New Haven Independent

Posted by: Charlie O'Keefe | July 10, 2009 8:10 AM

Shame on you, Paul Bass, for scapegoating Matteson. DeStefano controls everything at city hall. The pay hikes were to get campain contributions from his staff in an election year. Johnny Boy is using our money to keep his job.

Posted by: ROBN | July 10, 2009 8:54 AM

I question the validity of the theory that this is a campaign cash grab. With absolutely no opposition, the myor doesn't need any campaign funds.

Posted by: Concerned | July 10, 2009 9:07 AM

RobN. Can you tell me if Rev. Kimber benefits materially from any of his political support he throws the Mayor's way?

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 9:25 AM

I think charlie is wrong about the campaign contrib, but the raises are wrong.

City Hall never put this out into budgets--it was a stealth move--sorry to all the good folk at City Hall, but you've put the Alders in a tight position.

I honestly think City Hall has forgotten the role of the aldermanic system--CHECKS & BALANCES--and looks at it as a "mayor supporting coalition".

I honestly can't say I have any respect left for the insecure Mayor John Destefano.

Between publically humiliating and belittling his staff--hiring people who aren't competent--and demanding 100% loyalty and no disagreement (and when people disagree turning it nasty & personal and then saying, "Let's keep this civil") I have a mental picture of a cruel & vindictive person who strikes out to be in control.

Sorry Mayor. You've lost a lot of people with the recent nonsense and the City is going to have to come a long way before I can see you as being a positive force.

Posted by: New Haven 41 | July 10, 2009 9:55 AM

God save the New Haven 41

Posted by: robn | July 10, 2009 10:12 AM

CONCERNED,

Don't know. Please enlighten us.

Posted by: That Guy | July 10, 2009 10:13 AM

I do remember sometime in 2001 the lead story in the then Paul Bass run New Haven Advocate....."Destefano for a Change"...oops.

Posted by: funky chicken | July 10, 2009 10:15 AM

Paul, despite of your disclaimer your commentary was a nasty personal attack on Mr. Matteson. I also take issue with the statements that we are living in a corrupt and unconstitutional city. This is not China or Iran, nobody is protesting in the streets over dictatorial policies or the like. Your attempt to portray this as such is dishonest.

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 10, 2009 10:24 AM

I think this ongoing story about raises could use a little context for some of the numbers being thrown around (12%, $111,000).

One question: what's the bottom-line impact of these raises? For example, if these employees are now paying an increased share of health insurance premiums, or having their non-salary benefits reduced in some other way (as I think was mentioned earlier) to what degree does that cost-saving offset the raise?

Another: do I understand correctly that while there were layoffs, a large number of union workers are also seeing increases?

Posted by: anon | July 10, 2009 10:24 AM

May or may not be true, but all of these raises seem to be evidence that very few in City Hall (and among the unions) understand how severe our financial situation is, or how serious the foreclosure/crime/education/traffic/housing/pollution/homelessness/unemployment problems in our neighborhoods are.

Would you feed yourself more steak if your children were starving?

Yes, this may seem like hyperbole if you live in East Rock or have a cushy city hall job, but seriously, look at the reality of our neighborhoods.

Maybe it is because so few of the city employees actually live within the city?

Posted by: Patrick | July 10, 2009 10:44 AM

Streever,

You hit the nail on the head on this one. Also, let's not forget how much money the Fire Department promotional exam ignominy will cost city taxpayers!

Posted by: Bill in Newhallville | July 10, 2009 10:56 AM

War on the Constitution? Yes, I agree that political life in NH has slowed to a crawl and that City Hall needs to be more transparent, especially in finance matters, but comparing DeStefano to the Nixon crooks?! Come on!

Posted by: ThanksPaul! | July 10, 2009 11:01 AM

Paul,

I much prefer your rants in your vlog where they are clearly identified as your opinions to you inserting your political beliefs elsewhere on your "independent news" site. Readers self select and come to your site for DeStefano bashing, not for unbiased coverage of political issues. If you wanted to write the news in an unbiased way, you could. You choose not to.

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 11:12 AM

Hey all,

while the actual raises could be debated all day, let's keep in mind that Paul (and Lemar, and myself, and a large number of New Haven citizens) are not actually against people getting raises in GENERAL or SPECIFIC--
the issue here is that the Mayor should have put this through the budget.

he can make Sean & smuts take the fall for his arrogant decision all day, but let's remember who calls the shots, and who is staying out of the media lately.

The Mayor pushed raises through a sneaky process, avoiding checks & balances. We should all be unhappy about that.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | July 10, 2009 11:13 AM

It is difficult to fathom what was going through the minds of the city's executive staff and the mayor himself ... during the budget process by publicly claiming shared pain and solidarity with the lowest paid people in the city knowing full well it was not true.

... Some may say the word "lair" is too strong. I disagree. What may have been true at one time, as budget chief Larry Rosconi likes to point out, and that is questionable, was in fact, not ultimately true in the end. At very least, it was lying by omission. Most certainly, it was lying through deception.

...

I don't tolerate this type of behavior from my own children. I should tolerate this from adults? From political "leaders?" Is this how these people interact with their own families or just the public? Is this any way to run a city? Is this any way to put together a budget? How many more lies are hidden in the hundreds of pages of expenses? Can we trust that this spending plan accurately reflects the real expenditures of the city? Or worse, that the balance sheets accurately reflect the true debt? Why should we trust city executives if they can't be trusted with such a small thing as their own individual paychecks?

Mayor DeStefano, Mattison, Rosconi and the rest of the plotters should all visit the Church of Democracy for both a confession as well as a re-dedication to open government, honesty and candor. Hiding mill rate increases in the revaluation and burying executive pay increases in departmental expenses are not exemplary behaviors that mirrors our values or appreciates our family checkbooks. With a tax take that has doubled in the last six years, the money they're spending is ours and we damn sure deserve better than we're getting. We're most assuredly paying for it.

Posted by: Electedofficial | July 10, 2009 11:21 AM

On the money Paul. Great job expressing the feelings of many if not most voters and taxpayers of this city. You also represent the feelings of many elected officials except for at least one.

Posted by: Bruce | July 10, 2009 11:21 AM

CONCERNED, The mayor appointed Rev Kimber to the Board of Fire Commissioners. I don't think that is a paid position, so it might not qualify as a "material" benefit. More like a material burden.

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 11:32 AM

Gary:

a good question is where is the mayor in all this?
a guy who loves the spotlight when he can take credit for Mato's and other's hard work--and make a tough stance on moral issues--has disappeared from the public eye.

His employees aren't allowed to talk to the press unless they are going to take one on the chin for him.

I feel badly for Matteson & Smuts & the others, but am outraged at the way they all have thrown the Alders & community leaders under the proverbial bus.

It's a great example of "trickle-down" leadership. The Mayor scapegoats his staff, who in turn scapegoat the aldermen.

Posted by: Come on! | July 10, 2009 11:50 AM

Streever,

These raises are bad, ill-timed and reek of Mayoral power gone amok - but aren't you a little paranoid? What Mayoral staff are scapegoating what aldermen? I doubt Jorge Perez's crew are even thought of with enough foresight to warrent trying to scapegoat. The vote was 22-1, so its not like they can lay blame on anyone in particular. Lemar was one of the resolution writers and co-sponsor and took the lead on the floor, and I know that pisses the Mayor's staff off - but even they aren't stupid enough to piss him off.(ok, maybe they are, but at least one of them would be smart enough to say "um, Roland's more popular than us in many parts of this town and in many advocacy circles, carries our weight 90% of the time, and is seen as a smart, stand-up guy - we probably shouldn't talk crap about him") .... SO I think this a little much about nothing ...

Posted by: AgOr | July 10, 2009 1:26 PM

Mayor JD wanted concessions from the unions. Now we know the reason,to give raises to his employees. Are the unions not his employees? When will New Haven citizens wake up and see what he is doing to them. He must think he can do whatever he wants to do.Wake up New Haven!

Posted by: fair haven heights | July 10, 2009 1:27 PM

You hit right on the head Paul...bravo!!!

Posted by: Doug | July 10, 2009 1:42 PM

Excellent editorial Paul. DeStefano's got chutzpa, but sometimes chutzpa can really be embarrassing.

Posted by: Andy | July 10, 2009 2:22 PM

I don't think John's a bad mayor (I think he's actually quite good on most things) but the way he botched this whole episode does make me wonder: Will anyone ever challenge him, or at least offer an alternative to voters? And if not now, when?

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 4:22 PM

Come On!:
You should be a fly on the wall around the City Staff for 30 minutes. The things they are saying about the aldermen are disgusting and make me think working with them is impossible.

Posted by: Steve Ross | July 10, 2009 11:35 PM

Charlie O'Keefe's comment is interesting. Does DeStefano's campaign from his gubernatorial run still have debts? All the TV ads must have cost some. Is he trying to pay down debts with contributions from his staff? It behooves him to make a statement.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | July 11, 2009 11:23 AM

This is all over the country and all we do is keep voting them in!!!!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/07/11/2009-07-11_mayor_bloomberg_quietly_approves_.html

Posted by: Da Hill | July 11, 2009 1:32 PM

WE need someone to step up here and run against the king, or we need to shut up. I dont like the fact that we Bi@#H and moan about how bad the mayor and the administration is to us, and we sit on our collective asses and take it. King Johnny has become more progressively power drunk over the years, and at this point he could care less as to what we write on this blog...he realizes that we are not going to do anything other than type...so yes, he will give raises to who he wants when he wants, he will promote who he wants when he wants-despite qualifications (Rev. Kimber, Campaign Staff turns into Executive Staff, Economic Development, Marshals, etc.) he will build schools and give construction contracts to who he wants, he will make political decesions in the best interest of his political career and not for whats best for the citizens of New Haven...None of this is new...we can look over the past 14 years and dig up countelss examples of poor decesions on behalf of the City leadership...and we have done nothing but complain...so I say to you all, Paul Bass included, either come up with a plan to unseat the King or Shut up. If you really want to see the behind the scene story start FOIAing all City Hall Communications in and out from the executive leadership...as well as Susie Voight and the New Haven Democratic Party. Start following the money trails...who made major campaign contributions and who got major development contracts....just saying either shut up or do something about it. I did...I got the hell out of dodge and moved out of one of the most corrupt states and city in america. I left my home for what appears to be a less obvious corrupt community...and that is all we can ask, dont blatantly screw us and act with disdain with your self serving decesions.

Da Hill

Posted by: Streever | July 11, 2009 1:51 PM

Come On!:

Please do respond to this. The reason I consider it to be dumping on the aldermen is because we have a system of checks & balances.

When the mayor so blatantly disregards that & acts power-mad and autocratic, it forces the alders hands.

This is a situation he has created by abusing his authority. The aldermen have no choice but to oppose him.

Does that clarify my position & opinion? When the mayor violates the basic precepts of governance, he forces the alders to carry a burden.

Posted by: facchek | July 11, 2009 4:46 PM

The following is a portion of the Mayor's forward message to taxpayers and the BOA regarding the GF budget Highlights:

BOARD OF ALDERMEN APPROVED
GENERAL FUND BUDGET - FY 2009-10
HIGHLIGHTS

BUDGET INCREASED I .83% FROM $455.6M TO $464M. THIS IS AN INCREASE OF
$8.4M OR 1.83%
A. EXPENDITURE ITEMS
9 BOARD OF EDUCATION BUDGET FLAT AT $1 73M. DEPT REQUEST $1 78M.
o NO INCREASE IN ECS FUNDING PER GOV RELL'S BUDGET.
9 BUDGET INCLUDES RAISES FOR THE FOLLOWING ClTY BARGAINING UNITS
o Local 3144 3%
o Local 884 4.25%
o Fire 4%
o Public Works 2%
o Parks 2.25%
o Police 2% (FY 09 and FY 10)
k THE BUDGET AS PRESENTED INCLUDES A REDUCTION IN THE ClTY SIDE
WORKFORCE AS FOLLOWS;
o 13 EARLY RETIREMENTS IN SEPTEMBER, 2008
o 24 LAYOFFS IN SEPTEMBER, 2008
o 27 LAYOFFS IN FEBRUARY 2009
o 50 VACANCY REDUCTION (6 SWORN AND 44 NON SWORN)
o 7 NEW POSITIONS FOR ASSESSORS OFFICE
o 10 POSITIONSS RESTORED VIA TECHNICAL AMENDMENT BY THE BOA
NET REDUCTION O F E POSITIONS
9 97 POSITIONS IS (6%) REDUCTION FROM FY 08-09 INCLUDING SWORN POLICE
& FIRE BUT NOT THE BOE.
9 WHEN MEASURED AGAllNST NON SWORN, NON BOE THE CUT WAS (13%).
Section I Section 1
OPERATING DEPARTMENTS WlTH SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN FY 10
THE POSITION REDUCTIONS WILL AFFECT PUBLIC SERVICES IN MANY
DEPARTMENTS WlTH SERVICE REDUCTIONS RANGING FROM SENIOR CENTER
CONSOLIDATION TO REDUCED RECREATION PROGRAMMING. THOSE SERVICE
IMPACTS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING.
> PUBLIC WORKS
o 7% REDUCTION - ELIMINATION OF 17 POSITIONS.
o STREETS DIVISION REDUCED BY 4.
o DIRECTORS OFFICE REDUCED BY 7.
o REFUSE RECYCLING REDUCED BY 5.
o BRIDGES REDUCED BY 1.
> PARKS
o I 1 % REDUCTION - ELIMINATION OF 10 POSITIONS.
o TREE DIVISION BY 2.
o COMMUNITY RECREATION BY 8.
o 4 POSTIONS IN GENERAL MAINTENANCE TO BE RESTORED IN
TEHCNICAL AMENDMENRT PER LABOR AGREEMENT.
o SEASONAUPART TlME STAFF FUNDING REDUCED BY $124,142 OR 16%.
P FINANCE
o 5% REDUCTIONS - ELIMINATION OF 10 POSITIONS ( 6 LAYOFFS, 2 EARLY
RETIREMENTS, 2 VACANTS).
o AFFECTED DIVISIONS INCLUDE INTERNAL AUDIT, MEDICAL BENEFITS,
ACCOUNTING, TAX COLLECTORS OFFICE, TECHNOLOGY,
PAYROLUPENSION, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE.
> ELDERLY
o 28% REDUCTION - ELIMINATION OF 5 POSITIONS AND CONSOLIDATION
OF SENIOR CENTER TO THREE. ATWATER, DIXWELL AND EAST SHORE.
P LC1
o REDUCTION OF 24% - ELIMINATION OF 5 POSITIONS INCLUDING A
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 3 HOUSING INSPECTORS AND 1 PROPERT MAlNT
WORKER.
> LIBRARY
o 6% REDUCTION; LOSS OF 2 STAFF TRHOUGH EARLY RETIREMENT AND
REDUCTION OF PART TlME LIBRARY AIDES BY $100K (29% REDUCTION).
k COMMUNITY SERVICES - 10% REDUCTION- STAFF REDUCED BY HALF FROM 9
TO 4. HOMELESS FUNDING REMAINS AT FY 09 LEVELS OF $1.2M.
P CORP COUNSEL
o 9% REDUCTION -STAFF REDUCED BY 5 (3 LAYOFFS, 1 VACANT AND 1
TRANSFER);
o NON -PERSONNEL REDUCED BY ($44,375) OR 10%.
Section 1 1 -9 Section 1
9 CITY PLAN
o 18% REDUCTION - 2 EARLY RETIREMENTS.
> HEALTH
o 1% REDUCTION - LOSS OF 6 POSITIONS (1 EARLY RETIREMENT, 5
VACANTS).
> CEO
o 22% REDUCTION - LAYOFF OF A STAFFER.
9 CAO
o 6% REDUCTION - LAYOFF OF A STAFFER.
9 DEBT SERVICE - DOWN ($889,155)
o DEBT SERVICE WlLL BE $62.2M
o GROSS DEBT SERVICE OF $65.2M WlLL BE OFFSET BY PROCEEDS OF
$3.OM FROM THE PROJECTED SALE OF UNUSED SCHOOLS SUCH AS
PRINCE WELCH, WELCH ANNEX, QUlNNlPlAC AND STRONG.
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN FY 10
> MEDICAL BENEFITS - $2.4M
GF INCREASE.

Of note..
The Mayor could have well included increases for the senor staff in this budget... But politically choose not to do so.

Also of Note:
The budget page 2-35 shows a 3% reduction in the mayor's salary, page 2-44 shows a 3% reduction in the city clerk's salary.

However, page 2-70 shows no such 3% reduction in the Superintendent's salary, possible reason:
The superintendent is under a three year contract, and his salary could not possibly be cut in this budget year...

more trickery!!!

Posted by: angelo | July 12, 2009 6:55 AM

here's the problem with all of you DeStefano haters who know he can be beat - unless you have taken a decent poll, or seen someone else's decent poll, you're have no idea what you are talking about. There is a reason other people don't run - the do a little bit of field work and find out that JD is, in fact (sorry to disappoint you) still a popular mayor, just as Obama, at 60%, is still a popular president. All of your invective aside, numbers are numbers and the 10 people who keep writing on every issue will be outvoted.

Posted by: Fly on the wall | July 12, 2009 10:28 AM

Rumor has it a double dipper leaked the pay hikes as a smoke screen. Is this true.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | July 12, 2009 10:35 PM

He can be beat with term limits!!!!!!