Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: "WE THE PEOPLE"

"THE "NEW" COUNCIL AND THE RIGHTEOUS APONTE"

10 Comments -

1 – 10 of 10
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aponte has the morals and professional integrity of an alleycat.

January 16, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hartford is a joke. The city government has become a joke. The Democratic Party in Hartford has become a pompous group of elitists who take care of only themselves. So disappointed in Pedro Segarra and the city council. Rational people have tried legitimate avenues to make improvements, but it seems there is a some kind of club in the Hartford Dem Party. They should be ashamed.

January 16, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Councilman duiech and aponte belong at burger king. Not running a city. Im glad i dont liv hear. Only collect a check.

January 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Anonymous Ellis Dee said...

The most amazing thing to me is how someone like Aponte could get elected in the first place. I wouldn't trust him to take out my trash.

January 17, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Alyssa Peterson raised legitimate and well documented credibility issues regarding Councilman Alexander Aponte.
-------------------------------
I don't know Aponte, but at least he's not a Republican. I fail to see how it's appropriate at this point and at a Council meeting for his alleged malfeasance as an attorney to be a point of focus. If Peterson doesn't like him let her vote against him next time. In the mean time, let the Council do its business, such as it is, to the best of its abilities.

January 18, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter you are wrong,Alyssa had every right to shine a light on this neer do well lawyer in the public portion of the Council meeting.The best disinfectant is the light of day and Alyssa did the public a service exposing someone who shouldnt be on the Council.

January 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Speaking of lawyers, and Hartford's proclivity to hire a lot of them, we don't hear a lot about the City's defending its requirement of union workers on building projects. That is, the City is paying attorneys to protect its right to make construction more expensive for the taxpayer.
-----------------------------
Wrongful exclusion
How much trouble is Connecticut in? So much that the state's capital city is being sued for an act of discrimination against independent contractors that is as obvious as it is odious. Yet, so beholden are Connecticut government institutions to Big Labor, the outcome is by no means assured. The details: Electrical Contractors Inc. sued the city of Hartford after its low bids on two school projects were rejected because the company refused to sign a project-labor agreement, which effectively compelled it to use union labor. The state Supreme Court ruled this month that ECI has standing to sue, so the case can go forward. ECI will emerge as the taxpayer's best friend if it wins the suit, since a ruling that allows nonunion companies to compete on equal footing with union firms will reduce the cost of public projects, without diminishing quality.

http://www.rep-am.com/opinion/
----------------------------------
http://case.lawmemo.com/ct/elecon.pdf

January 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Anonymous Ellis Dee said...

Kevin, are you on vacation?

January 25, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cant wait to hear more resolutions from members of city council. Not all are incoherent ramblings like that of Duetch , but wooden needs to silence this idiot before the city becomes even more of a joke.

January 25, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Speaking of lawyers...
Rich Wareing comported himself well at the confirmation hearing for school board appointees. Ditto, Mr. Poland from the library, although I don't think he's an attorney. It appears to me that the provision of the charter requiring the Mayor to appoint the part of the board is a good idea.

I was skeptical of Atty. Wooden's idea of confirmation hearings for school board nominees, but I watched a bit of the hearing and was generally favorably impressed with the tone and quality of the questions. (I wasn't watching when the divine Aponte had his turn questioning.)

Not that I expect much in the way of progress, particularly in the closing of the "achievement gap" all right-thinkers are so concerned about, but I'm grateful for the Board's work. Someone has to be on the Board, after all, and it might as well be well-intentioned, intelligent, committed folks. I wish the new appointees, the Board, and the District continued maintenance of slow progress.

As usual, one critical fact was downplayed or ignored in the discussion; the Board is an agent of the State, executing education policy of the State, not responsible to the council or the municipal government as a whole.
See Charter Chapter ix, section 2(g).

January 28, 2012 at 8:43 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot