h/t to Rick Lane for the headline. And note - anything you send to us could be used as a letter to the editor and made public. IF there's no name attached, I don't read it. If you do attach your name, understand it may be printed.

 

So according to the U.S. Department of Education, Calhoun's $12 million isn't really $12 million. Letter writer Michael Chapman tipped me off to the DOE's numbers: UConn men's basketball spends $6,097,728 to take in $7,333,214.

 

The $12 million, I'm not sure where it comes from. Andy thibault at Cool Justice has the same numbers, and adds UConn AD Jeff Hathaway's credibility to them.

 

Ray Rotto at CBS wants a deeper look into the numbers. And on further thought, Calhoun's argument that he generates revenue so he deserves a bug salary doesn't fly.

 

Should cops deserve a cut of the speeding tickets they write? Should the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue Services - the tax man -get a cut of what he collects? Should the people in the Department of Social Services who wrote the legislation to help collect child support from deadbeat dads get a cut of that money? No. They do it for the common good.

 

And USA Today bloggers Reid Cherner and Tom Weir indicate that other coaches will be answering this question.

 

USA Today also reports that other Division I schools like Arizona State, Clemson, Maryland and Utah State are asking for coaches to take furloughs. ASU football coach Dennis Erickson is taking a pay cut for 12 days, or $20,800.

 

In honor of Letters to the Editor - which provide a much more dignified forum than a Topix comment forum, or any forum that runs where people won't identify themselves with their names, here go a slew of emails. These are some of the dozens of emails I have gotten - but only those people who gave their full names and email addresses.

 

From Patrick Hall ( - )

I see the irony in that fact that you are a "freelance journalist because the first amendment say so" however you refuse to allow people to comment on your irresponsible reporting because of the flood of "angry emails". Well Listen up Ken, if your going to put your foot into the fire and ask one of the most prominent head coaches in college basketball a question about his salary you better be ready for a boat load of crticism. Please keep in mind that you asked a question that most people dont even ask their parents or friends nevermind Coach Calhoun in a public forum.With that being said i'm sure your response is that he is a State employee and we have to the right to question his salary. This is exactly where you are irresponsible. The fact is that Coach Calhoun MAKES money for the state of Connecticut....MAKES money. I know that is an elementary thought but he deserves a 1.5 million dollar Salary if the school is making money off of his program. How you don't understand this is beyond me. Also, why do you want to know what endorsement deals he has and how much money he makes. This is absolutely none of our business. Coach Calhoun has personally marketed himself and has been savy enough to produce marketing deals and that is his right as a coach of a D1 Powerhouse.Finally, The transformation of the basketball program has been outstanding. How much money was the basketball team bringing in when they were 5-20 before coach Calhoun came to Connecticut? Should he be paid the same salary as his predeccesor? Thats absurd. If you are that concerned with the state "being in the red" why dont you approach your politicians that seem to have a hard time with addition and subtraction. Rather than an income producing machine like Uconn baseketball.Patrick Hall

Link to more letters and reader feedback...

Update II (2/23/09): Dom Perno was never UConn AD. It was John Toner. My bad.

 

Update: Crazy press on this story. I was totally wrong. People did cover it.

Fanhouse- has the youtube exchange. Calhoun is heated.

emeka, nadav and corny - had the actual transcription of the interview.

Sports Illustrated

Stamford Advocate

A few quick things - no one mentioned that I am a student at the University of Connecticut School of Law.

No one mentioned that I do indeed have a photo of Calhoun from today's game on my website - posted above.

No one mentioned that the next reporter he called on, he congratulated that reporter on writing the best story on Hasheem Thabeet ever.

And finally, I am a freelance journalist. The First Amendment says so. And the flood of angry emails from anonymous hacks calling explains why this website has no comments page.

Clearly, this line of questioning touches a nerve. Here's the story.

 

Despite a multi-billion dollar budget deficit facing the state of Connecticut, UConn men's hoops coach Jim Calhoun, the highest paid state employee with an annual salary of $1.6 million, will not take a pay cut to help the state close its budget gap.

 

"Not a dime," Calhoun said during a post-game press conference Saturday, February 21, 2009 in Hartford, after the top-ranked Huskies ran over the University of South Florida Bulls.

 

"I have to retire," Calhoun said. He also mentioned that he makes more than $1.6 million with the side deals. But his value to the university is worth much more, he argued.

 

"We bring in $12 million to the university every year," Calhoun said. "Get some facts and come back and see me then."

 

Calhoun asked what the gate take was for the day, and I responded that I didn't know. He reiterated that the men's basketball program turns over $12 million a year to the university, and that benefits other players.

 

He said that I should talk to him after the press conference, but I was fine discussing it there. This isn't the place, he said. I suggested it was. He raised his voice, yelling like I was one of his college basketball players who failed to get back on defense.

 

I had a knot in my stomach as I pursued the questions in front of the other members of the press who covered Calhoun every day. But I couldn't find a single story that discussed the value of his deal with Comcast.

 

Calhoun would not divulge the amount he gets paid from private endorsement deals like the one with Comcast, which plasters his face across billboards and buses and magazine ads. I didn't even ask about his private deal with Nike.

 

Of course, the reporters and television personalities groaned when I posited that they should have written this story ages ago. I bet that we don't see this mentioned in any game story today or tomorrow.

 

"You're not that stupid" he told me, in front of the assembled press corps. I am, I said, and I repeated the question. He refused to answer.

 

Former Hartford City Councilman and state representative Al Marotta, who sat behind one one of the baskets during the game, agreed that Calhoun shouldn't turn over a dime.

 

"There was an agreement and a contract," Marotta said. "If he wanted to forgive any increase, then maybe. Or if he's making too much, then maybe."

 

But Marotta maintained that there were other coaches in the country who made more than Calhoun, and that he is not making too much money.

 

Calhoun last saw his contract renewed in 2004, after he won a national championship. "Calhoun received a new six-year deal that pushed his contract through 2010. Calhoun's salary increases from $1.2 million in 2003-04 through 2007-08 to $1.6 million in 2008-09 and 2009-10," according to a May 2007 story Andy Katz at Espn.com "Coaches turn titles into green."

 

Calhoun isn't the only one in Division I men's basketball who has seen his salary jump after winning a crown. ESPN's Katz interviewed Calhoun, who said "a school is rewarding a head coach just like a company would a great salesman."

"You want to keep and maintain the people doing the job," Calhoun said Friday. "People shouldn't find it unusual. These aren't rec programs. These are programs that have budgets of $54 million. They are self-sufficient. [Head coaches] are being treated like every other part of society, and I think that's as well it should be. You don't want to lose talented people. It also says to young coaches that you can make money in coaching."

Considering that President Obama just suggested that salaries for bank executives should be capped at $500,000, society may be rethinking its executive compensation.

 

Obama's brother in law, Craig Robinson, is the head men's basketball coach at Oregon State University, agreed to a six-year deal worth more than $5 million in April 2008.

 

Retired UConn baseball coach Andy Baylock agreed that men;'s basketball supports many other sports. Baylock now works for UConn athletics as a liaison to 104 NFL scouts and more than 1,100 UConn football alumnae, dating back to 1930.

 

"I don't know," Baylock said. "At the end of the year, basketball supports a lot of other programs."

 

Everyone thought former athletic director John Toner was nuts to strive to have UConn jump from Division I-AA to Division I-A in football, Baylock said.

 

"But those two sports take in plus revenue," he said. "We used to lose a couple of million on football every year. Now we make money."

 

UConn football coach Randy Edsall rakes in about $1.5 million annually, and is the second highest paid state employee. UConn women's basketball coach Geno Aureimma, with an annual salary of $1.25 million, is the third highest paid.

 

Even a small pay cut could help the athletic department sustain more programs for college students. But, in Jim Calhoun's world, a comfortable retirement is more important than scholarships and equipment for young athletes who happen to excel at a sport that doesn't attract a national television audience.

Link...

If politics is the art of compromise, Congressman Chris Murphy and I may have found a little bit of common ground - the United States must stop acting in ways that make people hate this country.

 

Unfortunately, we disagree thoroughly on the means to obtain that reconciliation and rehabilitation - not only in the Islamic world, but in regards to international opinion.

 

Murphy appeared on WNPR's "Where We Live" this morning with John Dankosky, and said that the United States must remain the world's sole superpower. The arrogance and blind hubris of such a statement stuns.

 

Murphy's membership in the majority party in Congress constrains his ability to speak truth to Israel. I asked him the same basic question I posed to Rep. John Larson - what exactly must Israel do in order to merit a rebuke from the United States?

 

Like every other member of the Connecticut Congressional delegation, Murphy voted "yeah" on H.R. 34, a measure to support Israel's right to self-defense from early January co-sponsored by Connecticut's John Larson.

 

I wondered how Murphy could do so knowing that Israel, during its 22-day invasion into Gaza in December and January, targeted civilians and hospitals, schools, and ambulances? Plus, Israel used experimental munitions like dense inert metal explosives on these civilians.

 

"I think the resolution you speak to supported Israel's right to defend itself," Murphy said. He parroted the same tired line - If a foreign neighboring governent was lobbing rockets into our country, we would fight back, too.

 

There is no defense for protecting war criminals, yet Murphy tried to defend his untenable position by arguing that he supported a resolution, signed by 50 or 60 members of Congress, calling for the United States to assist residents of Gaza with humanitarian relief.

 

Of course we should be working to open up passages and pathways to allow aid in, as he said, but the mere fact that we can't get more than 25 percent of Congress to vote for this shows how far down the path of pure empire we have gone.

More from Murphy ...

Not often will I be counted as a fan of either Gov. M. Jodi Rell or Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz. I disagree wholeheartedly with many of the decisions that these constitutional officials have made.

 

Once in a while, they deserve a kudos - Bysiewicz, a Democrat and a Yale-educated attorney, has written a biography of Gov. Ella Grasso, and Rell, a Republican, has taken on Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez before (a slight accomplishment, at best).

 

However much I dislike their skills of governance, I know that they deserve respect, even begrudging respect. Both are long-time survivors in a political system that destroys people, and by nature of their public positions, we want discourse that encourages people to participate in the political system.

 

So it is was to my great dismay this morning that flipping through the FM dial, I chanced upon Chaz and AJ and their monkey house interviewing Bysiewicz, who has recently thrown her hat in the ring for the 2010 gubernatorial race.

 

The vanilla questions coming from Chaz and AJ and their listeners elicited standard claptrap from Bysiewicz.

Caller: How are you going to lower spending to cut my taxes?

Bysiewicz: We need to do an efficiency study of all departments in the government to determine where we can have cost savings.

AJ: You hear that DMV?

That discussion led to how dumbfounded Bysiewicz is that Gov. Rell has proposed cutting the insurance advocate position, one that is funded by the insurance industry, and not state tax dollars.

 

While I would like to hear Bysiewicz roll into a monologue about why we need single payer healthcare, as opposed to some band-aid reform that won't work, she maintained an air of dignity, and electability.

 

Then it all went wrong: Chaz and AJ suggested that Bysiewicz and Rell engage in a wrestling match to determine the future leader of Connecticut. Bysiewicz remained silent during this two minute long adolescent fantasy. As they took us back to neanderthal days before elections, when might made right, when raw violence determined political supremacy, the Secretary of the State let them have their fun.

 

Again, I wanted her to show some chutzpah and knock down these two morning deejerks. Yet she played the whole thing like a politician: let the boys run wild because you never want to piss off egotistical media gatekeepers who control access to an audience of tens of thousands of voters.

Chaz and AJ's dialogue gets worse ...

Homelessness among young people does not always mean that students live out of cars, or on the streets. It means that they have no stable place to make a life.

 

The horror stories of students struggling to pay tuition and work and rent show me what resilience is and give meaning to the old adage of picking yourself up by the bootstraps.

 

One young woman with no parents to go to sleeps on her uncle’s couch, fending off her cousins who steal her food. She can't go stay with her grandmother, because the grandmother may lose Section 8 funds. Where else is this girl to go?

 

I could list off dozens of other stories from students and young people trapped in an economic downturn with an inability to establish independent lives. This leads them to turn to the streets, which offer no possibility of success, and every chance at jail.

 

Secure, regular shelter is an essential to personal growth, and if we want young people to participate in the community, they need to have an infrastructure they can count on. That means when they come home at night, they expect the food they bought to be there.

 

Housing for young people ages 18 to 35 in Hartford represents a crisis in this city. The grind of poverty and the war on drugs and so many other factors that have led to broken homes means that these youth rely on extended family connections which aren’t the most productive.

 

My struggles of moving home after college, trying to live by my parents' rules again pale in comparison to some of what these homeless youth go through. It drove me nuts. And my degree and car provided cash and freedom of movement, but they did little to eliminate the frustration of being young and home.

 

For couch surfing young people who have never been able to find an apartment on their own, by the time they hit 22 and are still sharing a room with their nieces, I can imagine that it makes them angry, cornered and hopeless.

 

Other cities – albeit those with much larger populations and resource bases – recognize the issue of youth housing and have taken steps towards fixing it.

 

In New York City and 20 other cities across the United States, Covenant House, despite the leadership issues it has dealt with in the past, is an established provider of mid-term (meaning several months) free housing for young people trying to get on their feet. Covenant House makes kids sign something like contracts to keep them there, and encourage them to build on the shelter experience.

 

Ending Teen Homelessness link...

The National Collegiate Athletic Association pretends to exist for the benefit of student athletes, but every passing day reveals the subtle and obvious exploitative games the NCAA plays to extract profit for coaches, athletic departments and corporate sponsors from these amateurs.

 

This past week, an Ohio judge cried Constitutional foul and struck down the NCAA's rule preventing young superstars from obtaining legal counsel in negotiating contracts, according to a February 12 report in the New York Times.

 

"For the 360,000 student-athletes in the N.C.A.A., it’s the tip of the iceberg that they actually have legal rights," said Richard G. Johnson, the lawyer for collegiate baseball pitcher Andrew Oliver.

 

The NCAA declared Oliver ineligible as an amateur because after the Minnesota Twins professional baseball club drafted Oliver, he retained an attorney to help him negotiate a contract. The NCAA said it was a no-no.

 

But as the Times said, "Erie County Judge Tygh M. Tone ruled that an N.C.A.A. rule, which renders a student-athlete ineligible for collegiate competition if he or she has a lawyer present during contract negotiations, was illegal because it interfered with an athlete’s right to legal representation."

 

Obviously, when universities negotiate their multimillion dollar deals with coaches like UConn's Geno Auriemma and Jim Calhoun, both sides have counsel. Or when UConn negotiates a marketing deal with Nike for apparel, lawyers handle the details.

 

And in today's New York Times, UConn's athletic director Jeff Hathaway makes clear that UConn sports is nothing but a business. The Times wrote about the twin successes of UConn men's and women's basketball teams, as both are currently ranked number one.

"Two No. 1 teams at the same time really become a way, in part, to brand the university," Hathaway said Friday in a telephone interview. "And I mean that from a standpoint of excellence. When people think of two No. 1s, the University of Connecticut, obviously you think of excellence, you think of commitment. Those are the same thoughts we want people to have with the university with everything we do."

Ostensibly, Hathaway and his athletic director cohorts argue that this increases the visibility of the school, and it then attracts the best students and faculty from across the world.

 

Link to more about Geno Auriemma's restaurant...

The City Hall office where Urania Petit, the Working Families Party Registrar of Voters, now works has earned some monikers worthy of a sitcom.

 

"We call it the box," Petit said, sitting inside her windowless office, plopped in the middle of the registrar's larger basement domain.

 

"The maintenance guys ask me 'How is the box?'" Petit joked. Some call it the floating office, the Hannibal Lecter room, the hole, the box cutter, the cell.

 

"There is a competition out there," Petit said. "If any member of the public would like to give our office a name, stop by."

 

Anyone who drops in will see for themselves the absurdity that is the $14,700 box. Despite the surreal surroundings, Petit is forging ahead with her duties. "I love my job," she said.

 

On Wednesday, February 18, at 5:30 p.m. at the Hartford Public Library, Petit is co-sponsoring a community discussion forum on "Why Don't We Vote" with Hartford 2000 and the Library.

 

WFP party boss Jon Green will moderate the forum, featuring former city councilor Eugenio Caro, former state rep Evelyn Mantilla, and professors Louise Simmons of UConn, Bilal Sekou of UHart, and Clyde McKee of Trinity.

 

"I have been trying to build relationships and make contacts," Petit said of her new responsibilities. And her interaction with Democratic Registrar Olga Vazquez is improving, despite the budget battle over the hiring deputy registrars of voters and where to put all three registrars and deputies.

 

"It is good as long as we don't talk office space," Petit said. "The minute we talk about office space, there is a little tension. Otherwise, we have a decent working relationship. We have to work together on the canvass. We have a budget proposal due for the sixteenth. We do communicate."

 

The sprawling space of the Registrar's Office in City Hall contains three large rooms. The center room has cubicles and a visitors area. The room to the left contains the desks for Sal Bramante and his Republican staff. The third large room to the right contains cubicles and two offices for the Democratic Registrar and her deputy.

 

The box was plunked down in the middle of this third space, far from Bramante, who was unavailable for comment. Vazquez disavows any knowledge of how the box got built.

 

"That box was built prior to me coming into this office," Vazquez said. "You are asking the wrong person. I don't know who built it, designed it, or asked for it to go up. It was there before I came into the office."

 

Vazquez refused to discuss any conversations she may have had with party leaders like Mayor Eddie Perez, his chief of staff Matt Hennessey and Democratic Town Committee boss Sean Arena.

 

Hennessy and the Mayor's office "gave the go ahead to have it built," Petit said.

Link...

To the Honorable John Larson -

 

I see that on January 9, 2009, you voted in favor of H. Res. 34, officially titled "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."

 

I understand that Israel enjoys bipartisan, near unanimous support in Congress, stained only by token opposition. In fact, the vote for H. Res. 34 was 390 to 5, with 22 voting present and 16 not voting at all. Clearly, Israeli policy represents one place where Republicans and Democrats agree. But my conscience makes me wonder: What exactly does Israel have to do to merit a rebuke from the United States government?

 

Much of what Israel does I understand we can’t criticize, lest we be thought international hypocrites. For example, should we be critical of Israel’s use of white phosphorous on civilians, we would call attention to our use of such banned munitions in Fallujah in 2004. And if we suggest Israel’s use of experimental weaponry like dense insert metal explosives is illegal under international law, our use of radioactive artillery like depleted uranium probably merits more than a frown, too.

 

Putting aside the fact that the U.S. and Israel employ similar methods of warfare, what does Israel have to do to draw condemnation from members of the United States Congress like yourself? Does your vote reflect that you feel the following is civilized behavior:

- Bombing civilians through the practice of roof-knocking?

- Firing on medical convoys?

- Shelling humanitarian edifices like hospitals and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency?

A bombed Red Crescent Society Ambulance in Gaza.

- Ramming, firing on, and capturing ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza?

- Lying about the deliberate targeting of civilians and infrastructure?

- Engaging in an offensive kill rate of almost 100-to-1 Palestinians to Israelis?

- Censoring press coverage of an armed conflict so that independent observers cannot verify the accuracy of either the Palestinian body count of more than 1,300 - 500 adult civilians, 410 children non combatants, and at least 400 police and alleged militants or the Israeli tally guessing more than 1,100 dead - 700 Palestinian militants and 250 civilians?

- Accepting that only 14 Israelis died during this invasion of Gaza, four of them by “friendly fire”, versus the 1,300 Palestinians?

- Punishing media outlets that do focus on the invasion? - Denying running water to 400,000 people in a densely populated ghetto?

- Constructing a wall to maintain "peace"?

- Concealing for 20 years or more the existence of a nuclear arsenal?

 

These potential violations of international law and decency boggle the mind, and would provoke stinging rhetoric in response if committed by other nation-states. Please tell me why Congress gives a loud cheer of “Self-defense” when Israel flagrantly, willfully ignores global moral norms? Your vote does not represent me.

 

Please help me understand how you can justify supporting the military that perpetrated something called “The Massacre of Black Saturday”? Saturday, December 27, 2008 is so named because in the 60 years of conflict between Israel and Palestine, it was the bloodiest day of fighting, with more than 200 Palestinian deaths. Not only did we sit back and say nothing, but America provided the F-16s and Apache helicopters to Israel to carry out the bloodletting. What would lead you as a Congressman to think that this is acceptable behavior by anyone, friend or enemy? Why is it okay for armed forces to kill children and not suffer a condemnation by the House of the People?

 

How are you not going to come to rue your vote in favor of mass murder of civilians committed by a vastly superior military force? Please, curb your regrets now and use your leadership position in the House of Representatives to inject sense and debate into our relationship with Israel. We must condemn war crimes when our alleged friends commit them, which means that we too must stop committing war crimes, too.

 

Thank for your time and consideration, and I look forward to your response, which I hope doesn’t take a month to get to me, and which I hope isn’t a standard, canned response to the Israeli-Palestinian issues at hand. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind fosters a well-considered response to this letter.

 

Peace,

Ken Krayeske

 

Link...

Councilmen Luis Cotto and Larry Deutsch have drafted a resolution to limit municipal campaign contributions from contractors who do business with the city of Hartford.

 

The resolution states that contractors with deals worth more than $25,000 annually with the City of Hartford, including any person, business entity or nonprofit organization, are forbidden from contributing to the campaign, under penalty of losing the right to bid on contracts for a year.

 

The broad proposal (here) would ban principals - managers, executive directors, directors, etc - of those contractors, including members of boards of directors, managers and executive directors, spouses and their dependent children cannot donate to support a candidate or political committee.

 

This takes powerful people out of the political equation and limits the influence they might have. For example, this would preclude Magdalena Rodriguez, the executive director of CRT, and Fernando Betancourt, the chair of the board of directors of CRT, from contributing to a campaign run by Eddie Perez.

 

Although elected officials like Mayor Eddie Perez are on boards like at CRT, an exception in the proposed ordinance would not preclude him from donating to his own campaign.

 

The proposed ordinance is preliminary, but it has the right idea. The introduction of the ordinance reads:

Monetary contributions to political campaigns are a legitimate form of participation in our political process, but the financial strength of certain individuals or organizations should not enable them to exercise a disproportionate or controlling influence on the election of candidates. The rapidly increasing costs of political campaigns have forced many candidates to raise larger and larger percentages of money from interest groups with a specific financial stake in matters under consideration by city government. This has caused the public perception that votes are being improperly influenced by monetary contributions. This perception is undermining the credibility and integrity of the governmental process. Candidates are raising less money in small contributions and more money in large individual and organizational contributions. The integrity of the governmental process, the competitiveness of campaigns and public confidence in local officials are all diminishing.

The ordinance seeks to mirror some of the state's campaign finance law, and hold officials to the same high standards, but it doesn't provide for public financing of campaigns.

 

If the state didn't screw up however many years ago and limit the public financing of municipalities to a few test communities, this would be unnecessary. But if Woody had gone straight to the police, none of this would ever have happened.

 

It is not a perfect resolution, and deserves further consideration. At the very minimum, it is an excellent start to a debate that should have happened long ago.

 

Link...

In full disclosure, I consider Hartford City Councilman Luis Cotto a friend. And when I walked out of the City Council meeting Tuesday night, February 3, 2009, my friend confused me.

 

Cotto voted his conscience and sank the attempt oust sitting council president Calixto Torres, an ally of he-who-pled-not-guilty, Mayor Eddie Perez.

 

I was proud of Cotto, yet I wondered why he didn't play ball and make a deal. We long for elected officials to vote their conscience, and indeed, this column stands in some small way as a record of the search for such truth in politics. Yet when they do, we wonder why they took the difficult, high road that has no immediate gain.

 

This tension begs the question: Can a politician vote their conscience and still be an effective representative for their constituents?

 

The case of Cotto, backed by the Working Families Party, will answer this query, because when Cotto was the swing vote, and so much of Mayor Perez's feeble grasp on power rode on Cotto's decision, he followed his conscience, and left Perez unharmed.

 

Wearing a clean white t-shirt, perhaps indicative of his ethical state of mind, Cotto waltzed into the stuffed Council chambers a few minutes late because of the traffic from the light snowfall. But he strode with confidence, and sat writing furiously during everyone else’s speeches.

 

At his turn, Cotto agreed that Council leadership needed to change, that the city was in trouble, but he didn't see the city emerging from trouble with this move. He refused to cast his ballot to remove Torres because the ends of fresh direction didn't match the means of a sneaky, backroom deal-making.

 

In rejecting the plans made by the triumvirate of Pedro Segarra, Ken Kennedy and Matt Ritter, Cotto cast a vote for a Gandhian vision of Hartford where the means are the ends. Cotto argued essentially that transparent means of self-government equal honest and forthright ends.

 

Cotto drew an audible gasp from the crowd when he slapped his hands on the desk after denying that he answers to voters. He pronounced that he answers only to his flesh and blood – his two children and his 13 nieces and nephews – ostensibly the future generations of Hartford.

 

The cynical side of me accuses Cotto of naivete in the face of big boy politics. Leopards don't change their spots. Torres can't run a council meeting, so he inspires no confidence in his ability to run the city. Forces will regroup and go after Torres again unless Torres resigns.

 

So why didn't Cotto wheel and deal? His constituents could've gotten something out of this. Why didn't he make any demands? He could've gotten a new playground on an empty lot for his children, their cousins and their friends.

 

He could've guaranteed himself a position of power. He only demanded that council behave within the bounds of an ethical society, and not castrate a man burdened by a troubled, but very powerful friend.

 

Link...

The status quo remains tonight on the Hartford City Council despite a coup attempt led by Councilman Pedro Segarra to unseat Council President Cal Torres — an ally of beleaguered Mayor Eddie Perez. Working Families Party councilman Luis Cotto provided the swing vote against Torres’ removal, allowing Torres to remain Council President.

 

Segarra and fellow councilmen Ken Kennedy and Matt Ritter failed to muster the six votes necessary to remove Torres because Cotto — after a weekend to reflect — refused to join the mutiny. Republican Veronica Airey-Wilson abstained. By a 5-3 vote, City Clerk Dan Carey said the measure failed.

 

The drama played out before a packed council chamber.

 

“I am not sure if the ends justify the means,” Cotto said. “We need change. My question is, is this how I want to do it? I have to answer to my two children and my 13 nieces and nephews, and I don’t have to answer to anyone else here.”

 

And the he dropped the bomb that he would not be supporting the coup.

 

“What is good for the city? I am going to vote ‘no’ because I am not down with the way this is happening,” Cotto said. “I would like you to look at this and say, ‘This is not what the city needs.’”

 

Torres started the meeting without Cotto or Airey-Wilson, who were held up by the snow. Torres read a statement, which mentioned Friday’s reporting by the40yearplan.com — reporting which predicted the ouster of Torres based on Segarra’s count of how he believed council members would votes. Segarra turned out to be wrong, as was the story.

 

Much like his letter on Friday, Torres said he was upset by Kennedy’s assertion that if Torres should resign if he is indicted.

 

Torres then turned over the leadership of the meeting to Councilwoman rJo Winch, the majority leader.

 

But Torres also vowed a fight. Based on corporation counsel John Rose Jr.’s Monday opinion, Torres maintained that he had a property interest in the position of council president. He asked for a full due process hearing with cross examination of witnesses.

 

“If council determines that it will not hold a hearing, I advise the council now that I consider the vote null and void and reserve the right to challenge such proceeding,” Torres said.

 

Winch apologized to city residents for the situation. She said she was embarassed and saddened by the evening’s proceedings.

 

“I am saddened that we as a council body could not iron out our differences peacefully,” Winch said. She scolded her Democratic colleagues for attaching the alleged crimes of Mayor Eddie Perez to Torres.

 

Link...

Assuming that Eddie Perez does not survive the remainder of his term, City Councilman Pedro Segarra will in all likelihood be the next mayor of Hartford, according to Councilmen Pedro Segarra, Ken Kennedy and Matt Ritter.

 

A resolution circulated this afternoon for a special meeting Tuesday evening at 6 p.m. to install Segarra as Council President, which is the position that ascends to the mayor's seat should Perez resign, and thereby removing Perez ally Calixto Torres from the council presidency, Segarra said.

 

City police officers are delivering special meeting notices to the houses of Council members, to keep with the 48-hour notice rules for special meetings, according to various sources.

 

Mayor Perez, of course, was arrested on Monday on charges of bribery and fabricating evidence surrounding $40,000 worth of home renovations done by city contractor Carlos Costa that Perez only paid $20,000 for.

 

Council caucused on Tuesday to determine this course of events, Ritter said. To remove Torres, six votes are needed.

 

Democrats Kennedy, Ritter, Segarra, Jim Boucher and rJo Winch as well as Working Families Party councilors Luis Cotto, Larry Deutsch will support Segarra's bid to become council president, Segarra said.

 

Segarra will not run for Mayor in any subsequent election. "I don't have an interest in being mayor," Segarra said. "But I do have an interest in helping the city go through tough times."

 

"If Council Segarra became mayor, not only would he not run for election, he would make sure that there was a fair election to elect the next Mayor," Ritter said Thursday night.

 

"We were pretty clear that if anyone was interested was being mayor they should not serve as council president, it would give them an undue advantage," Kennedy said. "That is something we not want to have happen. I would not want that to happen, none of my colleagues do. Assuming that the mayor would be replaced, then yes, whoever the next council president would be would serve as an acting or interim basis."

 

Torres, one of the lower vote getters in the 2007 council election, has not returned Segarra's calls to discuss the situation. Torres did respond with a two-page letter issued from the Mayor's press office here.

 

He comes out swinging, though, explaining that he has not been connected at all with the investigation into the Mayor's alleged crimes, and that this should not be happening now.

 

"Cal has asked for an opportunity to analyze things, which I interpret as submitting his resignation in order to not be removed," Segarra said.

 

Torres has not agreed to the plan, Kennedy said.

 

"I would not use the word agree – we have had ongoing discussions. some people want a change in leadership, others don’t," Kennedy said. "We don’t know how it is going to turn out. If an arrest warrant is issued for the council president, it would make it hard for him to continue in leadership."

 

Segarra was a bit more forceful.

 

"This is not an open-ended thing in order to give him time," Segarra said. "Once [Torres] sees that the votes are there for my appointment, then he will resign. The consensus on Council is that this has to happen. Everyone who is voting for me has come to me and said we want you to be our leader. This is a very different scenario. I did not go to people, they came to me."

 

Councilwoman rJo Winch responded via email: "I prefer those who want my opinion on any situation to get my position from me. I also think it is premature for anyone to talk about what Council President will replace the Mayor. To presume this happen gives the impression that the Mayor is already convicted, locked up and serving time," she wrote.

 

"The facts are, I am waiting to see if my council members can sit down like professional adults and iron this thing out. Certainly, I want the best for the council which means the best for the residents of the City of Hartford. I do not agree with the current methods chosen by my council colleagues in dealing with our current Council President. I have a hard time participating in the public lynching of anyone and I have expressed this to all of them. We are all professionals in our own fields and we should forget about personal feelings and political ambitions, take some time and sit down, iron out our differences and get back to the business of serving, which is what I believe is what the residents of Hartford elected us to do," Winch concluded.

 

Segarra was unaware of Republican Councilwoman Veronica Airey-Wilson's support for the plan, as he said it was not his job to contact her.

 

Airey-Wilson, though, is ensnared in this probe. Grand jury investigators inspected her house because Carlos Costa did work there. If the Chief State's Attorney issues an arrest warrant for her, she will certainly not be voting. But Kennedy said even with only eight voting members of council, they still need six. Airey-Wilson has not returned multiple calls to her office.

 

Although if Airey-Wilson resigns, Council must vote to replace her with a Republican. Ritter said that the Charter demands a new Council member has to be of the same party affiliation as the outgoing member.

 

Segarra said he is worried that if he becomes mayor, his community law practice will suffer. "I have a lot of clients that depend on me," he said. But at the same time, his sense of duty to the city and the institution of self-governance overrules his fears.

 

"I can be sure that there is an overwhelming consensus on the Council that the president needs to change," Segarra said. "We are going through some very tough times, and they need someone to step up to the plate and get the Council focused on some very important issues, like how to get the next budget put together, how to work with our state legislature and how get more resources from state and federal government to get out of this financial situation and also dealing in an objective manner in what is happening with the mayor."

 

The Council will likely need to get an attorney to make sure they are handling the matters surrounding Perez properly, Segarra said.

 

A UConn Law grad, Segarra was appointed to the Court of Common Council in 2006 to replace the retiring Hernan LaFontaine. Segarra won election in 2007, but he knows city government well. From 1991 through 1996, under both Mayors Carrie Saxon Perry and Mike Peters, Segarra served as Corporation Counsel.

 

"Mike Peters wanted someone there 200 hours a week. I wanted to go back to my practice. I had some relationship issues I needed to deal with. I left to make myself a better person," Segarra said. "When I think that I can add something to the process, I will join in. But if I am either not needed or won't add any improvements, I am willing to step back. In the five years as corp counsel, I never took a hit, I was not a political corporation counsel. I tried to represent the best interests of the city. I tried to follow the best traditions of the office to work in the best legal interests of the city."

 

When Council members met Tuesday to discuss the crisis in city government brought on by Perez's arrest, Ritter said, the focus was on how to get the city running.

 

"People have been fair about it," Ritter said. "People are more focused on now on how to keep the government running. What the heck are we going to do right now with essential functions? Like who is going to lobby about ECS (educational cost sharing) funding? Who is going to meet with the Governor when President Obama's stimulus packages come down? Eddie Perez is not in a position to do that now."

 

All agree that Perez deserves a fair trial, and he has the right to clear his name in a court of law. Yet if he is arrested again, Kennedy said it will be tough for Perez to continue as Mayor.

 

"Assuming there are other charges, the more arrests there are, the more difficult it becomes for the Mayor to govern," Kennedy said. "If the Mayor is subsequently arrested, it will become necessary for Council to act. The more incidents there are within this administration will call into question the validity of this administration and whether or not it is a legitmate government or not. At that point it is incumbent upon Council to take action. When a government ceases to be legitimate and loses the faith of its citizens, then we have to move forward."

 

Mayoral Spokesperson Sarah Barr responded Thursday morning to the simple yes/no email query: If found guilty by a jury of his peers, will Mayor Perez resign his post as Mayor?

 

Barr's response: "The Mayor has said in his statement that he will continue to serve as Mayor, the job the people of Hartford have elected him to do. As for any questions regarding the legal process, I need to refer you to the Mayor's attorney, Hubert Santos."

 

Perez's Attorney Hubert Santos has been emailed this same question, and he has yet to respond.

 

Removing Perez would likely result in a legal battle, Ritter said. The Charter allows Council to impeach, but it may take special permission from the state legislature.

 

"The Charter says we can remove him, the question is whether it is statutorily legal," Ritter said. "There is a debate among lawyers whether or not there needs to be additional legislation. People like Allan Taylor who wrote the Charter say it's a state law issue. A municipality cannot remove its chief executive officer unless the legislature passes an enabling act."

 

Without an enabling act, case law and statute are vague, Ritter said.

 

"It would be a court challenge, no question about it," Ritter said. "You may see a push to have some General Assembly tweaks."

 

Once Perez is gone by any mechanism, and Segarra is Mayor, a new election would be held as part of the way to restore faith in city government, especially considering that Perez's 2007 campaign coffers are now tainted by this scandal. The arrest warrant details that Costa forced contractors who worked on Perez's home to make donations to Perez's campaign.

 

Ritter, Kennedy and Segarra were the three highest vote getters on council in 2007's contest. Kennedy this morning said it was inappropriate to think about running for mayor now.

 

"It is true I have expressed interest in the past," Kennedy said. "At this time it is too volatile to express it, and people will question your motives. We have to restore confidence and faith in government and move forward with elections as soon as it becomes necessary. I have not denied interest, but it is way too soon to express interest."

Ritter said he doesn't know what is happening three days from now. Running for mayor is too hard to see.

 

"My only focus is on what we have ahead of us," Ritter said. "When I do think about it, I will have a conversation with the appropriate people."

 

Charter calls for a special election to be held in conjunction with the next general election, Kennedy said.

 

So Hartford could see three mayors in 2009, or it could see one. In the meantime, though, Kennedy, Ritter and Segarra agree that putting the business of the city first is most important.

 

"We're going to know by vote or resignation where everyone is in terms of the validity of the administration and in terms of leadership," Kennedy said. "Our job on council is to continue government. We have serious budget issues. The focus has to be the closing of an $8-$20 million budget gap. Hartford's best days are in front of it, not behind it. This is a small bump in the road, and it is incumbent on all members of the Council to keep our eyes on the ball, which is to close the budget gap."

 

The uncertainty of the coming months doesn't mean that Segarra isn't formulating plans to restore decency to City Hall.

 

"If that were to happen, I cannot fathom the amount of work," Segarra said. "My number one move would be to work very hard to restore public confidence in local government by taking action that goes to prove that we merit the opportunity to restore the trust."

 

Fiscal responsibility is key, and depending on what actually caused the Mayor to leave, Segarra would look at everything that has been done and insure that such behavior stops.

 

"I would not tolerate any situation that goes against the interests of taxpayers and residents and the obligation that is owed to them," he said. "We have the incredible task of managing finances to continue to deliver services and not exploit taxpayers."

 

Segarra would also try to quickly build relationships with state officials to help the city. But his most important goal is honor.

 

"I think people start better putting some honor into what they are doing as representatives," he said. "This isn't about us - if you want to volunteer your time to public service, it should be about that. The further people dont meet that, the worse it is going to get about public perception. We have had some major transitions at federal level, we need to see that at the local level. If we talk about service to make ourselves richer, then that is not what it is about. If we talk about service as making this a better place to live, then that is what it should be about."

 

Link...

More arrests are coming in the corruption surrounding Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez, according to Mark Dupuis at the Connecticut Chief State's Attorney's Office.

 

"We do expect additional arrests, but other than that, we cannot say," Dupuis said.

 

When I asked him to confirm names, he refused to play the parlor game most popular among city politicos: Who is next? When I suggested I had sources confirming certain persons were next, Dupuis demurred.

 

"I doubt those ... people would know that, to be quite honest with you," Dupuis said. "We have no further warrants at this time, the investigation is continuing."

 

The question for me is whether or not Perez will be arrested again. Many can speculate who is next based on some of the people called before the grand jury. Suppose that the State's Attorney releases arrest warrants for different areas of investigation, like the school construction business. Will Perez be perp chauffered again from Attorney Santos' office down to Troop H.

 

Will there be crowds of people cheering him on when he makes his second announcment that he will stay on and complete the job?

 

Speculation is the name of the game, and anything else would be irresponsible.

Link...

America's destiny, since its first days, has been certain, indubitably wrapped in notions of divinely-blessed liberty, self-determination, expansion, and the republican form of democracy.

 

President Obama refused to discard the concept of the Christian godhead, but with a little-noticed word, he tossed Manifest Destiny to the wind. "God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny," Obama said in his inaugural address.

 

What does an uncertain destiny for America mean? First, what is destiny? In the modern cultural context, it is the Force preordaining Luke Skywalker’s being chosen for the purpose of challenging and defeating Darth Vader, overcoming the evil Empire.

 

Destiny as a word traces its roots to the Latin "destinare" – to establish, to determine. The Old French turned it into destinee, and the Middle English, around 1300, started shaping its current usage.

 

The Random House Unabridged defines it best:

1. something that is to happen or has happened to a particular person or thing; lot or fortune.
2. the predetermined, usually inevitable or irresistible, course of events.
3. the power or agency that determines the course of events.
4. (initial capital letter) this power personified or represented as a goddess.

For "that which is inevitable," synonyms include fate, fortune, kismet, lot, and predestination. These heady words seem to indicate that the future of the planet and billions of people seemingly rides upon the workings of the Constitution and its peoples.

 

This view of America's preordainded place in terrestrial affairs began with George Washington's first inaugural address in 1789.

 

"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people," Washington said.

Link...

The war on drugs has claimed another politician: Ned Lamont will moderate a forum at the "Drug Policy for the 21st Century" conference at Central Connecticut State University, Wednesday, February 4, 2009.

 

National legalization experts like keynote speaker Ethan Nadelmann from the Drug Policy Alliance, and panelist Jack Cole, from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition will lead the conference, co-sponsored by CCSU's Peace Studies Department and its Institute for the Study of Criminal Justice. Tickets are still available for the conference here.

 

Give Lamont some credit for guiding the afternoon's premier panel, featuring Connecticut anti-prohibitionists like Cliff Thornton, whose 2006 Green Party campaign for governor I managed, former Hartford City Councilman Bob Painter and A Better Way's Lorenzo Jones.

 

But surrounded by activists openly touting legalization, with no one on the panel to argue for the drug war, you think that Lamont, who enjoys a part-time professorship in the Peace Studies Department at CCSU, would be forthcoming about his opinions and history with illegal drugs.

 

"No, I am not answering any of those questions," Lamont said when I asked him if he had ever done any illegal drugs. Nor would he go on the record to analyze prohibition.

 

"It is a long overdue debate for the state of Connecticut," Lamont would only say. "As a moderator I am going to do everything I can to be neutral. I am going to be a provocateur."

 

So Ned is playing his participation like a man who is running for office in 2010. And frankly, I tire of leadership - or those who purport to want to lead society via electoral office - equivocating on the most intense, important issues of our day.

 

Lamont did not make the war on drugs an issue in his Senate campaign. So when did he have this epiphany that the war on drugs was bad? Or does he think by lending his world-famous, Lieberman-slaying name to a conference that endorses legalization, he can still straddle this fault line of an issue?

 

"A leading indicator of a politician's character is their stance on the drug war, or lack thereof," Thornton said.

Link...

Mayor Eddie Perez will be indicted and arraigned tomorrow.

 

What he will be arraigned and indicted for is unknown, and what counts are being leveled is unknown. But I have it from three solid sources that he will be arraigned and indicted tomorrow.

 

City Councilman Luis Cotto is one of the three people who has heard that Eddie Perez will be indicted tomorrow. One source indicates that Carlos Costa is under arrest.

 

"If all this is true, I don't know what to compare it to, all I can think of is Maria (Perez's wife). I think of the person before I think of the politician," Cotto said.

 

Cotto has known Eddie for years, and "My initial thing is that this is unfortunate. I am waiting to see what happens next."

 

Councilman Matt Ritter said he didn't know what the charges were, but had heard that the indictment included bribery and forgery of evidence.

 

"It is a very disappointing to hear these allegations and it is truly a sad day for the city of Hartford," Ritter said. "All nine of us are supposed to do everything we can to uphold the public trust. Our roles are non-permanent and also ones that when we are in office, are expected to uphold the most ethical conduct and behaivor. Having said that, we are in America, we are inncoent until proven guilty."

 

Ritter said council would be studying its powers and its options.

 

"This is the most sobering, disapointing and sad day for the city of Hartford," Ritter said. "We'll see what the Mayor has to say tomorrow, but these are very sad allegations."

 

Perez appeared on WNPR's Where We Live Monday, January 26 and he said that he basically performing business as usual, and the threat of indictments don't affect his daily work schedule.

 

Here is the link to John Dankosky's interview with Perez this morning.

Link...