New Haven Independent

posted by: Exiled Italian Shill on May 20, 2008  5:26pm

Wow!

There has to be more to her termination than talking to the press that is just crazy and I am not sure it is legal as the sole justification.  There must be more to it then meets the eye.

Given Bishop’s history at City Hall there must be more to it.

posted by: walt bradley on May 20, 2008  5:26pm

This is an abomination.  I invite these two women, and anyone who’s first amendment rights have been - or are about to be clipped - to come down to Citizens Television and speak thier minds.

posted by: Elfer on May 20, 2008  6:38pm

Blatant dictatorship, clear sign the DeStefano machine has lost control.  Together as a City we will survive this passing rulership.

Paul, take ‘em on for the sake of all New Haveners.

posted by: UNREAL on May 20, 2008  6:46pm

Once again King John is at work, punishing people who do not obey his every command.

As for Cobbs shame on you.. Your employee did what you would not do and that was to stand up for your department.

posted by: nero on May 20, 2008  7:20pm

Now that she’s had the audacity to speak to The Independent, the city better evict Mary Jane Simmons whether the Senior Center closes or not. And whoever’s reading this just better watch his step. Yeah, you. And you, too. And you . . .

posted by: S on May 20, 2008  7:53pm

it is sad that we all say and know that Johnny D has to go, but no one is doing anything about it

posted by: fedupwithliberals on May 20, 2008  8:12pm

Can’t you just picture the mayor in Fidel Castro’s signature green fatigues and hat?

posted by: Darnell on May 20, 2008  9:58pm

S:

People are doing something about it. First, they are speaking out, writing, and attending public meetings. Second, there are candidates beginning to rise from ashes of the burnt out political field, King John will be challenged next year. Once you see a candidate you like, do your part and volunteer.

posted by: omerta on May 20, 2008  10:31pm

At city hall we all know the city is bankrupt. Perez, the banker, has been saying this for a year behind closed doors. He must know. Did he run for mayor? No, he’s not stupido. This is just another ploy to eliminate employees on the cheap. These ladies were going to go. Why not fire them first and avoid paying them unemployment compensation?

posted by: Gary Doyens on May 20, 2008  10:48pm

What a disgrace. Really makes one proud of your city government doesn’t it? Welcome to the world of small thinkers and people whose concept of public service is how to best serve themselves. Sounds like they’ve learned from the top down.

posted by: Sins of New Haven on May 20, 2008  10:50pm

The City is desperate to get as many people off the books as possible (even if it brings litigation) in order to meet the budget crisis.  These two people’s salaries combined DO NOT make even a dent in the 6 million needed.  Just like the closing and dismissal of Fair Rent and Small Business Initiative - it was just a way to get a few dollars out of the way.

A pathetic and obvious sign that the romper-room mentality led my Smuts and Co. HAVE NO IDEA what they have gotten themselves into with this budget.

There will be ensuing lawsuits I am sure and remember folks, now that small matter on page 17 of Corporation Counsels’ budget cuts states:

“outside legal fees reduced by $200,000”

which means that City is going to have to use their own inept, in-house attornies from here on in.  You think Brantley, Broadnax, Sweeney, Sweeney, Beckwith, Kelly, Kelly and Vollero won big, folks you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The City is even circulating an “oath” for every employee to sign covering speaking and acting in accordance with Big John’s commands.

The very essence of municipal government nationwide, is that it is open to any and all public scrutiny, examination, discussion, evaluation and criticism.

It’s all public pervue.  The City even tries to hide it’s dirty deals with language saying that documents do not exist outside of themselves.

The General Fund is 100% public and each and every transaction from the purchase to a lifeguard’s whistle to the amount someone receives in a settlement to the new title and position the City awards to favorites, especially contractors

IS PUBLIC INFORMATION.

Period.

City Hall really in sinning.  You just have to know where to look.  These events just peeled back the Wizard’s curtain.

The Sins Of New Haven must stop.

posted by: ami on May 20, 2008  11:51pm

The 1st amendment is misinterpreted far too frequently.

posted by: Chris Gray on May 21, 2008  4:03am

Well, we already know that it won’t do any good for me to speak in her favor, but Sharon Bishop…that takes me back.

From 1984 until late 1988, the Connecticut Elder newspaper was located downstairs from the Dwight Senior Center where Sharon holds court and she is delighted when Ben DiLeto and Bill Jones debate in her hall with Susan Sica-Glover moderating for the LWV (remember when we let them moderate political debates?), Barbara Demeter and I videotaping it for the early CTV before it was CTV.  She is not so enthusiastic about a New Haven Green Party convention in the same hall, but friendliness to the Elder was an asset in advancing the cause.

Those were heady days of growing public scrutiny of public business advanced by such efforts as the public access cablecast of BOA meetings, eventually circumvented by private caucus meetings where the deals really got struck.  Now we have loyalty oaths or gag orders.

I do sense the power is shifting in some fundamental way and that traditional electoral power centers are vulnerable but I trust that the admittedly “loud and boisterous” Ms. Bishop will succeed in organizing this one.  That is how it is done.  We paid her to do that her whole adult life.

posted by: jeffreykerekes on May 21, 2008  6:36am

I am personally in favor of consolidating senior centers as several are not well attended and there is space in the others.  Apparently, there has been a long term trend of people not going to the centers as several have been closed in the past.  I also realize that it is very hard for seniors to alter their routine - I mean really hard. 

Clearly these efforts on part of City hall are an indication of going in the wrong direction.  We could lay people without cause.  We did not need these incidents to lay off someone.  In fact, the way they are going about it makes us open to more litigation which is not a good sign, given the trend of the City to make large settlements and refuse to fight a lot of cases (as read here in the NHI and elsewhere).  NHCAN is also about transparency and this rule about not talking to the press is plain wrong.

I am also in favor of employees finding cost saving ideas for the City whether through asking for reduced rent, or other novel ideas.  In fact, I think we should incentivize City employees to find such savings.

We should give any employee who comes up with a cost saving idea the City implements, 10% of the savings from the first full year it is implemented up to $100,000.   The cost saving idea pays for this bonus on its own so cost the City ZERO dollars, makes people excited about looking for ways to cut costs, makes them happier about their jobs - since they can make some serious money, and makes all the tax payers happy.

posted by: hdavid on May 21, 2008  7:19am

This policy of firing anyone who speaks out against Administration policy has broad implications for any one who has inside information that is made public. It is a message to others to keep inside information inside, or else. Does anyone believe this action would have been taken if the ladies came to a public hearing to express kind words for the Administration? They may even have been encouraged to comment in facor of such actions. It is dissent that is not acceptable.

AT NHCAN we have commented on the budget and have repeatedly expressed our opinion that the big ticket expenditures are in personnel costs and benefits and the way our resources are deployed. The revised budget makes a nod in this direction with some unspecified and vague reductions that were not made public at the last public hearing.

The issue here is not whether realigning or closing senior centers is necessary. Some administration officials do need some degree of privacy or the Mayor may not get the objective advice that is essential to running any enterprise. But the actions for which these ladies are being sanctioned are quite trivial and have no impact on the proper functioning of the City. It is highly likely that these sanctions will be struck down and reversed but the fear it attempts to instill is what should concern us all.

We should all lend our voices to these two ladies rights to free speech, regardless of where we stand on the issue of the senior centers itself.

Will the Board of Aldermen do anything?

posted by: Gary Doyens on May 21, 2008  7:34am

This whole consolidation and control of public comment is disgusting. This administration has a pitiful track record of transperancy, preferring to play hide the information and defend the indefensible with obfuscation and secrecy.

Having said that, there are three senior centers with nearly identical daily and weekly census figures. All three should be consolidated into one full service center - staffed appropriately including perhaps several employees for elderly outreach - and the rest of the employees laid off. Among the layoffs should be the vision-less director of elderly services Cobbs. She’s clearly not a good manager and she doesn’t believe in free speech, even when speaking on your own private time. The reduced need for senior centers means this function could fall neatly under Community Services which already has management staff. Add Mayorga’s name to the job elimination list too. Who needs a message control freak like that? We, the taxpayers sure don’t and since when is DeStefano ever at a loss for words and grenades?

posted by: Insider on May 21, 2008  10:50am

Sharon may have been a great elderly services director in the 1970s but now she’s a bit off the “A-Game”.

Darcy made a difficult decision.  What Sharon and Michelle did undermined that decision and pitted one senior center against another.  I’m sure if given the opportunity you would have heard from just as many upset seniors at the Westville center, and maybe the Westville rent may have been lowered. 

The point is this was the director’s decision. What these ladies did was INSUBORDINATION, pure and simple.  Last time I looked insubordination was good reason for disciplinary action.

And as to the “gag order”, I feel that this policy is not a gag order but rather a way of communicating the whole picture.  Few people in City Hall understand the whole picture - we are each just a cog in the bigger machine.  In my department if we get a question from the press we have no problem calling Ms. Mayorga - she usually understands what the reporter is driving at and ensures that the information that we communicate is put in the proper context - especially by reporters who are sometimes trying to take things out of context to fit their story.

Ms. Mayorga deals with all departments, she knows more of the big picture.  Ms. Bishop deals with a micro-cosmos - and while advocating for her senior center may seem admirable (her little part of the overall) many things need to be taken into consideration and without knowing everything that went into these decisions she clouds the overall picture - hard decisions had to be made.

posted by: Steve on May 21, 2008  11:09am

How many spokespeolpe does Mayor John need anyway? This seems to be a left over position from Mr Big Shots failed attempt to be Governor!!

I suggest that Mayorga’s position should be eliminated and to use those savings,in part to fund the center afloat.

Let’s see, Mr Mayor Johnnie has Sean Matsen and Robbie Smuts and a bunch of other talking heads he could empower!!

Perhaps Johnnie Boy is going to use the firing model to avoid being blamed for layoffs. Watch out you all could be targets!!

posted by: Hartford Johnson on May 21, 2008  4:04pm

FIRE DESTEFANO FOR TALKING TO THE PRESS

posted by: In The Hood on May 21, 2008  11:43pm

Insider, you sound brainwashed. Since when government workers can’t speak up for themselves?

New Haven citizens have the right to be outraged by this behavior.

Of course difficult decisions have to be made but, that doesn’t mean that those affected can’t publicly discuss them. This Elderly Services Director’s actions make the entire administration look bad.

posted by: david streever on May 22, 2008  12:59am

What a debate!

“City Hall has created a new crime punishable by firing: making use of the First Amendment.”

That really isn’t an appropriate start. They were not fired for using the First Amendment, but for insubordination…

I mean I admit, I don’t like it either, but let’s be realistic when we read & when we report. We owe it to ourselves & our community to speak properly & not fly off the handle unless people’s lives are in danger…

I like the concept & most of the content behind the Independent, but sometimes I have to question the provocative headlines & leading paragraphs. Why lead us somewhere? Why not just report with as little bias as possible & let us make our own decisions?

It’s unfortunate that the tone & presentation used here make this subject matter virtually impossible to actually communicate about—instead it’s a plethora of sound bytes & noise & fury. It’d be an interesting debate, & maybe an important one, but instead it degenerates into the nonsense that most of the comments on the NHI degenerate into.

posted by: East Shore Guy on May 22, 2008  8:05am

What surprises me the most is the lack of any intellectual honesty in the article.  The focus on one part of a termination notice while barely touching on the meat of the complaint. Then the author brings in the ACLU to comment to hint at the suggestion of a lawsuit against the city?

I am not for muzzling free speech but if in my job in my official capacity I were to circumvent my supervisor and do so by going to the press I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised if I were fired as well.

As an individual that has a staff of 5 people reporting directly to me, of which i am accountable for their time and work product, I would take great offense in having one of them go out and negotiate a contract without telling me about it only to have them present that contract to my superiors and the media and all of this without my knowledge and after the fact that I have discussed with them we were not going to pursue the contract to begin with.  What is so wrong with the discipline in this instance?  What gives her the right to disregard what her supervisor asked her to do?

I promise you all this: if this woman gets her job back 90% of all the bloggers will bemoan political patronage and the protection of a destafano supporter.  NHI readers will compare her job being saved to the likes of a minister having his parking tickets excused because of their political relationships.

The focus of the article on the question of free speech is just wrong and intellectually dishonest.  This is more of an editorial rather than a report of the facts leaving readers to draw their own conclusions.  She is being terminated because she did something her supervisor told her not to do.  Why isnt the author focusing on that? Is that not enough conflict for the story alone?  Or is the author trying to make a point, I am curious here.

Finally, as for the policy of not speaking to the media I am willing to pass or reserve my opinion on that as I have never seen the policy.  Perhaps the media persons policy goes to far.  Perhaps it is not even a policy at all but a guideline.  And if it is a policy how come the unions have never fought it? I mean if you can be fired for violating the policy then it becomes something that unions have the right to bargain over as it relates to workplace rules.

posted by: What on May 22, 2008  5:19pm

Paul:

Talking about muzzles, where is the follow up to the ID Card program? You know the story where the city announced that two car dealerships were going to provide discounts to card holders, and then withdrew their support of the program on the very same day. Paul, where is the story, what happened, why did they withdraw their offers?

posted by: david streever on May 22, 2008  6:25pm

Exactly—there are plenty of things to focus on here, and by making a biased, heavy-handed call to action against censorship, the whole point is lost in a mess of degenerate, anonymous, cowardly comments.

Paul,
The Independent has a lot of promise. Please, try to keep it independent, & stop running articles with provocative titles & attention-grabbing headlines & opening lines.

I honestly think the format of the articles frequently does encourage this type of asinine commentary by people who should probably stay on Rants&Raves; New Haven….

posted by: jms on May 22, 2008  8:14pm

Thank you East Shore guy for injecting some reason into this conversation.

“I am not for muzzling free speech but if in my job in my official capacity I were to circumvent my supervisor and do so by going to the press I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised if I were fired as well.”

In the real world where every little thing is not some calculated loaded foreplay to Union sabre rattling or a premeditated massive lawsuit against ones former employer… this woman would have been simply fired outright and none of us would ever read about it… certainly not here because it wouldn’t be such a juicy story.

“The focus of the article on the question of free speech is just wrong and intellectually dishonest. This is more of an editorial rather than a report of the facts leaving readers to draw their own conclusions. She is being terminated because she did something her supervisor told her not to do. Why isnt the author focusing on that?”

Well said. All this 1st Amendment talk is nothing more then a smoke screen and totally misguided. I doubt anyone here has even the slightest understanding of what the whole background story is behind this dismissal. Not even the slightest.

JMS

posted by: sandra eligio on May 22, 2008  8:25pm

I have watched Darcy Cobbs brutilize Sharon Bishop in order to get rid of her. Darcey started a witch hunt last year to remove Sharon.Whetheror not you like Sharon she loves her seniors. I have difference of oppinions with Sharon, but she still went to the hospital to visit my mom, when she got thier she noticed her feet were swollen she went all the way crosstown to buy her slippers. This dosent sound like much but Sharon has been batteling cancer for over 3 years, this girl went to chemo and still went to work. Darcy Cobbs in the winter did not even provide her with a parking space she had to walk up the hill to Bella Vista while other workers were given a space. Darcey got together with Joyce Furlong of Carabetta to have Sharon removed from coming here. This was because April 18, 1978 Sharon worked with the tenants ass. against a rent hike. Joyce Furlong was taken to court with Caarabetta and the secound appeals court awarded damages for the violation of freedom of speech and undo harassment. Ms. Cobbs is not Hitler she is not a person in control. I say again I have differed with Sharon many times ,but I would never lower my standers to almost the bottom of hell. Cut the budget start with Bella Vista we have apolice sub station that maybe once and a while someone stops in to do paper work. Combine Bella Vista with another center we only have maybe I could be wrong 30 to 50 seniors in Jeannes office,involved in activities.Let us all remember to be afraid to speak is being afraid to live, otherwise that is why other coutries envey us we are the land of the free.

posted by: Sins of New Haven on May 22, 2008  10:30pm

Jeffrey -

I have been writing the BOA for years about doing an energy analysis on the ultra-inefficient HVAC/lighting system at 200 Orange St. for years.

Nobody cares about saving money or jobs.

It’s all political man.  That’s why dozens and dozen of “contractors” make outrageously exorbitant salaries, upwards of 100K annually and part time rates that you would not believe.

I wish they would ask for ideas and incentives.  But I have tried and nobody listens.

Oh, and your spot on about the City’s tenuous litigation policies.  Don’t forget, the Mayor cuts 200K out of Corp Counsel’s 550K budget for “outside legal fees” - which means INSIDE counsel will have to take on their own cases which is catastrophic for the budget. 

The real damage to the public is HOW and WHY the City chooses to litigate or defend. whereas most of it is avoidable. due to gross negligent error on the part of the City.

I love your ideas but everyone needs to know how things work under the DeDStefano regime.

It’s not about what is right, it about what’s right for John.

Once you get that you have a basis for go forward on why 165 does what it does.  It’s not for the people, it hasn’t been in over 16 years.

It could be via open transparent public government.

Why do you think the City is so tight with it’s financial and personnel transactions?
It’s because they have so much to hide and no one competent enough to explain it or justify it.  And they have Corp Counsel to defend them.

The worst it yet to come.

posted by: sandra eligio on May 23, 2008  4:27pm

Fire Darcy Cobbs!! Either she made a decision that was unconstutional, which makes her a moron or she is not in control of her department and would be working with all her staff,not just the mayors favorits. We can do very well without her and the imigrant card implanted by the mayor. Both of these are monies that could help the city of New Haven. We need people like Michele and Sharon the are trying to help those in need.

posted by: Worth Noting on May 24, 2008  12:05am

I agree that this current rationale for Ms. Bishop’s firing is a bit odd.  On the other hand, it’s worth noting that she should have been fired a few years ago for a rather violent physical altercation with another employee.  I believe it’s rather widely known that she was “saved” by then-Aldermanic President Jorge Perez and Larry Amendola.

posted by: Sarai on May 24, 2008  2:14pm

There is much more to this story. If the independent wanted the full truth on the Director of Elderly Services perhaps they should interview all of her other staff members. If you can’t work for Ms. Cobbs, then you cannot work for ANYONE!! She is extremely competent, intelligent, well educated, beyond this, she is an honest, kind, generous person. Nothing that has been written about her is true or will “bear any fruit”. We hope to have more administrators like her in any city government!

posted by: fly on the wall on May 24, 2008  10:27pm

Hmm, could King Johnny be afraid of “Senior Savior Sharon B” ?  He has his “slackey lackey
D Cobb, look for the first infraction to jump all
over her and terminate for insubordination!
To those readers that do not know Sharon Bishop,
she bleeds New Haven and and is a longtime foot
soldier for the NH Democratic machine.  Sharon
has a certain demeanor that is unique! To say the
least!  She has done the dirty work on the front
line and behind the scenes for many causes and many administrations in New Haven. She can be a
pain in the ass and a pitt bull when she believes in something and takes up a cause!  She
most definatly will not keep quite and let her seniors down without speaking up on thier behalf
and making something happen to save thier centers.  As for D Cobb, her loyalty is to King
Johnny and this is why she is in the position that she is in.  And it has been well known that D. Cobb has been out to get Sharon Bishop.  Is king John worried that the pain in the ass/pitt bull S.B has become an ally of a possible future opponent for the mayor’s job!  Be carefull K.J this pitt bull S.B., that your party created and used stratigically in the past, bites!

posted by: concerncitizen on May 28, 2008  3:37pm

It’s easy to say close west river. But this a place seniors have been going for 30th years. It’s not that easy for senior to adjust to change. But it is so easy for people to now come up with lies. Now west river has rodents.not true and you know it Clark. Why not tell the truth? It’s king johnnies church.

posted by: nojustice/nopeace on May 28, 2008  4:21pm

Paul,
who is thinking about the seniors? now that the two employees are suspended who is caring for the seniors now. I feel for the Director of the senior center because she was doing an excellent job. Ms.Cleary must be use to the Administrations unfair practices. She was the former Director of the Newhallville Senior Center, where they had about 30 active members? What was the administrations reason for combining Dixwell and Newhallville and they did not have to pay rent it was located in Jackie Robinson School? How many seniors ended up at Dixwell Senior Center? Oh Dixwell has a large membership for their trips; Lets not open up a can of worms. How many seniors go to the seniors center on days they dont offer trips. And how many are New Haven residents.
Ms.Cleary was layed off before so this process should not be new to her and her family.But attention all Elderly service employees if they treat Ms.Cleary this was and she is an excellent worker; how will they treat you and can you handle it when its time to close another Senior Center.Another one we be next…Is it personal?

posted by: nojustice/nopeace on May 29, 2008  2:04pm

Nero,
Man up or women up! What are you writing about?
Evict a SENIOR? What is that all about.You COWARD. REMEMBER TO STAND FOR SOMETHING,OR FALL FOR ANYTHING.You have the Administrations mentality…
Individuals like you should be muzzled and take your 1st Amendment away! Now unfair.