Haven to fit their ideologies, so we get an insight into how they must do this on everything that comes before them.

Posted by: Nicholas Stix | July 6, 2009 6:50 PM

@Get Real | June 29, 2009 4:51 PM
There are only three flaws in your comment, GR: 1. You lied (along with Ginsburg and Days) about the facts of the case; 2. You made an ad hominem argument against Alito; and 3. Within your ad hominem argument, you presumed the existence of facts which, if true, would mean that Justice Alito was a victim of racism, and your mockery of him as a victim stamps you as a racist.

Alito wrote an amazing concurring opinion, which begins on p. 42:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

If only the media had reported on the facts which Alito reported on, nobody would have been fooled about this case. But then, that's why the media refused to report the facts.

Posted by: kitchq | August 12, 2009 1:26 PM

Thank GOD the views of Ginsburg and Drew Days did not carry the day. How ignorant they and detached from reality they are. An how dangerous their mindset is to standards of decency and competence in American society. The irony is that privately, neither one of these boneheads would want a Firebird who failed a test to be in charge of saving their lives but neither would ever admit it.