Ed Gomes has asked Democratic State Party officials to dismiss the nomination of State Senate candidate Richard DeJesus after it was learned the chair who broke the convention tie for the endorsement has an attorney-client relationship with DeJesus. Gomes writes, “This conflict and failure of Attorney Farrow to recuse or reveal his attorney-client relationship if not illegal, would seemingly appear to be unethical. For this reason, this complaint is filed seeking an injunction or dismissal of the nomination of Richard DeJesus as the Democratic Candidate to seek the election for the 23rd State Senate District in the Special Election to be held on February 24th, 2015.”
As the party nominee, DeJesus has a significant fundraising advantage accessing a grant through Connecticut’s Citizens Election Program of publicly funded races. A special election will take place February 24. State party officials say they will conduct a review of Gomes’ request.
Connecticut Democratic Party Executive Director Michael Mandell issued the following statement in response to Gomes’ claim:
The state party has received a formal request from Ed Gomes for an injunction of the nomination of City Councilman Richard DeJesus as the Democratic candidate for the February 24 special election for State Senate District 23–following a nomination convention that took place on Thursday, January 15.
The CDP seeks to find closure to the matter as soon as possible. With due respect to timing of the election in February, the CDP will expedite the formation of a Dispute Resolution Committee, per Party rules–to resolve this matter. The Committee will meet on Tuesday, January 20, be overseen be DSCC staff legal counsel, and, per Party rules, has up to five days to render their decision.
Gomes’ letter.
Please be advised, that on the evening of January 15th, 2015 during the Democratic Nomination Convention for the 23rd Connecticut State Senate District held at Testo’s Ristorante located at 1175 Madison Avenue, Bridgeport Connecticut, candidates Edwin A. Gomes and Richard Dejesus were each nominated by delegates of the convention to be awarded the Democratic party’s nomination for ballot access for the special election to be held on February 24th, 2015.
Upon the completion of two roll-call voice-votes, newly nominated permanent convention chair was asked to break a deadlocked 26 – 26 tie. Without hesitation, convention chair Attorney Edwin Farrow, announced that his vote would go to candidate Dejesus. Upon further inquiry by members of the media (Lennie Grimaldi, Only in Bridgeport and Brian Lockhart, CT Post) it was revealed that Attorney Farrow is currently involved in an attorney-client relationship with his nominee of choice, candidate DeJesus.
It is believed that this relationship represents a conflict of interest. The case, currently pending in a Connecticut court, case number F02B-MV14-0651891-S, is sealed to the public, currently has a status date of 12/8/2015.
Neither Attorney Farrow nor Richard DeJesus made public notice of their relationship before commencement of the vote.
This conflict and failure of Attorney Farrow to recuse or reveal his attorney-client relationship if not illegal, would seemingly appear to be unethical. For this reason, this complaint is filed seeking an injunction or dismissal of the nomination of Richard DeJesus as the Democratic Candidate to seek the election for the 23rd State Senate District in the Special Election to be held on February 24th, 2015.
This is a deal that was put together by Adam Wood. Finch is not bright enough to put this together.
I will say this, if anyone wants to see power corrupt an otherwise honest person, look at my friend Ricki DeJesus. In speaking to him, his intent upon entering politics was to do good things for the people of Bridgeport.
I warned him of many of the pitfalls in politics and I warned him not to sell out his integrity. He did not listen. What a shame, another good man gone to hell.
I was just watching Channel 12 News and am happy to see the Lobster and Shellfish Company is open and thriving. They did have the best lobsters and lobster rolls. I did not know they put a park on Knowlton St. They opened the waterfront and apparently it was the catalyst for good things in the neighborhood. I just guess Bridgeport is getting better and better every day. 🙂 I think I’ll hit the fish market next week. VERY VERY GOOD NEWS. Anyone want to attack Finch on this? Anyone want to chime in as a patron of the Lobster and Shellfish market? It is nice that we patronize our own and their food has always been excellent. Glad they have reopened.
The park is only partially open. The playground and basketball courts have been under construction since the summer. There is supposed to be a pier along the river. Hopefully that will come this summer. The sitting area is nice and well lit. It even has chess/checkers tables.
Steve,
It seems you and I share a proclivity to dine out at a variety of eateries. Early last week after visiting a friend at St. Vincent’s my wife and I decided to travel south on Main Street to get a quick bite at the New Colony Diner. Pulled up in front of this 24-hour establishment and the neon proclaimed OPEN but the doors were locked.
Got back in the car and decided to get a couple slices and a small salad at a former Bridgeport business, the Nauti Dolphin at the RR station in Fairfield.
Just before turning off Post Road I happened to spot a black SUV with the plate BPT-1 in front of a yogurt shop. No problem for me. Mayor was indulging a passion for yogurt or promoting economic development for Bridgeport by trying to get businesses to move into BPT. Whatever!!! Just irony “things are not necessarily getting better every day” with small businesses in Bridgeport in terms of variety and ability to make a profit while offering customer service.
Catalysts? Change? Accountability through numbers and metrics rather than a phrase that is nowhere near universal as it references taxpayers in Bridgeport? Time will tell.
Steve, you are still an asshole. The park Finch spent over $7 million to build had nothing to do with the reopening of the Lobster and Shellfish Company.
The owners had sold the business and held a mortgage or a note of some kind. The tenants could not or did not make a go of it. the present owner took the business back and is running it with his father.
Steve, do you know anything about the shit you write? BTW no one uses that park except the homeless in the summer. They sleep on the benches.
Thank you Andrew for your kind words and always optimistic outlook. Certainly the homeless deserve a nice park. A little something to brighten their bleak lives.
Andy, I leave you to the anti-Finch bloggers here. I shall move on and let all of you attempt to raise Ganim from the dead.
Wow, didn’t realize that was a seven million dollar project … sheesh. You forgot, some groups do use the tables to drink, smoke, etc. still a nice sitting area though, but $7 mil … wow.
People’s outrage on this vote seems misguided. First you have a 26 vote tie. Were all 26 yes votes from Finchettes? Who were those 26 people? Then a tie breaker has to be cast by Farrow. Farrow represented DeJesus in a real estate closing once. How long ago was that? I couldn’t tell you the name of the lawyer who represented me on my house. How many house closings does a lawyer do in a lifetime and how many houses does DeJesus own? It just seems like a long shot that Farrow would be the guy who decided a tie and there would be a tie among 52 voters and Farrow would be that indebted to DeJesus for a real estate closing umpteen years ago. Wouldn’t it have been a whole hell of a lot easier, safer and less suspect to get one of the original 26 no votes to vote yes? If one of the no votes had voted yes the entire plan would have been for naught. This entire hoopla seems like sour grapes from the Ed Gomes camp. You still doesn’t have to vote for DeJesus. Vote for Torres. Ohhh, my bad. I thought people in BPT had a choice.
In answer to the question, “Farrow represented DeJesus in a real estate closing once. How long ago was that?”
“The case, currently pending in a Connecticut court, case number F02B-MV14-0651891-S, is sealed to the public, currently has a status date of 12/8/2015.”
“Neither Attorney Farrow nor Richard DeJesus made public notice of their relationship before commencement of the vote.”
BOE SPY, I bought my house 44 years ago and I can tell you who my lawyer was for the closing. Farrow was indebted to Finch & Company.
Actually BOE SPY, the first thing the Gomes folks did was check to see if the business relationship was current and it is. It’s not sour grapes, it’s a conflict of interest. DeJesus is currently writing checks to Farrow. That does not seem a little quid pro quo to you?
Yes, but so what. Did any of the other 52 people who voted have business relationships with a candidate? Did anyone disclose a conflict of interest? The only difference is we know who Farrow voted for. There is no inherent, guaranteed benefit from winning this election. You get the DTC endorsement and campaign funds but other endorsements are closely tied to business relationships. The WFP only endorses candidates who are against Charter schools which means more money for public schools. That is a business relationship. Gomes can still run and win. My relationship with a candidate does not stop me from voting for him. If I work for Finch I can still vote for him.
‘This conflict and failure of Attorney Farrow to recuse or reveal his attorney-client relationship if not illegal, would seemingly appear to be unethical.’
‘would appear to be unethical.’ There is a big difference between appearances and reality.
I don’t really care but I do not think anything will come of this. DeJesus will be the endorsed Dem and WFP and will win. Gomes will finish second and Torres last. Everything in BPT will go on as it always has.
BOE, Torres is not running for State Senate. He’s running for State House. He’s not in this race. True, all delegates have an agenda politically. But one of the functions of the chair/moderator is to ensure protocol for a fair endorsement/nomination is followed as well as the rules, without the vote being rigged. Do you think the state party would have named him as the temporary chair if they knew of his attorney-client relationship with DeJesus? Would delegates have approved him as the permanent chair if they were aware of his attorney-client relationship with DeJesus? What harm would Farrow have caused by announcing his relationship with DeJesus? DeJesus is paying Farrow. Ed Gomes is not. I asked Farrow if DeJesus is paying him. He said yes. Now it may very well be that state party leadership does not touch this, but one thing is clear, DeJesus had a clear advantage going in, in case of a tie.
Does the group do any research into who they ask to chair the group? Maybe a questionnaire? That is a failure of the group, not Farrow. Why doesn’t the group have an odd number of members to make a tie impossible? Sorry about the Torres confusion. I am not that politically informed. Finch pays me and I do not plan on voting for him. It would be a question of how much. A real estate closing is a few hundred dollars (maybe a few thousand?). Then you have to ask how wealthy is Farrow that this money had any influence in him.
Still, the theory is Farrow would knowingly sacrifice his livelihood to ‘fix’ this election for DeJesus. The second part is someone put Farrow in this position knowing there would be or in case of a tie. A long shot at best. I would bet Farrow never considered the chance of a tie and can fairly cast the vote he did despite the business relationship with DeJesus. Third, if Farrow recused himself another vote would take place and DeJesus could have won anyway. Or Farrow could have stepped down and appointed someone else to vote for Dejesus.
Putting all the what did Farrow know and when did he know it stuff aside (although everyone in the room I spoke with prior to the vote(s) said it was going to be a tie), I would have thought Farrow and all concerned would have had better sense than electing him to chair the meeting.
The result of Farrow’s vote for DeJesus (whether it was a conflict of interest or just had the appearance of a conflict) has been another black eye for Bridgeport. Further, it makes DeJesus, whom I do not know and have no reason to think poorly of, look bad and taints his endorsement.
All this could have been avoided by have a Chair who was not connected to either candidate financially or otherwise.
Had Dejesus won under those circumstances, so be it.
Just to be clear, were you a Gomes supporter from the get-go? I am sure you would have found some other reason to dislike DeJesus. I am sure Gomes will still run. You can still vote for him. Or, someone else.
Just to be clear, were you a DeJesus supporter from the get-go?
It really doesn’t matter if you say no, the DeJesus is on your dashboard.
I don’t care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I got my plastic Jesus,
Ridin’ on the dashboard of my car.
Lyrics:
www .reverendcolin.com/PlasticJesus.html
Paul Newman singing it:
www .youtube.com/watch?v=dG9tuuznL1Y
So is anyone who was there going to file an ethics violation with the Connecticut State Bar? I would suspect the State Bar might take this a little more seriously. Here’s the contact information:
Mark A. Dubois
Statewide Grievance Committee
287 Main Street, Suite 2, Second Floor
East Hartford, CT 06118-1885
Phone: (860) 706-5055
Fax: (860) 706-5063
Filing Method: Use online form, call for form, or obtain form from the Superior Court Clerks office
Anonymity: No
Web site: Complaint Information
Sorry Booty–no grounds for an ethics violation. Atty. Farrow was not acting in the capacity of an attorney when some people deemed his actions as inappropriate. He did not jeopardize a case or a client. He simply chaired a committee, not as an attorney, as an ordinary citizen.
Godiva,
Ethics have nothing to do with what your job is. The behavior was unethical. Whether or not it is actionable is a different matter. On this webzine, Lennie discloses any relationships he may have with the people he comments about. If he didn’t, no one is going to drag him in front of the webzine ethics board, but his credibility would suffer if someone other than he pointed out the relationship. I hope atty Farrow knows he did the wrong thing, but to what extent it will come around and bite him on the ass is yet to be seen. Certainly no one is going to appoint him a voting chair ever again.
THE ATTORNEY’S OATH
You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court, and that you will inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge; that you will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any cause of action that is false or unlawful; that you will not obstruct any cause of action for personal gain or malice; but that you will exercise the office of attorney, in any court in which you may practice, according to the best of your learning and judgment, faithfully, to both your client and the court; so help you God or upon penalty of perjury. (General Statutes § 1-25 and annotations.)
(Amended pursuant to Public Act 02-71 to take effect Oct. 1, 2002.)
CONNECTICUT PRACTICE BOOK
Jimfox, thanks, good work. Just like Andy Fardy said he knows 44 years later the attorney who did his house closing the same way I remember who my attorney is but someone might say it’s easy for the buyer to remember their attorney but an attorney might do hundreds of closing BUT the difference is what you posted Jimfox, and it’s a clear conflict for Attorney Farrow and Richard DeJesus knows that.
Mr. Fox–the oath you quoted pertains to actions and standards in COURT. Ed Farrow was not acting in the capacity of an attorney when he chaired that committee. He had the right to vote for the person of his choice and he did. Hypothetically, let’s just say the chair was Mr. DeJesus’ dentist, doctor, mechanic, babysitter or anyone else that he may have paid for their services, and they voted for him. Would that be deemed by some people to be “unethical” as well?
Godiva,
Of course he had the right to vote for whomever he wished. What is unethical is not disclosing the relationship. If he had disclosed the relationship and the group still voted him chair knowing he could potentially break a tie, then there wouldn’t be a problem. So yes, if any of the people you mention were the chair and did not disclose their relationship ahead of time, it is unethical. Once you’ve disclosed the relationship to me, it’s up to me if I think it matters or not. If you don’t disclose the relationship, I can’t make that determination for myself, you are making it for me.
Maybe you missed this part?
… and that you will inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge; that you will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any cause of action that is false or unlawful …
Ron, YW.
Is it possible the case # is incorrect? The only case I could find on that list with an Attorney named Farrow and a Richard DeJesus is:
civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=FBTFA040411588S
A divorce case from 01/18/2015. Case# FBT-FA04-0411588-S
Is it possible F02B-MV14-0651891-S is the wrong case number? As a point, all the case numbers start with FBT. No case I could find has 4 digits as the first set of characters and none had a number in those first digits. That being said, searching MV14-0651891-S gets no results either. I wanted to look up the case for myself but no luck. Does anyone have a link? Or is it possible the story (accusations) is in error?
To address your previous post. Yes, I am a Gomes supporter and no, I do not dislike DeJesus. I simply believe Gomes is the better candidate. Secondly, I’m a big boy and have been involved in Bpt politics for a long time. Sometimes on the winning side and sometimes on the losing side. That’s just the way it goes.
The point of my earlier post was not that Ed lost but rather the way he lost did no one any good and this situation could have easily been avoided had Farrow had the good sense to recuse himself and permit someone who was not connected to either candidate–financially or otherwise–serve as Chair.
That is the issue I have with the process. The fact DeJesus won is disappointing but not central to my previous post.
If you are going to reply to my previous post, please address what I wrote rather than implicitly attack my credibility because of my support of Gomes. Lastly, please do not make assumptions about my feelings toward DeJesus. This is not personal. This is about what’s best for the city, the DTC and the candidates–including DeJesus.
So, you feel DeJesus should have been appointed by someone less conspicuous? You are leaning toward the idea DeJesus was simply ushered in. I do not think it is legal or ethical to us the phases ‘best for the city’ and ‘the DTC’ in the same sentence.
You are certainly entitled to your negative opinion of the current DTC. In fact, it is one I often share with you. However, you insist on misinterpreting what I have written and that’s starting to get more than a little old. I never wrote anyone was “ushered in.” I simply stated selecting someone financially or otherwise connected to either of the candidates as Chair was not in anyone’s best interest.
This is starting to get more than a little tiresome, so perhaps we should move on to something else.
But your implications that here was a conflict of interest are misguided. The outcome was inevitable. 53 people in the room, 52 voters and Farrow. We all know the outcome but let us look at non-Farrow chair outcomes.
Chair is a Gomes voter from the 53 people in the room.
25 Gomes votes left in the crowd.
27 DeJesus votes since Farrow is now in the crowd.
Chair is a non-Farrow DeJesus voter.
26 Gomes Votes
26 Dejesus votes
Chair votes DeJesus.
Regardless of what you do there are 26 Gomes votes and 27 DeJesus votes. The only way the outcome could have been changed is if Farrow was forbidden from voting altogether. Else, DeJesus always wins. This makes Farrow’s relationship with DeJesus irrelevant.
Very last try–the problem is not the outcome. The problem is how the outcome was arrived at.
A conflict of interest by Democrats in Bridgeport? No news here. Failing to address conflicts has real consequences. No surprise, it’s Bridgeport.