A lot is being made about why coach Randy Edsall didn't tell his players about his departure from UConn, following the team's 48-20 loss to Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl on New Year's day. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If we are to believe the timetable, Edsall had not told his bosses yet about his new job, so how could he inform his players he was heading to Maryland? It was not until 2AM Sunday that Edsall told school officials he would not be returning on the team's charter to Connecticut that day. Under the best of circumstances, a departure for a new job in any field can be a sticky proposition. When it comes to the high profile world of Division I-A college coaches, the landscape can become even messier. Besides, if anyone believed UConn was Edsall's last job, they didn't understand the culture of big time college football.
Most coaches get only one shot at cashing in on that big pay day. You can make the case Edsall had done all he could to elevate the program at Connecticut. In 12 years, he brought UConn up from Division I-AA to Division I-A much faster than most people anticipated. He won a share of two Big East titles, beat Notre Dame, went to five bowl games, including the BCS Fiesta Bowl and won three of those games. Plus, he guided the program through the killing of player Jaspar Howard, an incident which no coaching manual covers.
It became obvious, when Edsall's name emerged as a leading contender to coach Miami, that he was looking for greener pastures. If it wasn't Miami, it was going to be some other school. (I had speculated on Saturday, to friends that Pittsburgh might have made a pitch for him.)
Had Edsall, 52, stayed at Connecticut next season and the team struggled, his coaching luster would have dimmed and the offers might not have come his way. That is why Edsall is the coach at Maryland today and UConn is now seeking to fill a job vacancy. Edsall's departure, as painful as it might come to some, reminds us all that big time college football is big time business for the universities, which choose to join the dance, no matter how dicey a coach chooses to deliver his good byes.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Thursday, December 16, 2010
YOUR WFP GOVERNOR
Just hours after promising a pro business group, "Connecticut will be open for business," when he becomes governor, Governor-elect Dannel Malloy has displayed his true, liberal colors.
Malloy issued his business declaration at the MetroHartford Alliance breakfast, Tuesday. Business leaders expressed optimism, following the talk, declaring the honeymoon was on. Within 24 hours, however, Malloy has done the following:
1. Tell religious and social group leaders, he is for state-run "universal health care."
2. Support paid sick leave.
3. Name two avowed liberals to his inner administration, State Sen. Andrew McDonald D-Stamford, and political operative Roy Occhiogrosso.
4. Attend the Working Families Party gathering with his soon-to-be Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman
In other words, every move he has made since the Tuesday breakfast, has appealed to the extreme leftist movement in Connecticut.
His appearance at the WFP event is especially telling, although not surprising. When the WFP endorsed Malloy for governor, during the campaign, his acceptance was lukewarm at best. To have shown enthusiasm, would have alienated the unaffiliated voter bloc he desperately needed to be elected governor. At last night's party, however, Malloy's cup runneth over with praise for WFP. "We're all part of one big family. We wouldn't be here without all of the hard work of the people in this room. I know that. I appreciate that."
WFP, founded in 1998, lists on its website its ideology: "Progressivism. Populism. Social democracy." If that doesn't sound like the platform of the old Communist parties of eastern Europe, then you haven't been paying attention, which Malloy certainly hopes.
WFP is a consortium of the old ACORN, labor unions and community organizations, the backbone of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Furthermore, it has a powerful alliance with the Service Employees International Union, which helped get Obama elected, and some suggest influenced the inner city Connecticut gubernatorial vote. SEIU is known to have underwritten a sizeable amount of the WFP's budget. There have been rumblings some of George Soros' money has found its way to the WFP, as well. The WFP has been under investigation for voter fraud in New York. Sound familiar? The list goes on. This is the group, Connecticut's next governor has chosen to embrace.
Although Malloy has a knack for telling his audience what they want to hear - sound pro business to business groups, sound pro worker to workers' groups - make no mistake about it, his actions in this transitional period have tilted decidedly to the left. It's becoming patently clear we are about to inaugurate a governor, whose main objective is to redistribute the wealth, much like the current White House occupant.
Others may try to paint Malloy as a fiscally conservative Democrat. Do not be fooled. Socialism, already a cornerstone of Connecticut government, is about to accelerate full speed ahead, driven by a governor, for whom more people voted against, than for.
Malloy issued his business declaration at the MetroHartford Alliance breakfast, Tuesday. Business leaders expressed optimism, following the talk, declaring the honeymoon was on. Within 24 hours, however, Malloy has done the following:
1. Tell religious and social group leaders, he is for state-run "universal health care."
2. Support paid sick leave.
3. Name two avowed liberals to his inner administration, State Sen. Andrew McDonald D-Stamford, and political operative Roy Occhiogrosso.
4. Attend the Working Families Party gathering with his soon-to-be Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman
In other words, every move he has made since the Tuesday breakfast, has appealed to the extreme leftist movement in Connecticut.
His appearance at the WFP event is especially telling, although not surprising. When the WFP endorsed Malloy for governor, during the campaign, his acceptance was lukewarm at best. To have shown enthusiasm, would have alienated the unaffiliated voter bloc he desperately needed to be elected governor. At last night's party, however, Malloy's cup runneth over with praise for WFP. "We're all part of one big family. We wouldn't be here without all of the hard work of the people in this room. I know that. I appreciate that."
WFP, founded in 1998, lists on its website its ideology: "Progressivism. Populism. Social democracy." If that doesn't sound like the platform of the old Communist parties of eastern Europe, then you haven't been paying attention, which Malloy certainly hopes.
WFP is a consortium of the old ACORN, labor unions and community organizations, the backbone of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Furthermore, it has a powerful alliance with the Service Employees International Union, which helped get Obama elected, and some suggest influenced the inner city Connecticut gubernatorial vote. SEIU is known to have underwritten a sizeable amount of the WFP's budget. There have been rumblings some of George Soros' money has found its way to the WFP, as well. The WFP has been under investigation for voter fraud in New York. Sound familiar? The list goes on. This is the group, Connecticut's next governor has chosen to embrace.
Although Malloy has a knack for telling his audience what they want to hear - sound pro business to business groups, sound pro worker to workers' groups - make no mistake about it, his actions in this transitional period have tilted decidedly to the left. It's becoming patently clear we are about to inaugurate a governor, whose main objective is to redistribute the wealth, much like the current White House occupant.
Others may try to paint Malloy as a fiscally conservative Democrat. Do not be fooled. Socialism, already a cornerstone of Connecticut government, is about to accelerate full speed ahead, driven by a governor, for whom more people voted against, than for.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
USE THE STUDENTS. SAVE MONEY!
The media has been making a big deal about how Connecticut was left off a New England tourism group's website, because the state hadn't paid its annual $100,000 dues. "Discover New England," launched in 1992 by the governors from the six New England states, was designed to promote New England as a tourist destination to Europeans. On the site's latest display, Connecticut is wiped off the map.
At issue is the Nutmeg State's current budget shortfall. In the recent spending plan, the state's tourism commission was given a near zero budget. No money translated into no 100Gs for Discover New England.
The Hartford Courant, which chose to make the "slight" its lead story in Saturday's edition, quoted Sue Norrington-Davies, Discover New England's executive director. "Action had to be taken to show the implication of these budget cuts. It's an unfortunate situation. We want Connecticut back on board. I assure, you."
But does the Portsmouth, NH group want Connecticut on board or does it just want to squeeze out 100Gs of tax dollars, the Nutmeg State does not have? Besides, who claims it's an unfortunate situation? The Republican-American reported last year, the state's tourism revenue rose last year, with no money in the tourism promotion budget.
Typically, Connecticut Democrats, who never met a government expenditure they didn't like, were quick to pounce on the spending shortchange. Colleen Flanagan, spokeswoman for soon-to-be Governor Dannel Malloy, told the Courant, "This is a perfect example of ways in which our state has been penny-wise and pound foolish."
Translation, when Malloy takes the oath, cash-strapped Connecticut will put the dough back in the tourism budget, including the 100Gs for Discover New England.
But here's an idea, that could save the taxpayers that coveted 100Gs. Launch a competition among our high school and college students to design a website, touting Connecticut tourism overseas. We have teenagers in our family - and I'm sure you do as well - who could do dances around our government bureaucrats, with their computer expertise. One 13-year-old in our family designs websites in a snap. Why are we automatically handing over $100,000 to a government-promoted group, when the answer is in our own backyard at very little cost?
The governor-elect has promised a new approach to government. (Wouldn't you love to have a dollar for every time a newly elected official has uttered that comment?) Here's a chance to prove it, with a program that promotes Connecticut tourism and education. The approach would not only be penny wise, but pound wise too.
At issue is the Nutmeg State's current budget shortfall. In the recent spending plan, the state's tourism commission was given a near zero budget. No money translated into no 100Gs for Discover New England.
The Hartford Courant, which chose to make the "slight" its lead story in Saturday's edition, quoted Sue Norrington-Davies, Discover New England's executive director. "Action had to be taken to show the implication of these budget cuts. It's an unfortunate situation. We want Connecticut back on board. I assure, you."
But does the Portsmouth, NH group want Connecticut on board or does it just want to squeeze out 100Gs of tax dollars, the Nutmeg State does not have? Besides, who claims it's an unfortunate situation? The Republican-American reported last year, the state's tourism revenue rose last year, with no money in the tourism promotion budget.
Typically, Connecticut Democrats, who never met a government expenditure they didn't like, were quick to pounce on the spending shortchange. Colleen Flanagan, spokeswoman for soon-to-be Governor Dannel Malloy, told the Courant, "This is a perfect example of ways in which our state has been penny-wise and pound foolish."
Translation, when Malloy takes the oath, cash-strapped Connecticut will put the dough back in the tourism budget, including the 100Gs for Discover New England.
But here's an idea, that could save the taxpayers that coveted 100Gs. Launch a competition among our high school and college students to design a website, touting Connecticut tourism overseas. We have teenagers in our family - and I'm sure you do as well - who could do dances around our government bureaucrats, with their computer expertise. One 13-year-old in our family designs websites in a snap. Why are we automatically handing over $100,000 to a government-promoted group, when the answer is in our own backyard at very little cost?
The governor-elect has promised a new approach to government. (Wouldn't you love to have a dollar for every time a newly elected official has uttered that comment?) Here's a chance to prove it, with a program that promotes Connecticut tourism and education. The approach would not only be penny wise, but pound wise too.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
DAN'S TOP 40 DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDA
On January 5, 2011, for the first time in 20 years, Connecticut will have a governor from the Democratic party, to go along with a state legislature dominated in near veto-proof numbers by the Democrats. Therefore, as a public service, I am offering "Dan's Top 40." It is a checklist for concerned citizens, to follow the Democratic Party agenda, i.e. bills passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy. This list is not necessarily in order of importance.
1. Increase in income tax rate
2. Increase in sales tax rate
3. Increase in gasoline tax
4. Increase in fees, licenses, etc.
5. Return of the gift tax
6. Return of toll booths
7. Churches lose tax exempt status
8. Municipalities permitted to impose more taxes, i.e. a local sales tax
9. Cap and tax, of which Connecticut is a part, to be expanded
10. Death penalty abolished
11. Plastic bags banned in supermarkets, or pay a fee to use them
12. Elephants banned from circus
13. More bottles and containers subjected to bottle deposit law
14. Happy meals banned or heavily taxed
15. Other comfort food subjected to taxes
16. State run healthcare - Sustinet - approved
17. Paid sick leave mandated
18. Taxpayer money underwrites new Hartford arena to lure NHL franchise
19. More gun control legislation
20. In-state tuition at state universities for children of illegal aliens
21. Free electricity, year round, for families of three or more children
22. Transgender rights
23. Abortions mandated at Roman Catholic owned hospitals
24. Smoking banned in all public and private places and banned in casinos
25. Smoking banned in motor vehicles, containing children
26. Medicinal marijuana approved
27. Marijuana decriminalized with possession of one ounce or less
28. Outdoor furnances banned
29. Lawn mower, weed wackers, and any outdoor power equipment subjected to
emission controls or banned entirely
30. Seat belts mandated on all school buses (hidden property tax hike)
31. Mandated energy efficient windows on all new installations
32. Wearing helmet while driving or riding a motorcycle mandated
33. Mandated universal preschool (hidden property tax hike)
34. More camera installations on highways and intersections to arrest drivers (revenue raiser)
35. Styrofoam cups banned
36. Mandated "energy" saving lightbulbs
37. Electricity deregulation ended with passage of SB493 (More government bureaucracy)
38. Election day registration permitted
39. Early voting permitted
40. Minimum wage raised
1. Increase in income tax rate
2. Increase in sales tax rate
3. Increase in gasoline tax
4. Increase in fees, licenses, etc.
5. Return of the gift tax
6. Return of toll booths
7. Churches lose tax exempt status
8. Municipalities permitted to impose more taxes, i.e. a local sales tax
9. Cap and tax, of which Connecticut is a part, to be expanded
10. Death penalty abolished
11. Plastic bags banned in supermarkets, or pay a fee to use them
12. Elephants banned from circus
13. More bottles and containers subjected to bottle deposit law
14. Happy meals banned or heavily taxed
15. Other comfort food subjected to taxes
16. State run healthcare - Sustinet - approved
17. Paid sick leave mandated
18. Taxpayer money underwrites new Hartford arena to lure NHL franchise
19. More gun control legislation
20. In-state tuition at state universities for children of illegal aliens
21. Free electricity, year round, for families of three or more children
22. Transgender rights
23. Abortions mandated at Roman Catholic owned hospitals
24. Smoking banned in all public and private places and banned in casinos
25. Smoking banned in motor vehicles, containing children
26. Medicinal marijuana approved
27. Marijuana decriminalized with possession of one ounce or less
28. Outdoor furnances banned
29. Lawn mower, weed wackers, and any outdoor power equipment subjected to
emission controls or banned entirely
30. Seat belts mandated on all school buses (hidden property tax hike)
31. Mandated energy efficient windows on all new installations
32. Wearing helmet while driving or riding a motorcycle mandated
33. Mandated universal preschool (hidden property tax hike)
34. More camera installations on highways and intersections to arrest drivers (revenue raiser)
35. Styrofoam cups banned
36. Mandated "energy" saving lightbulbs
37. Electricity deregulation ended with passage of SB493 (More government bureaucracy)
38. Election day registration permitted
39. Early voting permitted
40. Minimum wage raised
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Fact Don't Support Malloy
During Tuesday night's gubernatorial debate, when GOP candidate Tom Foley alluded to my mentioning on my afternoon radio show, how his opponent had cut deals with government sector employee unions, Dan Malloy bristled, claiming no arrangements had been made. Had Foley pulled from his suit coat pocket a copy of the union questionnaire I had in my possession, you would have had even more TV fireworks. The Foley campaign has since come into possession of the same documents and released them to the media.
At issue is the "Election Year 2010 Endorsement Questionnaire" submitted to the Malloy campaign by the "Administrative And Residual Employees Union Local 4200." The Malloy camp was asked 13 questions, including several that led to Foley's accurate portrayal, during the debate. For example, on question 4, when asked, "Will you support state employee layoffs, after the gubernatorial agreement ends in July 2011," the Malloy campaign answered "We've been very clear that we have no interest in laying off state employees."
On question 2, when asked about privatization, the Malloy campaign's answer: "We are against the privatization of public services currently performed by state and municipal workers and believe that many services currently done by private contractors could be done publically at less cost and with improved results. As Mayor of Stamford, Dan de-privatized services such as garbage collection and recycling and they performed at greater savings and efficiencies."
In the same questionnaire, the Malloy campaign also came out in support of binding arbitration. When Foley also challenged Malloy on the promises he made to the Connecticut Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union, during a recent teleconference, Malloy angered again, attacking Foley as being anti teacher. It was one of the oldest attorney tricks in the books, by the long time lawyer: don't acknowledge the charge and turn the tables on your opponent. At last check, Malloy, who like Foley is a millionaire but doesn't want you to know that, still hadn't answered the question. To do otherwise, would have had required an admission that during that conference call, Malloy pledged to teachers his support for binding arbitration and underwriting the teachers' pension fund, while opposing merit pay.
Foley's point is that taxes will skyrocket under Malloy and government will grow, off of the promises Malloy has made to the unions. The former Stamford mayor knows that, which is why he's denying the existence of these deals. His platform stands in stark contract to Foley's "no tax hike pledge." It is probably why Malloy adopted his hard boiled, some might say bullying demeanor, during Tuesday's debate. Better to deflect the charges of your opponent, before a large television audience, than explain what promises have really been made, even if it makes your opponent look more statesmen like in the process.
At issue is the "Election Year 2010 Endorsement Questionnaire" submitted to the Malloy campaign by the "Administrative And Residual Employees Union Local 4200." The Malloy camp was asked 13 questions, including several that led to Foley's accurate portrayal, during the debate. For example, on question 4, when asked, "Will you support state employee layoffs, after the gubernatorial agreement ends in July 2011," the Malloy campaign answered "We've been very clear that we have no interest in laying off state employees."
On question 2, when asked about privatization, the Malloy campaign's answer: "We are against the privatization of public services currently performed by state and municipal workers and believe that many services currently done by private contractors could be done publically at less cost and with improved results. As Mayor of Stamford, Dan de-privatized services such as garbage collection and recycling and they performed at greater savings and efficiencies."
In the same questionnaire, the Malloy campaign also came out in support of binding arbitration. When Foley also challenged Malloy on the promises he made to the Connecticut Education Association, the state's largest teachers' union, during a recent teleconference, Malloy angered again, attacking Foley as being anti teacher. It was one of the oldest attorney tricks in the books, by the long time lawyer: don't acknowledge the charge and turn the tables on your opponent. At last check, Malloy, who like Foley is a millionaire but doesn't want you to know that, still hadn't answered the question. To do otherwise, would have had required an admission that during that conference call, Malloy pledged to teachers his support for binding arbitration and underwriting the teachers' pension fund, while opposing merit pay.
Foley's point is that taxes will skyrocket under Malloy and government will grow, off of the promises Malloy has made to the unions. The former Stamford mayor knows that, which is why he's denying the existence of these deals. His platform stands in stark contract to Foley's "no tax hike pledge." It is probably why Malloy adopted his hard boiled, some might say bullying demeanor, during Tuesday's debate. Better to deflect the charges of your opponent, before a large television audience, than explain what promises have really been made, even if it makes your opponent look more statesmen like in the process.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
McMahon Never Said It
Certain members of the media, miffed at their limited access to Linda McMahon, during Connecticut's contentious U.S. Senate race, have opted to take poetic license with her comments today at an impromtu press conference in East Hartford. Fresh off an appearance at a small business event, where she received the endorsement of the National Federation of Independent Business, the GOP candidate seemed to embrace the group's stance opposing a hike in the minimum wage.
At the news conference, Ted Mann, reporter with the Day of New London, asked her if the minimum wage should be reduced. McMahon, who is in a statistical dead heat with the "overwhelming" favorite, Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal, in the latest polls, refused to answer the question. Other reporters followed with similar questions and McMahon wisely would not be trapped. The media then ran with a very liberal interpretation, that McMahon supported a lowering of the minimum wage, something she never said. Thus, these journalists have placed themselves smack in the middle of the story, instead of reporting it, while seemingly demonstrating a bias favoring Blumenthal, who has also limited his media accessibility since his Vietnam fiasco.
Needless to say, the Democratic Party operatives, expending resources in a race they thought was a slamdunk, are now heating up the blogosphere with "comments" McMahon never made, the surest sign of desperation, just four days before the first debate between the two candidates.
In the 32 days leading up to this all important election, Democrats will attempt any manuever to take the electorate's eye off the ball, namely the party's poor performance. In Connecticut's case, their strategy is to motivate their liberal base to vote on Nov. 2, while hopefully picking off some independents, who now favor McMahon over Blumenthal. Their manufactured minimum wage issue, heightened by a media desperate to be a part of the story, will fail, simply because McMahon's comments ring true with so many.
Small business, the backbone of this country's economy, as we were reminded by President Obama just the other day, is flailing, especially in Connecticut, handcuffed by an anti-business state legislature, controlled in veto proof numbers by the Democrats, and an anti-business state attorney general, who just happens to be McMahon's Senate opponent. The goal is to divert attention from Blumenthal's record, because his testimony doesn't square with his record.
As the man, who lied about his Vietnam military service now boasts of lowering people's electric bills, the public witnesses rates climbing higher and higher. As the man, who claims to be the workers' best friend, embellishes how he has helped the economy with his activist approach to the position, jobs are leaving the state in droves, while the unemployment rate climbs, especially in urban areas, where double-digit jobless rates are the norm. Meanwhile, the man, who claims to be a "Washington" outsider, embraces the help of Obama and Senator Chuck Schumer. These are the questions that should be asked of the Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal.
In reality, today in East Hartford, Linda McMahon brought up concerns and issues of small business, which deserve exploration. It's an approach that obviously appears foreign to those who mistakenly believe government is the answer to all their problems.
At the news conference, Ted Mann, reporter with the Day of New London, asked her if the minimum wage should be reduced. McMahon, who is in a statistical dead heat with the "overwhelming" favorite, Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal, in the latest polls, refused to answer the question. Other reporters followed with similar questions and McMahon wisely would not be trapped. The media then ran with a very liberal interpretation, that McMahon supported a lowering of the minimum wage, something she never said. Thus, these journalists have placed themselves smack in the middle of the story, instead of reporting it, while seemingly demonstrating a bias favoring Blumenthal, who has also limited his media accessibility since his Vietnam fiasco.
Needless to say, the Democratic Party operatives, expending resources in a race they thought was a slamdunk, are now heating up the blogosphere with "comments" McMahon never made, the surest sign of desperation, just four days before the first debate between the two candidates.
In the 32 days leading up to this all important election, Democrats will attempt any manuever to take the electorate's eye off the ball, namely the party's poor performance. In Connecticut's case, their strategy is to motivate their liberal base to vote on Nov. 2, while hopefully picking off some independents, who now favor McMahon over Blumenthal. Their manufactured minimum wage issue, heightened by a media desperate to be a part of the story, will fail, simply because McMahon's comments ring true with so many.
Small business, the backbone of this country's economy, as we were reminded by President Obama just the other day, is flailing, especially in Connecticut, handcuffed by an anti-business state legislature, controlled in veto proof numbers by the Democrats, and an anti-business state attorney general, who just happens to be McMahon's Senate opponent. The goal is to divert attention from Blumenthal's record, because his testimony doesn't square with his record.
As the man, who lied about his Vietnam military service now boasts of lowering people's electric bills, the public witnesses rates climbing higher and higher. As the man, who claims to be the workers' best friend, embellishes how he has helped the economy with his activist approach to the position, jobs are leaving the state in droves, while the unemployment rate climbs, especially in urban areas, where double-digit jobless rates are the norm. Meanwhile, the man, who claims to be a "Washington" outsider, embraces the help of Obama and Senator Chuck Schumer. These are the questions that should be asked of the Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal.
In reality, today in East Hartford, Linda McMahon brought up concerns and issues of small business, which deserve exploration. It's an approach that obviously appears foreign to those who mistakenly believe government is the answer to all their problems.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
JARJURA TO SERVE OUT TERM
Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura told me on the radio this morning, that he will serve out his term. "Oh absolutely, absolutely," he answered, when I asked him it appeared he was trying to escape Waterbury, by seeking elective office this year. The Mayor flirted with running for governor, then Lt. governor, before getting trounced in Tuesday's Democratic primary for state comptroller, by convention endorsed candidate Kevin Lembo.
The mayor said he ran for state office because he is "fearful for the working people of this state." He sees a pending financial crisis, with the state facing a $3B deficit next year and he wanted to take a conservative, fiscal approach to fix the problem. The Mayor also called the proposed paid sick leave bill, supported by Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dan Malloy, anti-business.
As for reports Waterbury State's Attorney John Connelly may be under a grand jury investigation, that some are calling "explosive," Jarjura told me he was "saddened" by the story, but that is all he knows about it. He called Connelly an "extremely effective prosecutor in Waterbury for a very, very long time." He also said his administration has nothing to hide. He will open up the city's books to anyone. "In 10 years as mayor, there has not been a whisper of impropriety," he said.
The mayor said he ran for state office because he is "fearful for the working people of this state." He sees a pending financial crisis, with the state facing a $3B deficit next year and he wanted to take a conservative, fiscal approach to fix the problem. The Mayor also called the proposed paid sick leave bill, supported by Democratic gubernatorial nominee Dan Malloy, anti-business.
As for reports Waterbury State's Attorney John Connelly may be under a grand jury investigation, that some are calling "explosive," Jarjura told me he was "saddened" by the story, but that is all he knows about it. He called Connelly an "extremely effective prosecutor in Waterbury for a very, very long time." He also said his administration has nothing to hide. He will open up the city's books to anyone. "In 10 years as mayor, there has not been a whisper of impropriety," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
