January 25, 2011

Cockayne, McCauley differ on potential conflict of interest

I forgot to mention this after the City Council meeting this month, but, hey, better late than never, right?
At the end of the meeting, councilors were preparing to go into executive session to discuss some boring topics and get an update on contract negotiations with the police and fire unions.
Democratic city Councilor Kevin McCauley, a firefighter, said he would not participate in the session about the fire pact because it posed a conflict of interest.
Republican Ken Cockayne asked if McCauley planned to be involved in the closed-door talk about the police contract since it shared many of the same issues and terms.
McCauley said he would because it did not pose a conflict.
Cockayne said he disagreed, clearly stating that in his view, McCauley had a conflict.
But McCauley brushed aside the concern and did, in fact, participate in the executive session about the police contract.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

62 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cockayne, as usual, does not know what he is talking about.

But then, he is just showing his "anti" attitude without any proactive suggestions.

forgiving said...

Ken:

Please forgive McCauley. He's just too plain dumb to understand a conflict of interest.

Concerned Constructive Conservative said...

The fact that McCauley is on the city council is a conflict of interest.

Odin said...

Concerned Conservative: The voters of Bristol, whom you obviously consider yourself intellectually superior to, felt otherwise THREE TIMES. Put your big boy pants on and accept it.

Anonymous said...

Odin has it exactly right...if it was a conflict of interest for McCauley to be on the Council, the voters have had the opportunity to say so.

3:26 is also right since negotiations with the Cops hasn't even begun yet and probably won't until March.

Concerned Constructive Conservative said...

It's time for people to consider this fact before they vote in the next election. Kevin McCauley is his boss' boss. In other words he holds power as a City Councilman over the department heads in city government whom we as citizens entrust to supervise him. This is a conflict of interest and is an example of flawed and bad government.

Anonymous said...

The city employee/conflict has been brought up before, and it has been ruled that city employees can serve, and the voters have supported that.

There are individual circumstances, and I do belive McCauley is corect in his position.

But, if cockayne is so cocky, why not get a ruling.

here's to Odin said...

Only on a blog would immature, crude and combative jerks like Odin have the freedom to express themselves freely.

Thanks to Al Gore for inventing the internet!

Yes I'm registered and not a city employee said...

Way to go Ken. It's about sometime someone questioned his conflict of interest. Although, I never understood why to voters of Bristol choose to elect city employees. That to me is a conflict of interest. At least none of them live in my district.

Take back our city! said...

January 25, 2011 4:43 PM:

It would behoove you to understand who "rules" on these matters.

It's time for the voters to "rule" themselves. Don't let some liberal, union-lackey judge or Democrat controlled appointee make the rules.

Anonymous said...

City employees have a right to become elected officials. It's a democracy. That's how it works.

idiots.

Odin said...

Concerned Conservative: Oh, NOW I get it! I just did not understand why you kept ranting about what a conflict it was, but I guess I was too dumb to understand! Thanks ever so much for clearing that up for me and the other tens of thousands of Bristol voters! You really ARE intellectually superior to the rest of us!

Anonymous said...

Oh-dim:

You sound like Colapietro.

Anonymous said...

Con Con

Then how do you explain any citizen voting on the budget and mill rate: isn't that a conflict also, at least by your criteria?

And the voters have supported the election of a city employee MORE than three times: Papazian, Lavigne, McCauley.

Ken you are beating a dead horse. Must be someting that Mocabee put you up to.

Anonymous said...

Ok and here is a conflict I have with him representing me in my district. Every time Mr. McCauley has to recuse himself from a vote due to conflict of interest, am I then not loosing a voice from my elected representative from District 2? Every time he has to back out on a vote I and many loose there voice. If Bristol is based upon 3 districts and 60K people well that means 20k per district. 2 representatives in each district= 10k people. Having to back out on something that is a conflict of interest, 1/6 of the voters loose thier voice. That is democracy? I think not

Anonymous said...

This is why if you are a city employee you should not be able to serve on the Council or any Board.

If you are an employee and still want to participate attend the meetings and let your voice be heard during the public participation portion of the meetings.

Odin said...

9:17 pm - Fine. That is a valid point, and you have every right to be bothered that Kevin is not able to represent you 100% of the time. But if you find that the excellent work he does on your behalf outside the council chambers - as chair of several committees, doing constituent service, conferring with his colleagues on council issues, etc. etc. - more than makes up for him having to abstain two or three times a year, then vote for him. I do.

Odin said...

4:43 pm is absolutely right. If Cockayne thinks Kevin is out of line voting on police matters, he should ask the Ethics Board for an advisory ruling. Put up or shut up, Mad Dog.

Anonymous said...

cockayne seems desperate looking to create issues (that did not bothered him before...)he is always running with someone else's idea or his own poison...

wait, this is an election year!

Anonymous said...

sounds like something art woould have Ken do

Someone has to carry Arts water

Anonymous said...

7:38 And you sound like you. Just a voice in the dark. No courage and all mouth. You poor soul you!

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm Welch home schools . Does he have a right to vote on public education at all?

Anonymous said...

The argument of my vote is not being served is ridiculous. There are two councilpersons in a district and every single one of these councilpersons will have a conflict at one time or another due to just who they are and their backgrounds. It is absurd to say that you shouldn't run because of a potential conflict of interest. I guess then we wouldn't have any representative now, would we. If you look back on their records, every one of them has had to recuse his or herself. If there was really a lack of representation, it wouldn't be done in Bristol or anywhere else, for that matter. Every municipality has the same issue and it's dealt with. end of story.

Anonymous said...

if we really want to get nitpicky about this, then cockayne shouldn't be involved in the police negotiations. he had a beef with them back in the 90's but i guess that's okay in his eyes. mccauley is a fire fighter not a policeman. i guess cockayne hasn't been able to distinguish the difference.

Dump McCauley said...

Not only has Kevin McCauley done little or nothing for Bristol, he (one of limited ability from the start) is a political hack, who does nothing but serve himself and his allies in the Bristol Democrat Party.

concerned for O-dumb said...

O-dumb:

Don't take things so personally.

Seriously, perhaps you should remove yourself from the debate and take up something less stressful?

Anonymous said...

Odin...or should I say Craig Minor. We all know you and Zoppo are pulling the strings on McCauley and Matthews.

Anonymous said...

I agree, I see Mocabees heavy hand in this

Anonymous said...

HMMMM...

ODIN spelled backwards is NIDO!

Now I get it!

Anonymous said...

BEHOOVED the mayor is on here dont you have something to do like run the city or what ever you call what you do. Are you going to sue me.

Anonymous said...

I think the Ethics panel already gave clearance on this a few years ago when Lavigne and Myers (both cops) were on the Council. I believe the right to run for public office despite being an employee of the municipality has already been deemed acceptable on the state level as well.

The simple solution is to not vote for the person if you are of the belief that this is a conflict. But, outside of COCKayne and a few bloggers here with little else to do, it is obvious that the majority of the electorate has no issue with this. So, let's move on to more substantive matters.

Anonymous said...

January 26, 2011 9:28 AM:

McCauley needs their brains (which adds up to little anyway)

Matthews needs their political connections.

Between the four there is little common sense. That's the biggest problem.

Anonymous said...

January 26, 2011 3:47 PM:

I see no issue of more substance.

Anonymous said...

January 26, 2011 3:45 PM:

"Behooved" is Stortz's favorite word as well.

The jury is still out whether Odin is Minor. It's very possible, but I didn't think Minor could be such a jerk. Again it's entirely possible though.

Odin said...

Cockayne didn't say that McCauley's being on the Council is a conflict, just his participation in police issues. Again, Ken should put up or shut up. Ask for a ruling from the Ethics Board.

Anonymous said...

is not the whole city a conflict of interest? dem vs rep shuld it not be right verses wrong.....
public works is not responsible for plowing infront of fire hydrants.... it is ok to plow in a fire hydrant.. only the water drpt is responsible for the fire hydrants...which means only the bristol residents get shafted

Anonymous said...

I can accept the arguments on both side. Yes, it his right to serve as a councilman in this city and I am glad that he recuses himself on issues. I also agree that at one point or another many people will have a conflict of interest and have to recuse themselves from a vote. However, I believe that as a city employee the potential for conflict of interest votes is more substantial than those that do not work for the city. Ultimately if i loose my voice every 100 votes, I can deal with that. If I have to loose my voice everytime something city related that causes a potential conflict of interest with Mr. McCauley, I do have a problem with that

Anonymous said...

Least we forget we have TWO city council members that are their oss's boss...Fuller works for the Board of Education.

McCauley may recuse himself in public but behind the scenes he puts his union hack hat on.

When a City Consilor has to recuse himself the taxpayers lose a vote. While there are liberal attitudes about the individual's right to seek public office, there is a moral hazard ever present when a city emplyee becomes a city cousilor. Most towns prevent it by stating that you can be one or the other but not both.

While voters may have re-elected "conflicters" by ever reducing pluralities and when these guys pay their union brethern to vote..what do you expect?

Anonymous said...

January 17 9:15 poster has hit it out of the park on this issue. Perhaps he has defined the missing link as to why City Employees have no business being on the City Council. Yes it is there right, but it is our City. If they want to run, resign employment from the City and seek it elsewhere.

Dump McCauley 2011 said...

How about we let the people decide about McCauley and his cumulative foibles this November?

Odin said...

"Most towns prevent it by stating that you can be one or the other but not both."

Name one, in Connecticut. I don't think there is one.

Anonymous said...

COCKayne should recuse himself from voting or comenting on anything that has to do with the police department. He is the one with the conflict after his lawsuit against the police department.

The end of an error said...

O-dumb: Enough already.

Everyone with any common sense can see that McCauley's presence on the City Coucil is a conflict of interest. He should be barred from serving just as Federal employees are.

The only reason there isn't a state mandate that bars city employees like McCauley from serving is that the Legislature is controlled by Democrats who are controlled by the unions. The courts are stacked with liberal judges approved by Democrat dominated Legislatures. The is the main reason the state is $3.5 million in dept right now.

It's up to the people to correct this aforementioned error in our government by voting union pawns and public employee hacks like Kevin McCauley out of office this year.

Anonymous said...

THIS is the main reason the state is $3.5 million in debt right now.

(let me correct my typo)

Odin said...

End Of An Error: I'll stop when you will. What part about "the voters DON'T AGREE WITH YOU" don't you understand? Feel free to go on believing you know better than the people who they should vote for, but luckily you don't get to make that decision.

"It's up to the people to correct this aforementioned error in our government by voting union pawns and public employee hacks like Kevin McCauley out of office this year." Dream on. We elected him three times in a row, and we'll re-elect him another three times.

Anonymous said...

Any one with common sense except you jerks that know it all but have no balls ! The end of an error will never end as long as idiots like you are around. See folks these are you leaders?

Anonymous said...

To 4:47 before shooting you big mouth off as usual, checks Snopes and read up on the dumb statement you made. Funny how you jerks always try to twist things your way. But someday people will see that you can't deal with the truth!

Anonymous said...

The Grand List is stagnant. Bristol is going to get less aid from the state than last year. The Chamber of Commerce demands that the City hold down taxes. But when Councilmen Block and McCauley wisely tried to make absentee landlords pay for their own State-mandated fire inspections, the Chamber of Commerce goes ballistic and threatens to work against their reelection! What a bunch of hypocrites.

never give up...on dumping McCauley! said...

O-Dumb:

What part of "elections are every two years contrary to what McCauley wanted (re: the ballot questions per the charter revsion committee)" don't YOU understand?

The people clearly voted against giving Democrats like McCauley double the time to be lousy elected officials (like he is) for more than two years without a evaluation.

Ask your buddy Colapietro or Nancy Johnson what being re-elected multiple times guarantees.

It's time for Bristol to wake up and vote for a change!

end the conflict in City Hall said...

O-dumb:

Be honest with yourself please. The majority gave little thought about McCauley's city employee status because no one brought it up until Ken did.

This year that will change.

Concerned Constructive Conservative said...

It's not whether McCauley or any other city employee should be barred from serving. It's about whether a particular person is the best candidate for the job. Sure some city employees have the ability to put politics and personal interest aside to serve the greater good. We gave McCauley a chance and he's proven he is not worthy of more.

Anonymous said...

Does'nt your new Senator (at least according to your standards)have a conflict voting on all insurance proposals have a conflict being he is an insurance claims adjuster for a big time insurance company?

Anonymous said...

???????? Don't taxpayers get to vote on some contracts? Isn't that a conflict too? Grow up nitwits!

Anonymous said...

Headline "Bigfoot troops call names er speaks out?" All Republicans are alike . Just@%# stirrers!

Anonymous said...

Isn't Cockayne a taxpayer? How can he vote on taxes? Isn't that a conflict?

Anonymous said...

If you phony intelects will look at the history of Mayors alone you'll find that their were city employees there. You offer nothing but unprovable lies as usual only if you think it serves you.

Anonymous said...

to poster at February 15, 2011 8:36 AM:

It's not a conflict of interest when you pay the taxes, it's when one like McCauley is a direct beneficiary of the policy he votes on (like his pay).

Anonymous said...

6:55 Duh! doesn't paying taxes directly effect the love of your life? Bigfoot? You know the guy with the monkey hairline.

Anonymous said...

4:47 After lying did you have the decency to check out your lying statement? I seriously doubt it!

Anonymous said...

12:19 Now you know "Bigfoot" er bigmouth Cockayne can't do either. "Put up or shut up"

Anonymous said...

Seemms like Cockayne has dissapeared.

Did he get lost in a snow bank?

Mind you, I am not complainiing.

Anonymous said...

All you namecallers really hurt everyones feelings. LOL Who's afraid of hidden cowards that act like little and call names when "Nothing" suits them?