Rosenthal has a track record

Here's a little story about Jonathan Rosenthal.

*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Council mum on Rosenthal

The showdown story...
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Executive session slated to talk about Rosenthal

Tonight's City Council Revised Addenda includes an executive session to talk about the negotiations with Renaissance Downtowns, as expected,and another "to discuss personnel matters regarding Ex. Director of Bristol Development Authority.
The BDA boss is Jonathan Rosenthal, who's been a political pinata for several years.

It seems that at least some politicians are ready to take another whack at him.

*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

I never thought I'd say this, but...

You may actually want to watch tonight's City Council session.
I know, I know. That's crazy talk.
But, seriously, it appears that the council's push to have a little talk about the supposed failings of the city's economic development director, Jonathan Rosenthal, may not be held behind closed doors after all.
Instead, it may be held out in the open, right there on your tellyvision. Rosenthal apparently figures his critics have already raked him over the coals in public so why not force them to say whatever they have to say in public?
It probably makes a future lawsuit easier.
So get out the chips, make sure you've got a few cold ones ready and prepare for a rare council session that might not put you to sleep.
The meeting starts at 7 p.m. It's on Nutmeg Community Television's government channel tonight -- Channel 96 on Comcast.
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Rosenthal under fire, again

The city’s economic development director is under fire again.
Spurred in part by a recent flap between city Councilor Kate Matthews and Jonathan Rosenthal, the city’s economic development chief, councilors are eyeing ways to light a fire under Rosenthal.
While it isn’t clear what might happen at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, councilors have been talking privately among themselves for a couple of weeks about what they can do about Rosenthal, whom some of them regard as an obstacle to the city’s growth. Click here for the story.
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

More Rosenthal emails to Matthews

Here are a few emails from last week's exchange between Jonathan Rosenthal, the city's economic development director, and city Councilor Kate Matthews that I didn't have on Friday:

From Rosenthal to Matthews

8:24 on 2/11

Subject: Fwd: Re: BDA issue re Tom Read 151 High Street Grant/Lien

Perhaps you might consider that I am following instructions of the mayor. [Emphasis in the original.]

Again i might suggest that this might have transpired a bit more smoothly if it had begun with a personal phone call to me.  I am actually a friendly and helpful person but I also have rules and orders to follow.  I would ask that you please give that some consideration in your judgment of me.

From Rosenthal to Matthews

12:05 on 2/11

I REPEAT that I did exactly as instructed by the Mayor.

I responded to you the way I was told to. [Emphasis in the original.]

Following instructions is the way I typically carry out the duties of my position.

I regret that my following instructions would be interpreted as being impolite, negative or worse.

I have absolutely nothing to gain by ticking you off.  I agree that it is unfortunate.

I would ask that you consider for just a moment that I am actually stuck in the middle?

Perhaps we can start over.  May I suggest that we start our communications with a phone call when you need something from this department.  My direct number is 860-584-6185.  May also suggest that emails not be broadcast to the entire Council unless there is a particular reason to do so?  Perhaps you can appreciate that when the email is sent out to everyone in the first place that I might wish to communicate my version to those same people.

I would like to start over.  How about meeting face to face at your convenience? OR a phone call?

Jonathan

From Rosenthal to Matthews:

12:28 on 2/11

Subject: Fwd: Re: BDA issue re Tom Read 151 High Street Grant/Lien

The information given to the Mayor.  (The same information that the Mayor said he wanted to provide to you.)

Mr. Read came in Monday morning at the about the time I received your email.

Mr. Read became threatening.

I called an attorney in to look at his request.

Mr. Read upon questioning said that signing the grant agreement was his free act and deed.

While the agreement may or may not constitute a "lien" it is an "encumbrance."

The attorney, after listening to Mr. Read's explanations for more than an hour said the bank is not legally prohibited from giving Mr. Read a second mortgage loan because of the grant agreement.

We wrote a "To Whom it May Concern" letter for the benefit of his lender explaining that he was in compliance and the terms under which the encumbrance is forgiven on an annual basis along with the schedule.

It was also explained once again that Mr. Read could ask for a waiver from the BDA Board on February 22, 2010 and provide them with reasons sufficient to determine his cause for release.  (This is by no means guaranteed.)

If the bank insists that the encumbrance be removed , he also has the option of paying off the encumbrance today at $3,250.

In the future I will insist to the Mayor that I be allowed to share the information desired.

It is my continuing desire to be forthcoming whenever possible.

By the way, I edited one of the emails to remove Rosenthal's direct line at City Hall and put his office phone line instead.

*******

Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Matthews-Rosenthal spat plays out in emails

The following are copies of emails sent back and forth this week between city Councilor Kate Matthews and Jonathan Rosenthal, the city's economic development director. I can't say for sure that I have copies of all of them, but I obtained at least many of the relevant emails. I have a Freedom of Information request filed for all of them, just in case.
The entire back-and-forth was CC'd to the entire City Council, city lawyers and others. Many people have copies.
Now all of you do, too:

From Kate Matthews 2/8/2010 8:53 AM
To Jonathan Rosenthal, economic development director; Mayor Art Ward; and Debbie Shapiro (BDA)
Gentlemen and Ms. Shapiro:
On Saturday, I received a phone call from Tom Read, of 151 High Street in Bristol. He obtained a grant from the City in 2004 to help him reroof his historic, Federal Hill home. Now, he and his wife seek to refinance their home, but are apparently unable to do so because the City has a "lien" on their home, arising out of this grant. According to Mr. Read, he has sought from the BDA (through Ms. Shapiro and Mr. Rosenthal) a "subordination" of this lien, which could clear title to the property and enable the Reads to take out a second mortgage. Mr. Read has represented to me that there is substantial equity in the home, approximately $45,000 even after the refinance, sufficient to provide the City with security for the $2,600 lien (which reduces by 10% every year the Reads occupy the home and will extinguish itself in four years).
Based upon what I've been told by Mr. Read, as set forth in his attached letter and grant document, this seems like a reasonable request to me. Subordinating the lien won't cost the City a dime, but will have a tremendous positive effect on the lives of Mr. and Nrs. Read, who are long-time Bristol residents who plan to live out the rest of their lives in their High Street home.
Mr. Read has informed me that time is of the essence, as the Reads had originally planned to close tomorrow afternoon. As you can see in his letter, he requested that a subordination be executed by the end of the day today. I advised Mr. Read that City government requires time to deliberate issues like these, and that his deadline did not appear to me to be feasible. Nevertheless, I wish to convey to you the urgency of the Reads' position.
Mr. Mayor, for your information, Mr. Read told me that he planned to stop by your office today to discuss this matter with you.
Thank you for your assistance. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. As well, I would appreciate it if you could keep me informed as to the status of this matter.
Sincerely,
Kate Matthews

From Jonathan Rosenthal 02/08/10 2:26 PM
Dear Councilwoman* Matthews:
I met with Mr. Read this morning and the Mayor Ward this morning and the matter has been dealt with.
Jonathan Rosenthal, AICP, CEcD
Executive Director
Bristol Development Authority
*The official title is Councilman but it seems impolite to me.


From Tom Read to Kate Matthews
Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:35 AM
Subject: Possible solution
Hi Kate,
I believe that I may have a possible solution to the impasse between me and the BDA. My solution is quite simple, but I'll need to speak with the Tax Collector tomorrow in order to confirm that it is a workable plan. What I have in mind is to advance pay our property taxes in the amount of $3250. This is a little less than two years advance tax payment. In the past, the Bristol Tax Collector would receive advance payments and keep them credited to the taxpayer's tax record so I don't believe that is a problem. Then, once each year I'll short pay our taxes in the amount of $650 until the tax surplus is extinguished in 5 years. The plan would require an agent of the City to be present holding a release upon the Grant agreement that was filed upon the Land Records of our home, and to accept the check for $3250.
I like this approach because my wife and I did qualify for the grant in 2004, and we are entitled to its full benefit -- one way or the other. I regret that I'll be paying interest upon my own money, but that is far better than giving it back to the BDA who have already said that if I did so in order to release the cloud upon our title it could not be refunded. Mr. Rosenthal may not like the solution because the funds are out of his reach, but I'm sure he can come up with a creative plan and instrument to place a cloud upon the Tax Collectors office. Meanwhile, the City has the funds in its coffers at all times. Mr. Rosenthal's personal inability to respect the common dignity, privacy, and property rights, of this family will not ever be an issue again.
My wife and I are highly stressed at this time. She fears that I may charge a windmill (I will not), and I am frustrated about all the difficulty that attempting to access our own ample equity has caused. As an example, my credit rating has dropped 10 points in the past month due to the credit report inquiries in December, January, and now February, that have resulted from our mortgage attempts. This plan would at least get this matter over, and we could conserve some measure of benefit from the so-called Grant.
Your reaction would be greatly appreciated if you have a few moments to comment. Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Tom Read

From Matthews to Rosenthal
2/10/2010 8:23 AM
Dear Jonathan,
In the future, I would appreciate it if you would provide a little more detail rather than summarily stating that a particular matter into which I have inquired has been "dealt with". That is not a sufficient response, especially when I have taken the time to address the matter in detail for your reference and convenience. Furthermore, it does not necessarily represent the "status" of the matter, which is what I asked for. By way of example, this particular matter has clearly not been "dealt with", as evidenced by the fact that Mr. Read sent me the enclosed email at 12:26 this morning. Please address and provide me with a brief but informative update. Thank you for your assistance.
Kate


From Rosenthal to Matthews
02/10/10 7:58 AM

Dear Councilwoman Matthews:
Perhaps it would interest you that Mr. Read came in here and presented himself in an intimidating manner. I reported that to the police chief.
You might find some of his history documented on the internet.
And although it would be much easier to remain silent on this matter, so please forgive me being straightforward, may I suggest, with all humility and sincerity, that a ppersonal phone discussion is the most appropriate way to address complex matters?
As with many complaints, there may be additional information that would be helpful to know before rendering an opinion.
The staff has acted appropriately and followed the both guidelines and precedent. I fully back the staff's handing of this matter.
The Chairman of the BDA Policy Committee has been fully briefed and is in support of staff responses.
Mr. Read had the ability to appeal to the Board which meets on the 22nd of month, and was advised so, a date which was not to his liking.
Regardless, I am sorry if you are unhappy with the response but if you would like more information you will need to speak to Mayor Ward.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Rosenthal

From Matthews to Rosenthal
2/10/2010 3:03 PM

Jonathan,
If your response requires a personal phone call, then I expect you to make it. Either you are or you are not available to answer questions posed directly to you by members of the City Council regarding BDA matters. I have no issue with how your staff handled the matter with Mr. Read. I am concerned solely with your conduct and the tenor of your recent e-mails. If there are further updates to be made on this BDA matter, I expect you - not the Mayor = to keep me apprised. After all, he is very busy doing his own job and should not also be burdened with the duties of your position.
Kate Matthews

From Rosenthal to Matthews
02/11/10 9:01 AM
Dear Councilwoman Matthews,
Please let me make it clear to you and all those you been sharing this with that I have responded to as instructed by the mayor. The MAYOR wanted to update you and it isn't my place to circumvent his wishes. When Councilman Cockayne called me I answered all his questions. I am both a helpful and responsive person who also tries to follow instructions. The Mayor became involved by the nature of your first email communication.
While I appreciate your desire for a more detailed response, I feel I am being placed in a no-win situation -- to follow the rules, respond as you wish, and to follow orders. I don't understand why this little drama is being played out before the entire City Council. It's really simple and I really do want to be helpful and I think
you really would benefit by speaking with the mayor as he suggested rather than suggesting anything about my conduct which has been above board and appropriate.
I called you and left you a phone message a few moments ago. I would have avoided an additional email but I think it's important that the other members of the Council know that I am trying to respond appropriately and that I really am responding appropriately to the citizen.
Thank you for your consideration. I would certainly like to do anything I can to repair this mis-communication. Please consider calling.
Jonathan Rosenthal

From Matthews to Rosenthal
Jonathan,
You put this email chain before the entire City Council when you hit "reply all" and sent your puzzling, condescending, and substantively inadequate email to me on February 8, 2010 at 3:26 p.m.
Respectfully, I have recently spoken to Mayor Ward, who has informed me that you should be responding to my direct inquiries in this particular BDA matter, as that is part of your job. You'll excuse me if I take him at his word.
I reported this BDA matter to you on Monday, February 8, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. In that email, I asked to be kept apprised of the status of this matter. As I stated in a prior email to you, if your response to my request requires a personal phone call, then I expect you to make it. Your attempt to call me for the first time today, after three days of antagonistic emails, and then report to the Mayor and City Council that you are being helpful and responsive, is both disingenuous and transparent.
I made a simple request. Not only have you failed to respond to my request, you've turned what could have been a polite and professional interaction between us into something less than pleasant. That is unfortunate.
I sincerely hope that your behavior and negative attitude, as evidenced by your emails, is not representative of the way you typically carry out the duties of your position.
Kate Matthews
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Rosenthal's new office?

Touring the old Armory this morning, we walked past a row of rooms with steel bars and locking doors -- one of them clearly used to store ammunition back in the day.
Pointing to one that's painted with light blue, Mayor Art Ward turned to the city's economic development director, Jonathan Rosenthal.
"Jonathan, your new office," the mayor said, his hand sweeping to show off the prison cell-like room.
Rosenthal managed to muster a smile.
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

City runs out of economic development dollars

The city owes companies that have received economic development grants about $70,000 more than it has in the account to pay the bills.

City Comptroller Glenn Klocko said the fund has $200,000 in it, but the city already owes $270,000 to companies that have been lured into expanding in Bristol or moving town during the past couple of years.

Klocko said it isn't really a serious problem.

He said the city's economic development director, Jonathan Rosenthal, plans to ask the Board of Finance for an additional $150,000 in order to replenish the account.

Klocko said it shouldn't be controversial since everyone has an interest in seeing more growth in Bristol.

What the problem does show, however, is how tight budgeting and a lack of oversight can lead to an embarrassing situation.

Klocko said the city hasn't put any money into the economic development fund for the past three years. That proved a mistake, he said, because Rosenthal has managed to beat the bushes far more successfully than officials anticipated. [Click here for a list of companies that have received grants in 2008 and 2009.]

All of the money involved has been fully accounted for, Klocko said.

The firms that are owned money, he said, will get it.

"We pay our bills," Klocko said.

He said the finance board will likely take the $150,000 needed for economic development from the contingency fund, leaving about $800,000 for other unanticipated needs.

The comptroller said that his office plans "to beef up internal controls" so it will know if similar fiscal issues arise in the future.

Klocko said that a couple of people in the Bristol Development Authority office will also be trained on the city financial database so they can track the spending better.

Klocko said that some have criticized Rosenthal for allowing the situation to occur, but that's not really fair.

He said the city is short because Rosenthal has been so successful in aggressively seeking new companies for Bristol. Klocko said his job is "to go out there and bird dog" potential firms.

In fact, the city is making sure it has more than $70,000 it knows it needs because it figures at least one other company is likely to agree to come to town in a few months because of Rosenthal's efforts.

Klocko said he knows the money situation appears to be a problem. But, he said, it's really not.

It's like spending $950 on Christmas presents with a credit card knowing that the paycheck in December will cover the tab.

Still, Klocko said, "we are immediately remedying the situation."

Wednesday, 10:30 a.m. update -- Read the full story that appeared in today's Press by clicking here.

I should point out, too, that some comments so far have missed an essential point: that the city gives out some money to help lure new businesses. If the account is short of cash, the city would be foolish to refrain from giving out more money and perhaps losing a new company to another town. Instead, it simply has to take the cash from a different account. That's just bookkeeping. It's not something intrinsically irresponsible.

If I had a jar where I was shoving bills to pay for a future vacation in Cancun, say, it wouldn't be crazy for me to grab a great deal that costs more than I have in the jar if it would ultimately save me money -- as long as I have the extra money somewhere else. The city, of course, does.

I, on the other hand, don't. So it appear Cancun will have to get along without me. I could, though, scrape together enough to get a hot dog and a beer in, say, Waterbury. It's not quite the same thing.

*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Rosenthal suspended by mayor

The city’s economic development director, Jonathan Rosenthal, was suspended without pay for five days recently because he failed to show up for a meeting with the mayor and executives of Theis Precision Steel.

The $96,551-a-year head of the Bristol Development Agency was charged with “neglect of duty” by Mayor Art Ward and kept home last week without pay for missing the April 23 session.

Rosenthal, who lost about $1,800 because of the suspension, is appealing the penalty through his union. He said he could not comment on the issue.

“We did what we had to do,” Ward said. “It’s been handled.”

Rosenthal has been under fire for several years, first by Mayor William Stortz and then by Ward, who was the development director’s chief backer during the Stortz years.

Stortz sought to fire Rosenthal, whom he considered sloppy in his work and too often tardy or uncommunicative, but Ward was among the councilors who refused to go along with the move.

Since taking the mayor’s office in 2002, however, Ward has slapped a one-day working suspension on Rosenthal and issued a blistering memorandum about the development chief for skipping an earlier meeting without permission.

A review of Rosenthal’s personnel file -- which the city opened in compliance with a Freedom of Information request filed by The Bristol Press -- shows a mounting case against the development director with steadily increasing penalties.

Three different mayors -- Ward, Stortz and Gerard Couture -- have placed negative memorandums in the 15-year veteran official’s personnel file, though Couture also put a ringing defense of Rosenthal in the file shortly before Stortz took the city’s helm in 2005.

It is unclear whether other department heads have documented track records of missed meetings and other alleged violations of city policy, but it is certainly true that Rosenthal is not alone in failing to show up for scheduled sessions on occasion. Typically, though, there are no long-term consequences.

Rosenthal, however, has been a political piñata since at least the Couture administration, when he absorbed much criticism for the decision to buy the downtown mall and for the long delay in getting a new industrial park underway on Middle Street.

Couture said in his memo defending Rosenthal that the development director “handled his assignments well and with good humor.”

“I trust that in the future he will be evaluated on his professional performance and not political grounds,” Couture wrote.

With the exception of Couture’s memo, there is nothing in the file to indicate that Rosenthal has ever been evaluated on whether or not he’s done a good job keeping and attracting business to town, which is his chief function in city government.

Former Mayor Frank Nicastro, who was Rosenthal’s boss for a decade, frequently said that Rosenthal performed well in his duties.

 

Blasted by the mayor

When Jonathan Rosenthal, the city’s economic development director, skipped a Board of Finance meeting in January, Mayor Art Ward got mad.

In a memorandum he wrote to Rosenthal on Feb. 2, Ward said that Rosenthal’s voice mail explaining the absence “was unacceptable.”

“Your flippant and cavalier attitude with regard to the reason for your absence from the meeting was disrespectful and unprofessional,” Ward wrote.

The mayor said that Rosenthal’s job sometimes demands “your time and attention” even when it conflicts with what the development director perceives to be “normal life.”

Ward said he would not tolerate anything less than prompt and respectful reasons for any future missed meetings.

 

Timeline of Rosenthal’s alleged transgressions

1994 - Jonathan Rosenthal hired as the executive director the Bristol Development Authority

Aug. 2004 - Mayor Gerard Couture cites Rosenthal for being late to a project meeting.

“You are often late for work and late for meetings,” Couture wrote, adding that Rosenthal’s tardiness “is a poor reflection on both you and the city.”

Oct. 2007 - Mayor William Stortz said in a memorandum that Rosenthal missed a scheduled meeting with visitors from China.

“This was a definite insult to not only my office, who was hosting our visitors, but more importantly to our visitors themselves,” Stortz wrote.

He issued Rosenthal “an oral reprimand.”

Oct. 2007 - In another memo, Stortz gave Rosenthal a written reprimand for leaving a Post-It note on the mayor’s secretary’s computer to say he would like the following day off “so that I can do some yard work.”

Rosenthal took the day off without seeking approval or an answer to the note, Stortz charged.

March 2008 - Ward issued a one-day working suspension to Rosenthal.

 

A March 2008 memo from Ward

In a March 26, memorandum from Mayor Art Ward to Rosenthal, the mayor complained that Rosenthal set up a meeting with Steve Rejniak six days earlier and then failed to show up for it. Here is an excerpt from the memo:

“I attended the meeting and when you did not show up, I contacted my assistant, Mary Suchopar, and directed her to contact your office to find out where you were. Shortly after her call to your office, you came to the mayor’s office, appearing flush in your face and you began to yell at Mary.

“You were screaming loudly, pointing at a piece of paper you were holding and also pointing at Mary.

“A summary of your comments to her were that ‘if you didn’t know about these appointments and they’re not in your book, then how are you supposed to be there.’

“Another city employee was a witness to this incident.

“As for your non-attendance at the meeting with Mr. Rejniak, such neglect of duty is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

“As a representative of the city whose primary function is economic development, it is imperative that you represent the city in a positive and professional manner.

“Certainly, your actions did not favorably represent your city or further our economic development relations in the community.

“As for your interaction with Mary, your behavior was completely unacceptable. Your actions were rude, ill-mannered, disrespectful to her and to me, and will not be tolerated.

“As a result of your neglect of duty and for your inappropriate behavior toward Mary, you are being issued a one-day working suspension.

“Be advised that further infractions will result in more severe disciplinary action which can include an unpaid suspension or termination of employment.”

*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Rosenthal, Klocko on the radio this afternoon

If you're hard up for entertainment, two key city officials -- Comptroller Glenn Klocko and Jonathan Rosenthal, the economic development director -- are going to be interviewed live on WDRC starting at 2 p.m. WDRC is on the AM dial at 1360.
*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

New industrial park is nearly finished

The city’s new industrial park beside the former Superior Electric Factory is “essentially complete,” said Mike Rivers, chairman of the Bristol Development Authority’s industrial committee.
One company has already bought a lot in the Southeast Bristol Industrial Park and another is likely to buy a second soon, officials said.
The combined industrial park has about a dozen lots, ranging from a little more than an acre in size to 11 acres.
Though there have been problems along the way, from a too-early start on construction that devastated protected wetlands to misaligned roads that had to be fixed, the most serious appear to be resolved.
The city has received complaints from neighboring condominium owners who would like to see a better buffer between the industrial park and their homes.
Ray Rogozinski, an assistant city engineer, said that some are concerned about young people using ATVs on the city-owned land and cutting through the condominiums. The condo owners have suggested a fence.
But Rivers said that a fence would be costly. He said that the city has complied with the promises it made about leaving a buffer between the park and the nearby residences.
Rogozinski said that the trees and bushes have been left in the buffer area, but are “a little thin” in appearance in spots. He said the city might be able to transplant some small trees to fill in the gaps a bit.
Officials said that the problems will likely cease once there are tenants to fill the industrial park.
“Once we get tenants in there, it will be different,” Rivers said.
The city will probably close off the new industrial park road until there is a need to open it, officials said, to help limit use of the property in the meantime.
Jonathan Rosenthal, the city’s economic development director, said he will ask the police to monitor the problem and issue warnings and tickets as required.
The first tenant in the new park will be CMI Specialty Products, which makes electro-magnetic iron products, and plans to begin constructing an 11,000-square-foot headquarters at the corner of Redstone Hill Road and Business Park Drive within days.
It paid $137,475 for the lot this summer.
Rosenthal said that it “looks pretty solid” that a second company will buy a lot soon.
There is a third firm eyeing the possibility of erecting a 55,000-square-foot building on the site, Rosenthal said, but it’s not a sure thing. It’s been talking with the city for two years, Rosenthal said.
The industrial park was built in two phases, each of them nearly finished.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

No to chief operating officer, says Rimcoski

Veteran Republican city Councilor Mike Rimcoski said Tuesday he won’t support the proposal to create a chief operating officer at City Hall.
Rimcoski said he didn’t like the idea of a city manager and by opting instead for a junior version of the job “they haven’t done anything to change my mind.”
After weighing arguments made by businessman Craig Yarde in favor of a charter change to allow the new full-time position, Rimcoski said he’s simply not convinced.
He said he respects Yarde as a businessman, but can’t forget that Yarde moved his metal distribution company to Southington.
“The guy moved out of town,” said Rimcoski, one of two GOP council members.
Rimcoski said he was particularly unconvinced with Yarde’s defense of Jonathan Rosenthal, the city’s economic development director, whom Yarde has praised often.
Yarde “moved out of Bristol because of a failure” of the Bristol Development Authority, Rimcoski said. He called Rosenthal’s handling of the effort to build a new industrial park “a fiasco.”
The industrial park beside the former Superior Electric on Middle Street was originally envisioned, in part, as a possible location for Yarde Metals to expand.
But when an eminent domain legal case involving the Bugryn family got tied up in court for years, Yarde moved out of town rather than wait.
Rimcoski said that when the case dragged out, “we never had a plan B” to keep Yarde Metals.
“Only later did I realize we never had a plan A either,” Rimcoski said.
But the industrial park that’s under construction now is essentially the same one that former Mayor Frank Nicastro declared essential more than a decade ago. Officials said the city needed prime industrial lots in order to lure new factories to town.
Yarde said recently that a good argument for creating a chief operating officer is to make sure department heads such as Rosenthal are closely supervised.
Yarde said that Rosenthal did well working with him and he’s been impressed with the development director’s efforts over the years.
“If Mr. Yarde is so enthralled with Mr. Rosenthal, I think he should try to hire him,” Rimcoski said.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Yarde weighs in on city management problems

Businessman Craig Yarde weighed in recently with a couple of interesting comments on another post. I want to make sure everyone sees them, so here they are:

First time to the Bristol Blog.
I wish everyone would use their real names rather than anonymous. I tried to post a comment a few days ago using my name Craig Yarde but it never went through. Maybe because I didn't know my URL, whatever that is. So I'll try anonymous and see if it makes it.
My main reason I like a city manager or COO is because I feel the last four Mayors who I know personally did not manage their twenty one direct reports. One Mayor told me he spent half his week hearing citizens complaints. We all know the ceremonial responsibilities and meetings the Mayor has to perform under the city charter. I would say a Mayor has a sixty hour plus week without ever managing his twenty one direct reports. Having running Yarde Metals for over 30 years, managing my direct reports was the hardest thing I had to do. It's a tough job to review everyone twice a year and have meetings with each one every few weeks to see how he/she is performing the goals and objectives
for each department. I had six associates reporting to me. I can't imagine what would happen if I had twenty one associates reporting to me and not meeting with them at all. Let me give you an example what happens when you don't manage your people. Under Mayor Stortz, it well documented in the Bristol Press about his issues with the BDA department head Jonathan Rosenthal.
There was also concerns about Jonathan's performance with the previous two administrations. Personally, I think he did a good job, but i was the customer not the boss. Well, Mayor Stortz bypassed the BDA and formed another committee to handle the mall project. Jonathan had already did the RFQ for the new mall project. Jonathan who makes about $100,000 per year job was in limbo for these two years as they bypassed him. The mayor asked me to be on this committee which I agreed until I found out he was bypassing the BDA. I respectfully told him I didn't agree with what he was doing and refused to be on the new mall committee. They have budgeted three hundred and fifty thousand dollars
for legal fees to set this committee up along with other expenses. Since the pass four mayors have not at all managed their twenty one direct reports their was nothing in Jonathans personnel file. No reviews, no verbal warnings, no written warnings, nothing at all. So there was no valid argument to dismiss him. Knowing the laws, I would guess it will cost the city anywhere from $500,000 to a million dollars to dismiss Jonathan Rosenthal. The main reason is he was managed so poorly. My question to fellow bloggers is what do you think the mayor should do at this
point to handle this individual. A very difficult situation. Can you see the legal difficulty by not managing you direct reports. There was a recent department head that sued the city for $250,000 dollars for the same reason. All I want is to protect the city and prevent our tax dollars from getting wasted for lack of management. We are talking some very serious money here that gets wasted. Your tax dollars.If know of any other areas were money has been squandered. Please email me at hirecoo@gmail.com Thank you.

And there's this one, too:
I did not include Leone in my remarks and by the way he is a strong supporter of the Charter Revision Committee to create a COO position. I know Artie has recently put some warnings in Jonathan's file but the horse is out of the barn. Because Frank, Couture and Bill has never given any reviews, no verbal and no written warnings and have given very little direction to department heads, the stage is already set. I have heard rumors of antisemitic remarks and one mayor grabbing Jonathan's ass but it's only hearsay at this stage. It will all come out in the wash when Bristol decides to do something with his employment. What we have here is lifetime employment in the city unless we decide to pay him to leave and that will be big bucks. I didn't say anything about public impute to the mall or nothing being accomplished. What I'm saying is we are not managing the people side of the city business which will get the city in big law suits in the future unless we let everyone have lifetime employment. Is that what we want?
Craig Yarde

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Cockayne v. Rosenthal

Republican city Councilor Ken Cockayne said he voted against the reappointment of Jonathan Rosenthal, the city's economic development director, because "it was really time for a change."
Cockayne, who serves on the Bristol Development Authority and will need to work with Rosenthal closely, said that he doesn't think the vote will have an impact on their relationship.
"He was always a pleasure to work with," Cockayne said, and he's confident that they'll continue to get along.
But it didn't take long after the vote for a public flareup to indicate that might be optimistic.
During discussion about a BDA contract change, the freshman councilor griped that the council wasn't given enough information by Rosenthal.
When Rosenthal said that Cockayne had heard all about it at the BDA, the coucilor snapped, "We're at the council, we're not at the BDA."
After Rosenthal restated much the same thing he'd just said, Cockayne stared at him.
"We can dance all night if you want," Cockayne told the development director.
Later, Cockayne explained that he wasn't going to back down.
"He came back at me," Cockayne said, but he needed to answer the question.
Cockayne added that Rosenthal "has a tendency to pass the buck. Any issues were never his fault. It was always somebody else."
Cockayne said that when someone errs, they ought to say so, not make excuses.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Rosenthal no longer in limbo

After keeping the city’s economic development director in limbo for 20 months, city councilors Tuesday approved his reappointment by a 4-3 vote.
Jonathan Rosenthal, who is the executive director of the Bristol Development Authority, smiled broadly but declined to say anything after the vote.
“It was in the best interest of the city of Bristol,” Mayor Art Ward.
City Councilor Frank Nicastro, a former mayor who appointed Rosenthal 14 years ago, said that “it was wrong to get bogged down” with a long fight about the reappointment.
“The city has to move forward,” Nicastro said.
Rosenthal’s detractors had plenty to say at the council session, especially two members of the Bugryn family that lost its homes when Rosenthal pushed for the use of eminent domain to take their land for an industrial park.
Michael Dudko, one of the family members who had to move out, called Rosenthal “a rogue bureaucrat” who had acted unethically in pursuing the ouster of his family from their Middle Street property.
Ed Dudko, his brother, said that Rosenthal is not worth his $94,000-a-year salary. He said it was time for the Easton resident to go.
But the council, which tabled Rosenthal’s reappointment last month, opted this time around to back him.
Though neither Councilor Cliff Block nor Councilor Craig Minor would explain their decision to support Rosenthal, they each said that questions they’d had have been answered to their satisfaction.
It appears that a report issued last week about the real estate contract given by Rosenthal and the city to Realtor Ken Johnson to help the Bugryns in 2002 and 2003 made the difference. The report essentially cleared Rosenthal of doing anything wrong.
One councilor who voted no, city Councilor Kevin McCauley, called the probe by Personnel Director Diane Ferguson “a lackluster investigation that I felt was incomplete.”
Two Republican councilors, Mike Rimcoski and Ken Cockayne, also voted against Rosenthal. They did not offer an explanation.
Rosenthal’s reappointment was held up by former Mayor William Stortz since April 2006. Stortz did not seek Rosenthal’s removal and he did not ask the council to vote on reappointment.
He simply did nothing, despite constant complaints from then-councilor Ward to take action one way or the other.
Ward, after his election as mayor, asked the council to reappoint Rosenthal. But it was tabled pending the completion of the report by Ferguson.
Nicastro said that he’s confident Rosenthal will do well.
He said that Ward “will make sure Jonathan is doing his job to the fullest.”

***********
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Rosenthal wins reappointment

After a year and a half in limbo, the city's economic development director, Jonathan Rosenthal, was reappointed to his position by a 4-3 vote a few minutes ago.
Mayor Art Ward cast the tiebreaking vote.
Both Republican city councilors and Democrat Kevin McCauley voted against his reappointment.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Stories shed light on Ken Johnson contract

I found a handful of news stories that reporter Jackie Majerus wrote in 2002 and 2003 that provide more information about the contract that Ken Johnson had with the BDA than anything the city has provided so far.
I don't expect many will want to read all of these stories, but I'll try to highlight the sections that refer specifically to Ken Johnson's contract with the BDA to help the Bugryns find new housing in 2002 and 2003. There's quite a bit there to show what he was doing at the time -- and at the very least, it shows that his contract was well known at the time.

Friday, August 09, 2002

By JACKIE MAJERUS
The Bristol Press
BRISTOL – After spending four years fighting the city over their family’s Middle Street homestead, the Bugryn family is asking for help in finding another place to live.
But although the family may be resigned to moving, they’re not happy about it.
“My mother still does not want to leave this house,” said Michael Dudko Jr., whose parents were two of the five owners of 299 Middle St. “She wanted to die in the home [where] she spent most of her life.”
Three of the four households involved in the eminent domain case with the city have requested relocation assistance, according to Jonathan Rosenthal, Bristol’s economic development director.
Frank Bugryn, the eldest of the four siblings and spouses who live on the property, called Rosenthal to say he would accept the city’s offer to help find the family new housing. He and his wife and grown son live at 269 Middle St.
He also heard from the Dudkos and Nellie Filipetti, Rosenthal said, who live at 299 Middle St.
“We’ve hired someone to find replacement housing,” said Rosenthal. “They’re expected to be out in August.”
The youngest brother, John Bugryn, who also lived at 299 Middle St., has already moved out into a convalescent home, said Rosenthal.
Dudko said his family hasn’t started looking for a new place yet, but are going along with the relocation “with great reluctance.”
“This is going to split the whole family up,” said Dudko, who said the city is using the houses against the family.
“It’s not necessary to move us,” Dudko said. “The industrial park won’t be occupied for years.”
The acceptance of the relocation help comes as a relief to the city after years of fighting with the family over the use of eminent domain to take the more than 30 acres of land for an industrial park.
Help finding a new home “has been offered for several years,” said Rosenthal. “Until the last several weeks, the only folks I ever spoke to were their attorneys. I’m glad they’re doing it.”
State law requires that the city provide help to those who are uprooted with the use of eminent domain, said Rosenthal, but he said there is a limit on how long it is available.
“I guess you have to cooperate,” Dudko said, but he added, “I hope the city government would have some compassion.”
Dudko said his mother, Mary Dudko, is 77 and his father, Michael Dudko Sr., is 75.
“They don’t have too much longer to live,” the younger Dudko said. He said his parents and their older brother and sister should have had the choice to stay in the house for the remainder of their lives, if they wished. The city could build the industrial park around the houses, Dudko said.
“Their homes shouldn’t have been linked to the land,” said Dudko.
Early discussions with the city included allowing the elderly family members to remain on the land for the rest of their lives or moving the old farmhouse to another location, but a deal was never reached.
“They did offer to move the house,” said Dudko, but he said that wouldn’t have been easy on its old inhabitants, either.
“It’s still a great disruption for them,” Dudko said.
More than two years ago, the city took possession of the Middle Street property, but the family continued to wage a losing court battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case and thus ended the appeals.
The legal fight continues, however, over how much the city must pay for the property. It could be finished by the end of this year.
So far, the city has put aside about $1.2 million toward the purchase, but the family wants more and the two sides have not been able to reach a compromise.
While the legal battles continue, the family has remained on the property, living there without the burden or rent or property taxes, but being responsible for minor upkeep.
The city is going beyond the state requirements to help the Bugryns, according to Rosenthal.
“We certainly understand that we’re relocating elderly people,” said Rosenthal. He said the city wants the family to have extra help if they need it, so the aid is more than simply moving boxes from one site to another.
“We want a complete level of assistance given to them,” Rosenthal said. “It’s more than the law requires. It’s a matter of simple respect.”
Rosenthal said the city hired real estate broker Ken Johnson, who is working at an hourly rate.
“The maximum we’ll spend is $5,000,” Rosenthal said.
The house at 269 Middle St. is a three bedroom ranch home, built by Frank Bugryn. It is a separate property from the family farmhouse, which was owned by all the siblings.
The city is scheduled to go to court with Frank Bugryn next week to determine a price for the ranch house. The city’s offered about $90,000 for the property.
“Our numbers aren’t terribly far apart,” said Rosenthal.
Rosenthal said he hopes an agreement can be reached before taking it to court.
“It’s a shame to spend the time, money and court costs,” Rosenthal said. “We’re hoping to avoid that.”
The tentative court date to determine the price on the larger property at 299 Middle St., Rosenthal said, is set late in October.
The city isn’t doing any work on the property now, Rosenthal said.
-30-

Tuesday, October 01, 2002

By JACKIE MAJERUS
The Bristol Press
BRISTOL – The city and the Bugryn family are going back to court, this time to fight over the date the family has to vacate their former Middle Street property and how much – if anything – they have to pay the city for staying there until they leave.
“We’re trying to get more time to find a place,” said Frank Bugryn, the eldest of four siblings who for years fought the city’s use of eminent domain to take the family’s homestead and his own small ranch style home.
“It’s stressful,” said Bugryn, who with his siblings has taken the case with the city to housing court. The city is evicting the family from the property, which Bristol took more than two years ago, and is demanding payment from the Bugryns if they remain.
Attorney Richard Lacey, who represents the city, said it is only fair that the family start paying something for staying in the houses. The city has potential liabilities, Lacey said, and has to pay insurance on the property.
“I think it’s appropriate that they do not continue to live for free,” said Lacey.
The city set the “use and occupancy fee” at $500 a month for each of two apartments in the old farmhouse and $700 a month for the ranch house.
Jonathan Rosenthal, the city’s economic development director, said the charges are based on low to moderate income rents in Hartford County.
Lacey said he’d like the fees to begin this month, but said, “Maybe we’ll negotiate something.”
A recent spate of attention to the case from Hartford media got the story wrong, Lacey said. He said he and attorney Bridget Gallagher, who represents the family and could not be reached for comment Tuesday, laughed about reports of the family launching a new appeal or receiving a “stay” that delayed their eviction.
“There’s no stay,” Lacey said. “There’s no appeal.”
Lacey said the case hasn’t been easy.
“You certainly take no pleasure in asking people to move out of their homes,” said Lacey. But he said some of the city’s larger companies are in place because the city used eminent domain in the past.
“If we didn’t have this process, there would be no ESPN,” said Lacey, and no Otis elevator tower.
Rosenthal said there will be no final action in the Bugryn case until a housing court judge makes a ruling on the date to vacate and whether the family has to pay any occupancy fees.
Rosenthal said the city picked a date in August for the family to leave after asking the family to name a date that they would leave and getting no response.
Bugryn, his wife and son live in the ranch that he built decades ago at 269 Middle St. Two of his sisters, a brother-in-law and a nephew live in the old family farmhouse next door at 299 Middle St. Another brother lived in the basement but moved out not long ago when he could no longer care for himself.
The city took possession of the Bugryn property more than two years ago. The city agreed to allow the Bugryns to stay rent-free until they exhausted their appeals, but since the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, they’ve run out of legal avenues.
Housing court is the last stand, and the family is taking their case there to get more time and to keep from paying the city to stay.
“They’re playing the last card that they can play, holding onto some hope that they can stay,” said Ken Johnson, who was hired by the city to help the family with their relocation needs.
There’s no telling when the case will come up in housing court.
“I wouldn’t even begin to speculate” how long it will take to resolve, Lacey said.
“It’s still at a standstill,” said Bugryn.
-30-
Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2002

By JACKIE MAJERUS
The Bristol Press
BRISTOL – While the Bugryn family spent two years fighting the city in court in hopes of reversing its use of eminent domain to force the sale of property on Middle Street, the real estate market turned against them.
Ken Johnson, the real estate agent who was hired by the city to help the family relocate, said finding a comparable place for the Bugryns is difficult, given the changes in the market.
“We’re actively looking for a home for them,” said Johnson, owner of A Buyer’s Market agency. But he said in the current market conditions, multiple offers are common and can torpedo a buyer’s chances.
“Property values are much higher than they were in the year 2000,” said Johnson. “The cold reality is … to find something comparable is going to cost them quite a lot more than what their house was worth in the year 2000.”
Frank Bugryn, the eldest of the siblings living on the Middle Street property, built his ranch-style home at 269 Middle St. decades ago.
Though the city took possession more than two years ago, Bugryn still lives there with his wife and grown son.
They’re looking in earnest to find a new place, but it is proving difficult.
Bugryn will get about $110,000 from the city for his former home, including some interest.
According to Johnson, there isn’t a suitable house available for the same amount now.
A $110,000 house “would be inadequate for their needs,” Johnson said.
Bugryn said he saw a nice house in Plainville that was similar to his, but said the $230,000 asking price far exceeded what the city is paying him for his old place.
“I can’t do what the city did,” said Bugryn, and pick a spot and make the occupants leave.
Bugryn put an offer on one house, Johnson said, but was second in line.
“That house is probably gone,” said Johnson.
Johnson said he’s enjoyed getting to know the Bugryns.
“I stay away from the politics,” said Johnson. The whole eminent domain ordeal has been an “extremely sensitive and emotional ride” for the elderly siblings, Johnson said.
“He’s trying to help,” said Bugryn. “He said the market is rough. It’s a seller’s market.”
Bugryn, who turns 81 in December, has certain needs for his next home. He wants a house, not an apartment, and he doesn’t want a lot of stairs that might make it difficult for him to get around.
“I’d rather have a ranch like I have,” he said. “That’s why I built my own, to live here until I die. But it didn’t work out that way.”
Bugryn’s sister Nellie Filipetti lives on the ground floor in the family farmhouse next door at 299 Middle St. and another sister, Mary Dudko and her husband Michael Dudko live upstairs in the farmhouse with the Dudko’s adult son. Another brother, John Bugryn, lived in the basement at 299 Middle St. but moved to a nursing home not long ago when he could no longer care for himself.
“We’ve already made arrangements to have his things moved,” said Johnson.
Frank Bugryn said his sisters still want to stay in the old farmhouse the siblings were raised in and don’t want to live away from each other.
“They would like to stay there,” he said. “They hate to part.”
But Johnson said Filipetti found a place.
“She’ll be moving soon,” said Johnson.
He said he hasn’t heard from the Dudkos lately, and he’s worried that if they don’t make use of his services soon that the city will stop making them available.
Jonathan Rosenthal, the city’s economic development director, said that at some point, the city will no longer offer relocation assistance if it is not being used.
Though a judge determined a compromise price on Frank Bugryn’s former house, the city and the family are still in court on the price of the old family farmhouse and the land around it.
-30-
Friday, January 10, 2003

By JACKIE MAJERUS
The Bristol Press
NEW BRITAIN – After an emotional day of testifying in housing court Friday, Bugryn family members were able to go back home to Middle Street without any deadline for leaving their former property.
Meanwhile, the city of Bristol faces what could turn out to be a lengthy eviction process.
After hearing from most of the former owners, housing court Judge Angelo dos Santos did not make a decision Friday.
Attorney Alfred Morrocco, who represents former owner Nellie Bugryn Filipetti, said the judge has up to four months to rule. After that, Morrocco said, the family can seek a stay for up to six months.
Beyond that, Morrocco said, there can be appeals.
“That could hold it up for awhile,” Morrocco said.
The goal of the family appears to be to stay in their houses for the rest of their lives.
“That’s what they’d like,” said Morrocco. “Look how old they are. Just let ‘em end their lives there.”
When she was called to testify, Filipetti, who will turn 80 this month, couldn’t get through stating her name without choking over sobs.
She said her health has been good until recently and said she’s worried about what will happen next. She said she knows the city owns the property but still finds it hard to deal with it.
“I understand it, but I can’t believe it,” said Filipetti. “I can’t sleep nights, not knowing what is going to happen from day to day.”
Filipetti said she’s trying to avoid moving day and wishes the city would build around them.
The family is always together, Filipetti testified, and has many wonderful memories of times spent at the homestead.
“I would like to stay forever, till the last one passed away,” Filipetti said.
When attorney Richard Lacey, who represents the city, asked her if she’d like to live in a two-family house with her sister, Filipetti was firm.
“No. I want to stay where I am,” Filipetti said. She added with disgust, “Live in a two family house!”
Mary Bugryn Dudko, 78, testified that her own health has suffered from “all this stress” and that her husband Michael, who has terminal cancer, is in “very bad” shape. He almost died after radiation and chemotherapy last year.
“He had one foot in his grave,” his wife said. But she said he amazed medical people by making a rebound.
Michael Dudko Sr. was in court, but did not testify. He has difficulty hearing, but gets around. His wife said he is able to drive.
Mary Dudko said she didn’t understand why the city “can’t work around us” and “leave us alone.” She said she’s lived in the house at 299 Middle St. since she was in high school and doesn’t want to leave.
As Dudko testified, Filipetti sat behind their lawyers, watching her sister and wiping away tears.
Dudko said she found looking for homes difficult. They sell fast, she said, but said her family never went inside any of the ones Johnson found for them. She wants a place where she can walk or take a bus easily.
“I want a place like where I live,” Dudko said.
Lacey asked Dudko that given her husband’s health problems, didn’t she think it would be better to move out sooner rather than later?
“No,” Dudko said.
When Frank Bugryn moves, it won’t be to another spot in the Mum City. Bugryn, 81, is the eldest of the former owners. He said he looked at places out of town, but not in his hometown.
“I just wanted to get out of Bristol,” said Bugryn.
Bugryn, who said he’d spend up to $250,000 for a house, said he wouldn’t buy a ranch in Bristol if it was on the market for $110,000.
All the family members who testified said they didn’t have a problem with Ken Johnson, a real estate agent hired by the city to work for the Bugryns to help them find alternate housing.
Bugryn said he checked out houses that Johnson found, and even made a $230,000 offer on one in Plainville. An earlier bidder got the house, he said.
Bugryn said it isn’t easy to find what he wants – a ranch-style house like the one he’s lived in for 46 years at 269 Middle St.
“If I could find one next week, I’d get out,” Bugryn said. “There’s a lot of homes I like, but they’re not for sale. I can’t tell ‘em to get out.”
Filipetti’s son and daughter-in-law, Lorin and Debbie Filipetti, also took the stand Friday.
Lorin Filipetti said he is in the process of building an in-law apartment for his mother at his home in East Hartland. It’s not finished yet, he said, but could be in August.
Filipetti said his mother “could not emotionally handle” moving from the house last fall, though she’d found an apartment that was adequate for a temporary stint.
His mother would not leave the house without a court order, Filipetti testified.
Debbie Filipetti testified that sisters Nellie Filipetti and Mary Dudko are “pretty much inseparable.” She said her mother-in-law probably won’t leave the house as long as Dudko is there, but probably wouldn’t want to stay alone if the Dudkos left.
Debbie Filipetti said she asked the city for counseling help for her mother-in-law when it became apparent that she and her husband couldn’t handle it alone.
Morrocco and attorney Bridget Gallagher, who represents the other family members still in the houses, argued that the Bugryns weren’t provided with adequate help from the city to find new housing – or to cope with the trauma of being displaced.
“The services that are really needed for this family have not been provided,” Gallagher said, referring to counseling to deal with leaving. She said the family has medical hardships – one former owner, Michael Dudko Sr., has cancer – as well as issues of separation and confusion about the future.
Gallagher said the city shouldn’t have withdrawn the Johnson’s real estate services.
“At least when Mr. Johnson was on board, the parties were looking,” said Gallagher, adding that she doubted the Dudkos could even hire a real estate agent on their own.
“You’re breaking up a family,” Morrocco told the judge. “The court has to have some sympathy here.”
Lacey said the family didn’t take advantage of the help the city offered. He said the city would be willing to provide more help, but didn’t want to spend taxpayer money on services that wouldn’t be used.
“The city has spent thousands, only to be spurned,” said Lacey.
Lacey told the judge, “There comes a time when all cases must end.” He said the city’s court fight with the Bugryns is long past that time.
Lacey seemed none too happy to be in court trying to evict the family.
“I can think of no job I’ve taken less pleasure in than this,” said Lacey. City leaders, Lacey said, have taken “all kinds of slings and arrows on this.”
Despite the criticism, Lacey said, the city still “held out the hand” and “turned the other cheek.”
Even now, said Lacey, the city wants to help the Bugryns with the move.
“We will go out of our way to provide whatever services to ease that transition,” said Lacey.
But Lacey noted that the case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
The city took title to the property at 269 Middle St. and 299 Middle St. nearly two years ago, but the four elderly former owners and other family members still live there.
Officials – who agreed in February 2001 to allow the family to remain on site while court appeals were in process – are anxious now to get the Bugryns off the property.
Jonathan Rosenthal, the city’s economic development director, testified this week that the plan is to seek grants to help pay for the costly infrastructure required for the industrial park. But the city won’t even be able to apply for help, Rosenthal said, while the Bugryns are still living there.
The delays are costing the city money, according to Rosenthal. While the Bugryns battled Bristol in court, the economy soured and the potential for grants – and the number of companies looking to expand in the industrial park – shrank.
-30-

Thursday, July 31, 2003
By JACKIE MAJERUS
Staff Writer
BRISTOL – A series of letters from the city economic development director to members of the Bugryn family show a long-running effort to help get the family off the property and into new housing.
The letters from city economic development director Jonathan Rosenthal – at least 17 since January – progress from a matter-of-fact style to a frustrated, begging tone as the eviction date grew near.
In the letters, obtained through use of the state Freedom of Information Act, Rosenthal does his best to try to convince the elderly siblings and their spouses to find new homes and repeatedly offers city-paid relocation assistance.
The earliest letter made available to the Bristol Press, dated January 9, 2003, offers advice to the family about working with a real estate broker and tells them they “need to keep looking daily” for new housing.
Many of the letters were sent with real estate brochures or listings, and copies of all were sent to attorneys for the family and the city and sometimes to adult children of the elderly Bugryns.
Starting with the Jan. 13 letter, Rosenthal tells the family that the city has rehired real estate broker Ken Johnson to provide up to 84 hours of “relocation counseling” through June 9.
In that letter, Rosenthal tells the family, “It is normal to devote 15 hours or more per week” to a house hunt. He further advises them that the city will pay for 10 “adjustment counseling” sessions, and invites them to contact him if they need anything.
Nearly every letter thereafter mentions Johnson and several of them provide his phone number.
By mid-March, Rosenthal is pleading with the family.
“I am writing once again to implore you to take advantage of the relocation benefits available to you,” his March 12 letter begins. “Your family has clearly and effectively expressed their emotions on this matter. I beg you to consider setting these sincere and powerful feelings aside for just a few minutes to accept the assistance that is being offered you.”
Sometimes the letters address specific housing opportunities for a particular individual or couple, but most of them are directed to all the family.
In his April 9 letter, Rosenthal urges the family to use Johnson’s services. He calls Johnson “a capable, caring, considerate real estate professional.”
In closing that letter, Rosenthal wrote, “I have pleaded many times for your cooperation. I pray that you might give it reasonable consideration and perhaps an opportunity to work.”
Two more letters and more housing information followed in April.
In mid-May, Rosenthal sent the family a questionnaire about their housing search and a log to fill in detailing their search.
“I am deeply concerned about your progress to find replacement housing,” Rosenthal wrote in the May 15 missive. “Am I correct that your method of finding something suitable is to drive around and look for ‘For Sale’ signs? If this is indeed true, I don’t believe it will give you satisfactory results.”
A letter dated June 5 reiterate Johnson’s services and includes more brochures.
“I have been pleading for your cooperation for more than a year,” Rosenthal wrote in the June 5 letter. “I can only offer you assistance, I can not make you cooperate. I repeat myself from previous communications: It is in your best interest to seek alternative housing.”
By June 25, Rosenthal is telling the family that the city is “moving toward exercising its right to terminate occupancy.”
He asks the Bugryns to let him know whether they’ve found replacement housing. Even limited cooperation, he tells them, “may minimize the impact on you.”
The last letter, dated July 24, offers help with moving costs and warns of ignoring the issue.
“I don’t know if you have been told the disadvantages of forcing an eviction,” Rosenthal wrote. “Your property will be removed and placed in storage for fifteen days. You will be responsible for most of the costs of moving and storage. After fifteen days, your belongings can be auctioned or sold to recover costs.”
In that July 24 letter, Rosenthal instructs the family to contact the city’s attorney if they want help with moving.
“This office has made every effort to provide relocation assistance to you,” Rosenthal wrote. “We have exhausted every effort to contact you. I pray you will take this offer, since no good will come of your removal by eviction.”
In February 2000, the city used the power of eminent domain to force the sale of the family’s former homes at 269 and 299 Middle St. for an industrial park. The family waged an unsuccessful legal battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to regain ownership.
Through it all, the family refused to budge, saying they wanted to live out their lives in the homes they’d lived in for decades. The city began eviction proceedings and last spring, a judge set July 10 as the day the family had to be out of the property.
July 10 passed without incident as lawyers for the family set about trying to get a judge to give them more time.
But now that the city and the family appear to be in a serious settlement talk, the eviction process is on hold.
The city and the family will meet again August 14, after the Bristol City Council considers a possible deal that would allow the family to stay in place for a year.
-30-
Tuesday, August 26, 2003

By JACKIE MAJERUS
The Bristol Press
BRISTOL – Now that the Bugryn family has promised to leave their Middle Street homes, the city can move ahead with work on the industrial park, said Jonathan Rosenthal, Bristol’s economic development director.
“We’re in a position where we can move forward,” said Rosenthal. “I already have the environmental reviews of the property. We’ll arrange for demolition on or about April 2.”
The elderly Bugryn siblings, after waging a fierce legal battle for more than three years to regain ownership of their family’s Middle Street homestead, agreed to vacate the property by April 1, 2004. The last two siblings to come to terms with the city on a departure date, sisters Nellie Filipetti and Mary Dudko, signed a deal in housing court last week, ending eviction proceedings.
Rosenthal said he was happy the family struck a deal with the city.
“I advocated trying to reach a settlement,” said Rosenthal, adding that he thought leaving the decision to the judge would have meant an earlier departure date for the family.
Rosenthal said removing the former Bugryn homes from the property is key to the industrial park, especially with regard to getting any state or federal money for the project.
“We need the demolition accomplished before any money can be released,” said Rosenthal.
For now, Rosenthal is turning his attention to covering the costs of the infrastructure at the industrial park.
“I’m going to concentrate on securing financing for the road and getting the project underway,” said Rosenthal.
The final settlement gives the family an additional $563,200 on top of the approximately $1.2 million it already paid the Bugryns, plus interest at 6 percent, totaling more than $110,000.
The city will not pay any moving expenses.
As recently as July, Rosenthal offered relocation costs, but he said he never got a response from the family or their attorneys, and it was then withdrawn.
“We budgeted for relocation costs over four years ago,” said Rosenthal. Now, he said, all the money has been rolled into a single account to pay the Bugryn settlement and start the project.
“I’ve essentially surrendered that money in my board of finance request to settle up the account,” said Rosenthal. “That money now is not available. It’s not even in my power to negotiate that.”
But the family could take advantage of a city-hired real estate broker to help them find a new place to live, said Rosenthal. He said broker Ken Johnson still has a week remaining on his contract.
“If they want some help from Ken, it’s theirs to have,” said Rosenthal. But he said a week’s time is all that is left. He said he couldn’t offer any more without additional approval from the finance board.
Rosenthal said he’s hoping the city will pay the family by Sept. 10. He said the interest of $98 a day is adding up.
“I would like to save the city the money by getting it done as soon as possible,” Rosenthal said.
Rosenthal said the city’s paid a price for the lengthy legal battle with the Bugryns.
In the nearly four years since the city took the property through eminent domain, the economy has taken a sharp turn downward.
Rosenthal said there are fewer companies coming to him looking for space to expand, and far fewer opportunities to grab state cash to help with infrastructure costs.
“It’s an opportunity lost,” said Rosenthal.
At the same time, the Bugryns are gaining from the struggle, as the city is paying interest until the day they get the last check.
“They’re being paid for all the time they delayed the process,” Rosenthal said, adding, “It may constitute something of a gift.”
Rosenthal said the city offered proof that it collected only 2 percent on the money while it was tied up during the legal process.
“We had ample proof,” said Rosenthal, “but the judge has the discretion.”
-30-

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Rosenthal cleared on "Buyer's Market" contract

A probe into the hiring five years ago of former Republican mayoral contender Ken Johnson's real estate business by the BDA to help with the relocation of the Bugryn family has cleared officials of any wrongdoing.
City Personnel Director Diane Ferguson, in a 3-page report issued today, concluded that Jonathan Rosenthal, the city's economic development director, and others did not issue the contract to A Buyer's Market for personal gain "or for any other improper reason."
The report appears to put to bed an issue raised by former Mayor William Stortz on his last full business day in office in November.
I'll have more later. Meanwhile, you can read the report for yourself here:

Click here to see a PDF of the investigation by city Personnel Director Diane Ferguson

Click here to see former Mayor William Stortz's Nov. 8th memo raising questions about the contract


*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Rosenthal deal may be in works

The long-awaited vote on economic development director Jonathan Rosenthal may never happen.
"I'm hoping that between now and the next City Council meeting, we can come to some sort of resolve," Mayor Art Ward said Friday.
He said that Personnel Director Diane Ferguson is "organizing the effort" to work something out with Rosenthal.
Ferguson, who seemed surprised when a reporter asked her about it, said she had no comment.
Ward said that he would like everyone involved to "be mindful it's regarding the future of a profession" who needs to continue to make a living and who has a family at home that deserves to be considered.
Several city councilors have said privately that rather than voting down a reappointment for Rosenthal, they'd be willing to cut a deal that would more or less pay him to give up the high-profile city position he's held since 1994.
Part of their motivation is the uncertainty about the impact of voting against Rosenthal's reappointment. Because Rosenthal, who could not be reached for comment, is in a union, it is unclear at best whether his job depends on the council's support.
But even Rosenthal's backers say that he would be hard-pressed to do a good job with economic development if there's been a public vote by city leaders to, essentially, dump him.

*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com