New Haven Independent

posted by: Hmmmm. on July 30, 2009  5:03pm

Wonder why these alderwomen suddenly want everyone to know that Bolden is “able and brilliant?”

Could it be that they found zero support in their communities for their actions?

Guess this wasn’t as good an idea as it seemed once it hit the light of day.

posted by: The Returner on July 30, 2009  7:31pm

I find it hypocritical of these 2 Alderwoman to question the legitimacy of this attorney. There are a plethora of ills choking the community in which these 2 Alderwoman represent, and their focusing on the tenure of an attorney? In case they need help on exactly what some of these issues are, allow me to name a few: Q-House, Foreclosures, High Crime, Jobs, Lay Offs, High Taxes, No Youth Programs, School Drop out Rate, Housing, Elderly Services and Homelessness. Just to name a few. It is this type of bifurcated view that Black & Hispanic Caucus suffer from immensely. Where is the accountability that suppose to accompany Elected Officials?

posted by: Charlie O'Keefe on July 30, 2009  8:29pm

Ricci vs DeStefano was heard in the Supreme Court and a decision was handed down. The next phase in this sordid affair are the claims in civil court. The city is on the line for a huge settlement. That means you and me, taxpayers, and DeStefano.

Victor Bolden will be responsible for the attorneys defending the city in the most important part of this case. THE CIVIL SETTLEMENT, that is the money. He is a higly respected, qualified, and competent attorney. He will no doubt protect the citys interests and THE TAX PAYERS. We couldn’t have anyone better.

Now here’s the rub. Alders Jackson-Brooks and James-Evans know this. If Bolden goes, DeStefano is naked to the civil suits. Ladies its brilliant.

posted by: Get Real on July 30, 2009  9:43pm

....  Kudos to the Mayor for agreeing to meet with these two, even though I can think of much better ways to spend his time.  Returner hit it right on the head.

posted by: Tired of Petty/Vindictive Politics on July 31, 2009  1:28am

Please alderwomen, pay attention to the grave issues in your respective wards, and lend your intelligence and forward thinking to bringing about resolutions to some of the lager issues affecting New Haven.  This quest you are on, for whatever the motive, is simply wrong-headed.  Please give it up and do some “real” work for NH. You are both very capable; please use your skills more wisely.

posted by: City Hall Watch on July 31, 2009  7:40am

Hmm and Returner:

Did either of you read the story or the previous story? It seems you didn’t. Nobody has questioned Bolden’s abilities, they’ve questioned whether his appointment is legal. It’s a legitimate question and it should have been answered immediately and respectfully. The BOA is supposed to be an independent body; it’s supposed to have all the information it needs to make decisions prior to making them; it’s supposed to be a check and balance against the decisions and possible poor judgment, even tyranny of a strong chief executive. The BOA is not supposed to be a rubberstamp.

As usual, Mattison has no respect for the BOA in general and even less for alders that don’t give him a rubberstamp. Bottom line? Hibson’s questionable legal opinion should have been provided to all the alders prior to a final decision; Mattison’s letter should have recognized their concerns and disclosed on what basis the appointment was going forward in the face of violating the city charter.

I’ll ask it again: Why is Mattison on the taxpayer’s payroll?

posted by: truthtopower on July 31, 2009  10:02am

When the charter says an attorney has to be admitted in the state for 10 years and it’s only been 8, there is a legal question and the answer cannot come only from the City’s attorney - who in reality works for the Mayor.

This problem is not unique to New Haven. Most Boards only have access to advice from the City’s attorneys and politics can taint the opinions.

Sean Matteson’s failure to show courtesy or respect in his communications reflect poorly of the person who gave him his job.

The Alderwomen are doing their job and deserve applause, not attacks.

posted by: Hmmmm on July 31, 2009  10:06am

Seriously City Hall Watch,

Your post made no sense whatsoever.  There is no legal obligation under the charter or anywhere else for anyone to do any of the things you suggest.

When you don’t like a legal opinion by someone paid by the city to give legal opinions, then the board of aldermen need to approve every legal opinion?

Based on what?  Not the law, not common sense, not saving money, just based on your watching city hall?

Why is Matteson on the payroll?  Because everyone who has been Mayor in my lifetime has had a chief of staff.  It used to be called Executive Assistant and it had all the same powers.  The position has gone back for decades and it has always been filled by someone who was tough, and pushed the Mayor’s agenda both legislatively and politically.

And you will find that basically every Mayor in a city over 50,000 people in the US has exactly this position.  Otherwise, in a democracy where one has to use politics to get things done, nothing would get done.

This person holds staff accountable to the Mayor’s agenda and calls out political opponents as just that - opponents.  Ever heard of Rahm Emmanuel?

If you want to learn more about the history of this position in New Haven, you could ask Andrea Jackson Brooks as she held this position herself.  As I recall she was at least as hard nosed as Matteson.

posted by: Jacqueline James-Evans on July 31, 2009  10:13am

I would like to thank everyone for their opinion.  However, I continue to believe that the point and intent continues to be missed.  I am not questioning Mr. Bolden’s qualifications as it appears he is probably over qualified.  However, I did not run and make an issue out of this question.  Please remember the question was asked, not answered and then re-asked. It was as simple as that.  In no way did we send a letter to the press or organize a press conference.  That was not our strategy.  Obviously, they presumed that it was already or would be an issue.  It never crossed my mine that something was wrong.  I was very curious about the appointment simply because as a resident of the City of New Haven and a tax payer I wanted to know who was going to handle pending lawsuits as it appears to be costing the city, excuse me the tax payers an ABUNDANT AMOUNT OF MONEY. (That was the point.)  If nothing was done improperly why not just answer the question or provide us the opportunity to read the written opinion that was already available.  What I continue to question is the process.  Secondly, it appears that people continue to question my politics or tactics.  First and foremost, I represent one of the poorest communities in the city if not the state of CONNECTICUT.  That in itself is indicative of many things.  However, every time I comment about the process in which people are left out it appears to be an issue.  This is not a ploy to embarrass the Mayor or question Mr. Bolden’s abilities.  But let’s all practice what we preach.  Why am I not able to question a system where we all are aware of the systemic issues?  Some natural and many created.  I represent a COMMUNITY that is ridden with crime, poverty, blight, etc. but I also represent a community that is much more knowledgeable of the process and clearly understand that they are able to partake in that process.  This is simply through the work of many. So, please before you question my intentions be clear of what they are.  If City Hall can continues to question, suggest, recommended or predict what I should do or say, then have the common courtesy to call me.  Meeting on Thursday….new to me. I am willing to WORK with the mayor and administration however, I also expect them to respect the fact that I am independent and represent a community not myself.  Dejavu:  Sean Matteson and I worked on the CBA together and walked the community to ensure that everyone was a part of the process.  I welcome all of you to walk with me and assist me in addressing the issues in my community.  I want, hope and pray for change on a daily basis for my community but I also understand that it is a PROCESS. A process where there is equality and equity for all.  I have the utmost respect for the position of the Mayor however, I am very clear about the fact that he works for the “PEOPLE.”

posted by: Carl Goldfield on July 31, 2009  11:46am

This article states “They originally asked Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield to obtain a legal opinion. Goldfield responded that he felt it would waste money, since he agreed with Hibson’s interpretation and felt Bolden is doing a great job.”

Unfortunately the hyperlink to my letter has been deleted. However readers of the NHI should know that I never mentioned money or Hibson.

What I did say (and I paraphrase) was that I thought the entire Board should decide whether to obtain an outside opinion which if contrary to the Mayor’s position would set us up for a major conflict over a person who I felt was doing an exemplary job. All of this in the middle of the Ricci case.

The Charter is obviously ambiguous or we wouldn’t need legal opinions. 

I encouraged the Alderwomen to submit a resolution requesting the outside opinion so that the entire Board could consider and decide whether that was an appropriate direction for the Board to head.

I also pointed out that if they felt the Charter was clear, and that Bolden’s appointment was improper, they should ask the Board to engage counsel to have him removed.

posted by: Ouch on July 31, 2009  1:58pm

Alderwoman Jackie—

You may (or may not) have made good points.  I could not tell as I became overwhelmed by your failure to use paragraphs.

Paragraphs not only help identify clearly when you are shifting from one point to another, they also help the reader not lose their place.

Alderwoman, paragraphs are your friend.  Do not fear them.

posted by: City Hall Watch on July 31, 2009  3:30pm

Hmmmm:

What I described in my post is basic representative government. We elect the alders and they in turn are supposed to represent our interests and concerns. It doesn’t have to be embedded in the city charter - it’s part of the U.S. Constitution. To think otherwise is un-American, anti-freedom and anti-democracy. You are an American, hmmm?

As for the alders getting a second opinion, when a city employee has a conflict of interest, that in fact is adviseable. President Bush created his own justification by turning to pinhead lawyer who would write an opinion to justify whatever Bush wanted even it violated the Constitution. So, no, sorry, Hibson’s legal opinion is suspect at best. As for saving money, at most, it would have cost a few thousand dollars. On the other hand, if the opinion came back with an adverse opinion, that would be problematic, wouldn’t it?

posted by: Hmmmm on July 31, 2009  4:40pm

Mr. City Hall Watcher,

The Constitution—say what?  What are you talking about?  This has nothing to do with the Constitution, unless you are talking about the Constitution the way Glen Beck does as justification for all sorts of ridiculous things that are not actually in the Constitution.

Seriously, it is a “representative democracy” (your chosen evocative term) and Goldfield said to the Alderwomen, bring this to the Board for a vote.  Apparently they declined.  And I am shocked that you would think this is an appropriate use of taxpayer money.  To what end and for what value?  So the aldermen can get legal representation for every nutty idea one of them dreams up?  Goldfield’s standard seems like a good one—if it makes so much sense then get a majority of your colleagues to agree.

And guess what, the Mayor is elected through our “representative democracy.”  There’s nothing uniquely magical about that term and its application to the legislative body—it applies equally to the executive (the Mayor). 

If people don’t want DeStefano, they can vote him out.  He doesn’t cheat in elections—the people just choose him over his opponents.  Remember he has not had a close election for Mayor since he lost to Daniels (and that wasn’t very close).

In fact, he is the only Mayor in the state who fought for and got publicly financed elections through the state legislature thus taking away his huge fund raising advantage as an incumbent.  So it’s not that hard to have a fair fight with him if somebody thought they could beat him.

I’m actually not always the biggest DeStefano fan but in a state where Mayors of every other major city get indicted and often convicted, the best that folks like you can come up with is this nonsense.  No wonder Matteson and others are so dismissive. 

The City has real problems and we should feel free to blame DeStefano for his role in these from poverty to education.  But this is a distraction, a waste of time and potentially of money. 

It is about whether an over-qualified New Haven City resident who the Mayor gets to appoint took a job that the Alderwomen think he is doing brilliantly.  They want to know what?  When he got his bar license in this state as opposed to another one?  Why? because that will make him more qualified?  No, so they can stick the duly elected representative of the whole city in the eye because they got elected with what? 200 or 300 votes in our “representative democracy.”

It’s a joke and apparently most people involved are treating it as such.

posted by: Oh Yeah on August 1, 2009  12:36pm

DeStefano was too aggressive in his gubernatorial fund raising and now has trouble raising cash. He had to get public funding. Let’s not make him look like the good guy doing this. There are rumors there are huge debts from his gubernatorial run. Can anyone confirm them to be true.

posted by: rengle on August 2, 2009  12:20pm

scrap metal

posted by: FacChec on August 2, 2009  12:47pm

According to Goldfield’s post:

“The Charter is obviously ambiguous or we wouldn’t need legal opinions”.

Goldfield, the President of the Board of Aldermen and sworn to protect and enforce the laws of the city….. strikes out again… and in this statement is again dead wrong(busted).

according to:
ARTICLE VI.  CORPORATION COUNSEL

Sec. 17.  Appointment, qualifications, term.
There shall be in said city a corporation counsel who, at the time of appointment, shall have been an attorney and counselor at law of this state for not less than ten years, and shall reside in said city during the term of office. The corporation counsel shall be appointed by and subject to the authority of the mayor, and shall serve a term coterminous with that of the mayor who appointed him. Said corporation counsel shall be responsible for the efficiency, discipline and good conduct of the department.

According to the article above:

“Bolden, a Harvard Law graduate and former general counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, has practiced law for 17 years. He has lived in Connecticut for more than 10 years ago. But he passed the Connecticut bar only eight years ago”.

What is so ambiguous about these set of FACS, Goldfield??

According to section:

165-166 of the Charter…

“Sec. 165.  Appointment, qualifications of personnel director.
The personnel director shall be appointed by the mayor from a list of three persons with the highest ratings obtained in a civil service examination held to determine ineligibles for said position. Qualifications for candidates shall be set forth in the classification plan hereafter defined.

Sec. 166.  Powers, duties of personnel director.
The director of personnel shall have the power and the duty:
(a)  To assist employees in availing themselves of any provisions relating to personnel grievances and labor relations.
(b)  To furnish and recommend to the civil service board job descriptions, qualifications and the compensation range relating to positions to be filled.
(c)  To prepare in accordance with nationally accepted professional standards and recommend to the civil service board qualifications for each department head, whether or not a member of the classified service, which standards shall be reviewed and updated every five years and when a vacancy occurs in the position.
(d)  To maintain a roster of all persons in the city’s service, in which there shall be set forth as to each officer and employee, the class title of the position held, the salary or pay, any changes in class, title, pay or status; and such other data as may be deemed desirable or useful to produce significant facts pertaining to personnel administration.
(e)  To certify all payrolls for persons in the classified service, and no payment for personal service to any person in the classified service of the city shall be made unless the payroll voucher bears the certification of the personnel director or his or her authorized agent that the persons mentioned therein have been appointed and employed in accordance with the provisions of this charter.
(f)  To assist in developing programs of training and education for persons in the municipal service.
(g)  To investigate periodically the operation and effect of the personnel provisions of this charter and report semiannually any findings and recommendations to the mayor.
(h)  To appoint and remove, subject to the provisions of this charter, all employees in the office of the director of personnel.
(i)  To advertise for candidates for examination for all positions, and to determine the eligibility of applicants for all positions in accordance with this charter, the rules established by the civil service board, and the qualifications of the position. Public notice of all competitive examinations shall be given by one advertisement inserted in each of the daily newspapers published in the City of New Haven not less than fifteen days prior to the date set for each such examination.
(j)  To prepare, conduct and score examinations of qualified applicants for all positions in the classified service and to certify the results thereof to the civil service commission.
(k)  To maintain records of all applicants, their qualifications and scores. The records of successful candidates shall be public records”.

Hibson is not empowered or otherwise authorized to provide a legal opinion as to the interpretation of the qualification, or residency, of the Corporation Counsel.

What is so ambiguous about that Goldfield?

Here it appears the Alderman have every right under the charter to seek legal advise:(See section)
Sec. 43.  “Authority to enter into contracts for expert and professional services.
The president of the board of aldermen may execute all contracts approved by the board for experts and professional consultants where such services are necessary or convenient to the performance by the board of its duties, and such contracts shall be binding upon the city”.

Again, nothing ambiguous about this section Goldfield:

From my analysis of the story above and the provisions of the charter in this post.

It is abundantly clear that it is the Mayor who should have sought a outside legal opinion and not rely on Hibson’s unauthorized personal statement,or Goldfield’s convoluted support of Hibson, contrary to the Charter, Goldfield is sworn to uphold…..

End of story!

Sorry for the length of this post, however, the circumstances dictated a charter review.

posted by: FACchec on August 2, 2009  1:25pm

NOTE:
addendum..

Emmet Hibson, Jr is director of organizational development, is not the personnel director as such, however, his position falls under the Personnel Department. The position is not in the charter, he is a mayoral appointee.

Only the Personnel Director is authorized to determine residency requirements.

(See also) section Sec. 176.  Residency required in city by department heads and deputies.

posted by: An Attorney on August 2, 2009  8:24pm

This is vitally important. If Hibson has been appointed illegally all work he ever does for the city will be in the appeals courts for years. The cost to taxpayers will be in the stratosphere.

posted by: strangerthanfiction on August 3, 2009  3:04am

There’s a lot of potential liability for the city at stake here. Despite Bolden’s qualifications, if he has not been an attorney of this state for 10 years then his appointment is illegal. And if there is no Personnel Director and Hibson as Human Resources Director is issuing one-sided personnel decisions that suit the mayor, the city coffers will end up being an ATM for aggrieved parties.