A decision regarding suspended Airport Manager John Ricci’s employment future is expected shortly. Ricci was removed with pay pending city review of allegations he had a business relationship with Bridgeport-based developer Manny Moutinho who received $400,000 for a new driveway leading to his Stratford home as part of a municipally owned airport improvement project. Ricci says city officials knew about his relationship with Moutinho whose business practices are under review by federal investigators.
Superior Court Judge Dale Radlciffe ruled recently Bridgeport taxpayers were not obligated to cover the cost of the driveway to Moutinho’s waterfront mansion. Lawyers for the city had signed off on the controversial driveway deal for Moutinho.
The city has brought employment charges against Ricci, including a hearing for Ricci to respond, that could lead to termination of his job. Ricci was suspended with pay as a result of union protection.
Asked to comment, Finch spokesman Elaine Ficarra gave the same non-answer the administration has provided since state Superior Court Judge Dale Radcliffe declared Moutinho’s driveway illegal:
“When the city has information that it determines to make public regarding its legal strategy or filings it will issue appropriate press statements.”
What the hell kind of gobbledegook is that?
Bob,
You have tried to be helpful to me in recent days with understanding City ‘output.’ I would suggest Elaine left some words out of her statement (and this if often the case) so it is hard to understand. You rightly call it ‘gobbledegook!’
Go back and read her quote again and insert the capitalized addition, please:
“When the city has INVENTED C.Y.A. STORYLINE information that it determines to make public regarding its legal strategy or filings it will issue appropriate press statements.”
Does that make it clearer? How the Mayor missed the 30-year relationship of this long-term City employee with a campaign supporter? How or why the decision-making at the top ignored or was ignorant of the Stratford case waiting for a decision and its potential effect on the ‘access way?’ How to reconstruct City purchasing behavior that has been in violation of City Council-passed Ordinance in major ways for 10 years?
That’s a lot of plotline to fill into the story while it is under investigation, isn’t it? Time will tell.
I fully expect the administration will try to position whatever action they take against Ricci as the answer to all of the questions about this sorry affair.
Of course, many questions, including those involving the knowledge or actions of officials other than Ricci, will remain unanswered.
It will be interesting to see how Council members, who were so concerned a couple of weeks ago (but silent since), respond.
John Ricci has served under 10 of the last 11 Mayors.
Why isn’t the question being begged that the city attorney’s office went at risk to build with a pending appeal? Then they failed to take an intervenor status during the hearing of the appeal.
Inquiring minds want to know!
WHERE IS THE PAPER TRAIL?
WHERE IS THE CT POST AND AN FOI?
WHERE IS A SIGNED BID WAIVER?
WHO SIGNED IT?
AND IF THERE WASN’T A SIGNED BID WAIVER HOW DID A CONTRACT EVER GET SIGNED?
THE ADMINISTRATION IS DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO AVOID THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IF THIS IS THE CASE THEN IT IS NO LONGER JOHN RICCI AND MANNY MOUTINHO WHO SCREWED UP, IT IS THE MAYOR, THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE PURCHASING AGENTS, THE BOARD OF PUBLIC PURCHASES AND POSSIBLY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Bob, I filed an FOI request with the city July 1. Having heard nothing, I filed a request for an investigation with the State FOI commission on July 11. Brian Lockhart of the CT Post said an FOI request to the city was filed before my request.
Their silence speaks volumes. There are obviously no signed bid waivers in the city.
Even if they were to try to backtrack and suddenly something appears they claim is the same as a bid waiver, i.e. an e-mail, a memo, etc., the fact under either scenario whoever signed the bid waiver is obligated to notify the City Council, that notification apparently never took place.
As I have said from the get-go this was not a little something cooked up by John Ricci and Manny.
The entire Finch Administration was involved in the mishandling of this situation and to try to make one person the scapegoat isn’t going to fly.
Bob Walsh–all good questions that have not yet been answered. My issue with Ricci is his personal responsibility to take himself out of the bidding process. Whether he told people of his business relationships is only one side of the equation. He knew he had those relationships and he should have taken himself out of the process. All he had to do was say ‘no’ and give the bidding responsibility to the purchasing department. He violated the public trust, pure and simple. He threw himself under the bus.
countdown–There was no bidding process and Mark IV could not be prohibited from the expedited procurement process. Ricci’s relationship with Manny has always been open and transparent.
Not so transparent the City had to pay $400,000 for a job Manny TOLD Ricci would cost $200,000.
Three bids were solicited by Ricci. They came in to Ricci on different days. Manny’s was the last bid received and he was awarded the job. Ricci should have stayed away from requesting and receiving those bids. It’s not the fact Manny submitted a bid, it was how it was done. Ricci should have stayed completely away from that informal bidding process. It was up to him to take himself out.
If the other two who bid are legitimate contractors capable of doing the proposed work in a professional manner and they can demonstrate they have the resources that will ensure they could do the job, they both should sue.
*** As Monty Hall would say, “LET’S MAKE A DEAL!” So the city will make an offer, then Ricci will make a counteroffer, then they meet somewhere in the middle. Depending on the paper trail if not too long or involved, Ricci may take the fall under the bus without malice, no? *** PANDORA’S BOX? ***