Jim Calhoun Is Out Of Control

Forget the press conference meltdown, the real issue with Jim Calhoun is not his salary, it's his courtside behavior. He swears at his players, kicks chairs, abuses referees and curses at fans. Is this the price of victory?



Photograph originally appeared in the New York Times



It was a crisp autumn evening in 2006 and Hasheem Thabeet was about to begin his basketball career at the University of Connecticut. Thabeet spent the first 16 years of his life 7,600 miles from UConn, in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, where sultry air wafts into West Africa from the Indian Ocean and the average temperature in November is a toasty 86 degrees.

On this night, November 10th, Thabeet was making his debut at the Hartford Civic Center. Despite his massive size, 7’3” and 265 pounds, Thabeet was extraordinarily inexperienced and had been lightly recruited out of high school. He saw his first pick-up basketball game in Tanzania when he was 15 years old. The other players noticed his 6’8” frame and invited him to play. Thabeet had played soccer his entire childhood and was athletic, with nimble feet, a rarity for a man his size. Thabeet took to basketball quickly, and soon found himself playing high school ball in Kenya, where he began firing off unsolicited e-mails to U.S. colleges trying to get a scholarship. The Internet cold calls didn’t work, but Thabeet was “discovered” by an American businessman who was scouting African players for prep schools back in the States.


Hasheem Thabeet stretches before a recent game against South Florida. Photograph by John Murray

And in the blink of an eye, Hasheem Thabeet was sucked into the world of American basketball, a culture offering unfathomable wealth for those tough and talented enough to run the gauntlet. No player from Tanzania had ever played major college basketball in the United States before, and no Tanzanian had ever played in the NBA. Thabeet’s dream was longer than a long shot — kind of like trying to hit a 325-yard drive with your putter.

High school in America was a whirlwind for Thabeet — he played at three schools in two years, moving from California, to Mississippi, to Texas. During his senior year in Houston he averaged 16 points and four blocks per game, but received scant interest from major college recruiters. Thabeet, though, was the type of player UConn coach Jim Calhoun loved to recruit — raw, with vast room for improvement. A player who Calhoun, with the intensity of a drill sergeant, could forge into a star.

When Thabeet walked out onto the court against Quinnipiac in 2006 he became the tallest basketball player in UConn history. Nobody quite knew what to expect from the raw freshman, but the game was predicted to be a coming-out party for the rest of UConn’s highly regarded freshman class, which included several prized recruits. It should have been a fun night for UConn players as they raced up and down the court like antelope, leaving an outgunned and forgettable Quinnipiac team gasping for air.

The players seemed relaxed and playful, but all that was about to change.

Seconds into the game, Jim Calhoun began stomping his feet on the court to get his players’ attention. He screamed, he bellowed, his face contorted with anger as he paced up and down the bench, spraying obscenities like bullets from a machine gun. With every errant pass or botched offensive play, Calhoun yanked the offending player from the game. Play became stilted as the players peeked over their shoulders to see what Calhoun was doing. At one point Calhoun grabbed Stanley Robinson’s jersey and physically pulled him towards the bench.


At 7'3", Hasheem Thabeet is the tallest player in UConn history. He is projected to be one the top picks in the upcoming NBA draft. Photograph by John Murray


Quinnipiac was playing steady basketball and the game was surprisingly close. When one of the UConn guards missed an outside shot, Thabeet snagged the rebound and went back up with a shot from point-blank range. Instead of cramming the ball through the hoop with a monstrous dunk, Thabeet attempted to make a bank shot off the glass and awkwardly missed the basket by five feet.

The crowd groaned, Calhoun called a quick time out and raced onto the court to confront Thabeet. Calhoun, red faced and waving his hands, met Thabeet at the foul line and screamed, “Dunk the f**king ball.”

It was a strange sight to behold. Calhoun and Thabeet were the only two people on the court, and Calhoun looked like a rabid squirrel stomping his feet and waving his hands at the base of a massive tree. Thabeet, fluent in French and Swahili and still working on his English, was getting a postgraduate course in profanity from Calhoun.

But Calhoun wasn’t satisfied to just verbally abuse his players. Moments later, his wrath spilled into the stands.

A fan behind the UConn bench hollered out some benign comment about grabbing a rebound, and Calhoun spun around to a crowd of men, women and children, and screamed, “Shut the f**k up!”

The fan got the point, but just to be sure, Calhoun bellowed it again. UConn players on the bench looked at each other in stunned disbelief.

Sitting ten feet behind the UConn bench, I was stunned, too. I wondered how Calhoun could get away with this. Does coaching a championship basketball team give the man carte blanche to behave like a vulgar idiot? Calhoun’s antics continued all game long. He verbally abused players, he screamed, he stomped, and by the end of the game he was drenched in sweat, his tie dangling sideways from his neck, looking like he’d just lost a bar fight.

I had gone to Hartford to watch a basketball game, but two hours later I felt like I’d been mugged by Jim Calhoun. After the game, my friend Andy and I spent an hour talking about Calhoun and concluded that Connecticut is in an abusive relationship with the legendary coach. We let him abuse us, and his players, because he’s taken us, and them, to the promised land of NCAA championships. We trade dignity and grace for victory.


Calhoun rips into former UConn player Doug Wiggins. Photograph by Bob Childs of the Associated Press

It’s unfair to only paint Calhoun as an overbearing jerk. He is an intense and complicated man, an exceedingly generous man off the court, and one of the most successful coaches in college basketball history.

In a state that has no professional sports team, Calhoun is a living legend. A few years ago he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Massachusetts, largely for taking a second-tier program and driving it to glory. He’s snagged two national championships and groomed 16 NBA players. If he sticks around three or four more years, Calhoun might become the winningest basketball coach in college history.

Rival coach Jim Boeheim of Syracuse said, “Jim Calhoun has done as good a job as has ever been done in college basketball history. He has done something at Connecticut that I really don’t think has ever been done any place else.”

What he’s accomplished at UConn is unique. Calhoun hasn’t piled up wins at an established national powerhouse like Duke, UCLA or Kansas. Despite the school’s location in the woods of eastern Connecticut, Calhoun has built UConn’s program into one of the top three in America. Prior to Calhoun’s arrival, the school had never ended a season ranked in the top 25 in the country. Since then, Calhoun has often led the team to the upper tiers of the national polls. UConn has been ranked #1 in the country nine different times under Calhoun, and in all of Big East history only Georgetown and Pittsburgh have held down that top spot more than once (both teams achieved that ranking twice). In Calhoun’s 23 years at UConn, his teams have won 20 games 18 times. They have reached the 25-win plateau 11 times.

That’s rarefied air.


Calhoun has led UConn to two national championships. Photograph originally appeared in Sports Illustrated.


And if you’re an elite high school basketball player dreaming of a career in the NBA, UConn is one of the schools that better be your radar screen. UConn has 13 players currently playing in the NBA, second only to Duke, with 14. UConn has twice as many players in the NBA as any other Big East team. The message to the players is clear: If you want to turn pro and make millions, go to UConn, because Jim Calhoun has a superb record of developing professional basketball players. That’s why he’s in the Hall of Fame.

Former Hartford Courant columnist Alan Greenberg once wrote that ”the hiring of Jim Calhoun in 1986 was the most important hire in the history of the State of Connecticut.”

Off the court, Calhoun and his wife, Pat, donated $125,000 to the Calhoun Cardiology Research Fund, and the Jim Calhoun Celebrity Golf Tournament has raised an additional $3 million to support the cause.

Calhoun has worked tireless hours raising public awareness of autism, diabetes and cancer. He is a generous man.

He is also abusive and vulgar.

The administration at the university — and the fans across Huskie Nation — have turned a blind eye to Calhoun’s repugnant behavior because he wins championships, makes us feel good about our little state, and, oh by the way, the program rakes in millions of dollars.

None of that excuses his boorish behavior. Winning 800 college basketball games does not give Jim Calhoun the right to act like an ass, or to verbally abuse players, fans and reporters.

Former UConn basketball coach Dee Rowe told the New York Times in 1995 that Calhoun “keeps himself on edge. You look at him, and you say he won’t allow himself to lose.”

Rowe also called Calhoun “Bobby Knight East, and I say that with respect.”

To say Calhoun is controlling is like saying the economy is struggling a little bit right now. In a New York Times interview he said, “I like to control the players’ environment. I like to control the atmosphere.”

In a national bestseller called “The Verbally Abusive Relationship,” Patricia Evans creates the profile of an abuser. There are certain characteristics, or traits, that many verbal abusers have in common. Consider these, and think about how many might apply to Jim Calhoun: irritable, angry, intense, controlling, competitive, quick with comebacks and put-downs, critical, manipulative, explosive and hostile.

Evans writes in her book that name-calling is “the most obvious form of verbal abuse, and that all name-calling is verbally abusive.”


Calhoun explodes on forward Stanley Robinson. Photograph by John Woike of the Hartford Courant.

Writer Robert Fulghum wrote: “Yelling at living things does tend to kill the spirit in them. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words will break our hearts.”

And not all UConn players have accepted Calhoun’s tirades. Toraino Walker cited verbal abuse as the reason he quit the team in 1992. Other players have transferred, and many recruits have picked other schools because they didn’t want to deal with Calhoun’s screaming. Inside UConn it is well known that families and friends of the players are not allowed to sit behind the team bench. Imagine hearing Calhoun call your son a f**king idiot in front of 16,000 fans?



One Calhoun story — which is difficult to verify — has Calhoun going bananas on the sidelines after a player made a foolish pass. Calhoun is alleged to have grabbed a player off the bench and told him to “Go in for that asshole.” The player dashed to the scorer’s table at mid-court to check in before entering the game. A moment later the player looked confused, and then called back to Calhoun, “Coach, which asshole?”

The Press Conference
Jim Calhoun was recently in the center of a highly contentious exchange with journalist Ken Krayeske that landed them on YouTube, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and in columns all across the country.

I was at the press conference where the exchange took place, standing three feet away from Krayeske when he asked Calhoun if, considering the dire state of the economy, he might be willing to give some of his $1.6 million salary back. Calhoun said “not a dime back,” and when Krayeske asked how much Calhoun’s deal with Comcast was worth, Calhoun paused, and said “You’re not really that stupid are you?”. When Krayeske said that he was, Calhoun said “My best advice to you is to shut up” and then began screaming about how much money his program brought into the university.


This photograph of Jim Calhoun was taken seconds after Ken Krayeske (pictured below) interrupted Calhoun's monologue to ask the coach if he was willing to give any of his $1.6 million salary back. Photograph by John Murray



When Krayeske walked out of the press conference, he was convinced no one would report about the incident. He was wrong. The incident was caught on video, and within hours it was an Internet sensation. Lines were drawn between the sports world and the realm of bigger, broader ideas.

Some thought Calhoun came off arrogant and insensitive to the struggle of millions of Americans out of work and struggling to pay their bills. State workers were being asked to take unpaid days off, and the highest paid state employee in Connecticut — Jim Calhoun — was glibly refusing to give one dime back.

Some people thought Krayeske was a punk for asking Calhoun a question about his salary during a press conference minutes after UConn defeated South Florida on Valentine’s Day. Many others thought the question was legitimate, but the press conference was neither the time or place to broach the subject. Krayeske came under national attack for his part in the drama, and UConn and many sports columnists were quick to claim Krayeske wasn’t even a journalist — he only had a photo pass, for God’s sake — and had no right to ask Calhoun a question.

That line of reasoning is absurd.

I’ve known Ken Krayeske for 15 years. He has worked at the Republican-American newspaper, the Register Citizen, and the Hartford Advocate. He helped the Waterbury Observer run two summer youth programs back in the 1990s. Krayeske has a degree in journalism from Syracuse University, ran a youth newspaper for two years in Hartford, and now writes a weekly column for the Hartford News. Krayeske is a journalist, and had every right to ask Calhoun a question during the press conference.

As for the photo pass, that’s what I had been issued for the game, too. When you are both a writer and a photographer — which very few journalists are — you have to pick one or the other to get your credential. UConn doesn’t allow photographers to sit in a chair along press row and take notes and game photographs at the same time. If you want photographs you have to sit on the floor underneath the baskets. That’s why both Krayeske and I had photo passes that day.

Krayeske is an excellent writer and photographer, and is every bit as complicated as Jim Calhoun. In addition to being a journalist for the past 15 years, Krayeske is a UConn law student and a political activist, and was the Green Party campaign manager during the 2006 governor’s race. Ken was arrested in a bizarre incident during Jodi Rell’s inauguration parade, primarily because the state and local police had his name on a watch list. His crime when he was arrested? He was standing on a street corner photographing Rell as she walked past. Krayeske filed a federal lawsuit against the police and stands an excellent chance of winning a settlement before the case goes to trial.

Krayeske is also a vocal proponent of legalizing marijuana and has traveled to Africa and Europe to write freelance articles for High Times Magazine. He has also pulled a few political stunts in his role as an activist, including disrupting a speech by Senator Joe Lieberman. And make no mistake about this fact: Ken Krayeske entered that UConn press conference seeking confrontation. While some people avoid confrontation at all costs, Krayeske moves towards it. Krayeske approached me at halftime of the game and asked if I was going to the press conference afterwards. “Make sure you stick around,” he said, “because I’m going to drop a bomb on Calhoun.”

After the game, Krayeske and I talked for ten minutes about his lawsuit and he again encouraged me to stay and watch him go after Calhoun. Was it a set-up? Certainly. Did Krayeske wave a red flag in front of a steamed bull? Absolutely. Was it a legitimate question to ask Calhoun? Yes. Did Calhoun handle the situation well? Certainly not. Calhoun yelled and told Krayeske to shut up. UConn women’s basketball coach Geno Auriemma said he feared what might have happened to Krayeske if he had dared to ask Calhoun that question 20 years ago. What does that mean? Would Calhoun have taken Krayeske out into the hall and roughed him up?

The widely circulated video clip of Calhoun shouting became a poltical hot potato. Governor Jodi Rell called the tirade “an embarrassment” and two state legislators wrote a letter to UConn asking that the coach be disciplined for his behavior.



But Calhoun being tripped up by Krayeske’s salary question is like a bank robber getting nailed for snatching chocolate chip cookies. For 23 years, Calhoun has bellowed at and intimidated his players. He is an old-school coach using old-school tactics that repeatedly crossed the line into abuse. Back in the 1990s, then-Governor John Rowland attended a UConn-Villanova game and witnessed Jim Calhoun up close and personal. Rowland was disturbed by Calhoun’s behavior, which he said at the time was “out of control.” Rowland said Calhoun’s behavior and language created a stark contrast to the Villanova bench, where a Catholic priest sat during every game.

A few days later, Rowland placed a call to UConn athletic director Lew Perkins and said UConn needed to do something about Calhoun’s behavior. Perkins agreed, and he began sitting in a chair close to the UConn bench, along press row, where he could keep a close eye and ear on Calhoun.

Whenever Calhoun began to grow agitated and begin to curse, Perkins would catch his attention and signal for him to tone it down. Rowland said this worked for a while, then Perkins accepted a position in Kansas.

Several people connected to UConn have implied that current UConn Athletic Director Jeffrey Hathaway is afraid of Calhoun, and is reluctant to take on the issue of his coach’s behavior.

But it really shouldn’t matter how many basketball games and championships Calhoun has won. He is a public figure, and as the most recognizable celebrity in Connecticut, he is a role model and should be held to high standards. Would we accept a math teacher screaming at students and calling them f**king idiots because they couldn’t master Pythagorean’s Theorem? That teacher would immediately be reprimanded, and if it happened again, he would be fired. It would be a moot point to defend the teacher’s behavior by saying they are forging better students. That behavior is unacceptable.

Would we accept Calhoun-like tirades from the coach of the women’s badminton team? Never. But in the world of sports and big business, anything goes as long as you win, and win big. A majority of avid UConn fans don’t care what Calhoun does as long as he keeps leading the basketball team to victory. Public opinion in the Calhoun-Krayeske dispute is clearly on the coach’s side. A recent Quinnipiac Poll found that 80% of the respondents didn’t think Calhoun should give any of his salary back. But the issue isn’t about money, it’s about behavior and verbal abuse that should not be tolerated.

The Press
Halfway through the Calhoun-Krayeske exchange Krayeske said, “I wouldn’t have to ask these questions if these guys in here did their job.”

After Krayeske punked all the sport writers in the room, Calhoun recoiled, and a collective groan came from the press corp. I’ve attended a dozen UConn press conferences over the years, and they are painful exercises. Sports writers often ask fawning, cloying, pompom-waving queries like, “Coach, how do you think Donyell played tonight?” or “Coach, what do you think your chances are against Pittsburgh on Saturday?”

In reality, the UConn press corps is a much less attractive version of the team’s cheerleaders. Instead of lithe, fit coeds doing back flips, the press corps is mostly comprised of middle-aged men firmly under the thumb of both UConn coaches — Jim Calhoun and Geno Auriemma.


Reporters gather around Hasheem Thabeet after the game against South Florida. Photograph by John Murray

Seldom does a journalist probe into the sensitive areas of the UConn men’s basketball program. The graduation rate is only 30%, and that number crashes to 17% when considering only black players.

In the past ten years, two journalists have taken on Calhoun: Jeff Jacobs of the Hartford Courant, and Ken Krayeske, who has persistently challenged Calhoun’s behavior, his program, his salary, and the exorbitant cost of running the program.

Jacobs questioned how UConn handled an incident involving two players who tried to pawn stolen laptop computers. One player, Marcus Williams, was the starting point guard on a team contending for a national championship. The other player, A.J. Price, was a back-up guard. When Calhoun and UConn announced that Price would be suspended for the season, yet Williams could return for the important stretch of games after January 1st, Jacobs wrote columns questioning the rationale. Was this just about winning basketball games?


A.J. Price was suspended two years ago for trying to pawn stolen laptop computers. In 2009 he is the star point guard and the player counted on to lead the team through the NCAA tournament. Photograph by John Murray


Calhoun was furious and called Jacobs a racist, and implied to members of the UConn press corps that Jacobs was gay. Jacobs fired back, saying he would not be intimidated by Calhoun, and the showdown got plenty of airtime on WFAN sports radio in New York City.

Ten years ago, Krayeske wrote a column in the Hartford Advocate that brought up many of the same issues raised in this article — specifically, Calhoun’s courtside behavior.

“I was told by the sports information people at UConn that my column was not the way to cover UConn basketball,” Krayeske said. “And they cut off my access to the players.”

Krayeske rails against the “clubby atmosphere” that exists between the beat writers and the team they are supposed to cover. Before each home game, UConn lays out a buffet of food for the writers to eat. They are given salad, chicken tenders, lasagna, bread and butter, giant cookies, soda, coffee and bottled water. It’s all free, and before any game most of the writers and photographers sit around large wooden tables, gorging on state-subsidized food.

“If they feed you, you become part of the family,” Krayeske said. “The free food compromises a writer’s integrity and UConn expects you to write only positive stories about their program. The message is, don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and more importantly, why should state government be paying for the press to eat?”

Krayeske refuses to eat the free food.

One of the real ironies of the Calhoun-Krayeske blowout was that Krayeske has asked these questions before, and written extensively about the subject on his blog, The 40-Year Plan.

“I asked Calhoun in a telephone interview how much money he personally made off of an exclusive Nike deal with UConn,” Krayeske said. “His response was to ask me how much money I made at the Hartford Advocate. I told him, and then asked him the question again. He wouldn’t give me an answer.”

In the days after Krayeske punked the sports writers, numerous columns were written about him across the state of Connecticut, and they were mostly vicious. A columnist for the New London Day, Mike DiMauro, went way over the top and stated that Krayeske was a fraud and had no business in the room with real journalists. Ironically, moments after Calhoun blew his top at Krayeske, Calhoun singled out DiMauro and complimented him on the terrific column he had written about Hasheem Thabeet.

“That was a special column, Mike,” Calhoun said. “I told Hasheem he should save that one.”

After the Krayeske explosion, the lovefest resumed.

And seconds after the press conference ended, a journalist came up to Krayeske and confronted him. He said Krayeske had no right to confront Calhoun. Didn’t Krayeske know how important Calhoun was to Connecticut? Didn’t Krayeske know how many jobs had been created by the UConn men’s program? Then the reporter likened Krayeske to the Iraqi shoe-thrower for disrespecting Calhoun the way the Iraqi reporter had disrespected President George W. Bush.

In the days after the confrontation the Internet went wild about the story. Blogs attacked Krayeske as a “whining fruitcake” and a “stupid little hippie.”

Krayeske stopped reading the comments because they were so nasty, but he did admire the creativity of one: “This guy wrote that I looked like a homeless man with a dead squirrel nailed to my head. I thought that was pretty funny.”

Occasionally someone did spank Calhoun. Eric Fries of East Lyme wrote, “UConn coach Jim Calhoun has certainly proven that you can be a winner and a champion and still not have any class.”


Jim Calhoun almost jumped out of his shoes in anger after freshman Kemba Walker made an errant pass against South Florida. Photograph by John Murray

A Sports Illustrated blogger wrote that “the coach is a public figure and he should to be asked tough questions like that. It comes with the territory.”

Many bloggers accused Calhoun of being a bully. If the coach had answered the question like he had answered Krayeske’s previous queries over the years, there would never have been a national controversy. The story became about Calhoun’s over-the-top response and was a perfect storm of arrogance, money, and the tanking economy. Calhoun might as well have said “let them eat cake,” like Marie Antoinette referring to the starving peasants in 1800 France.

So what, in the end, are we to make of our bullying superstar coach?

Jim Calhoun may be the biggest celebrity in Connecticut, but he is not untouchable. Referring back to Patricia Evan’s book about verbal abuse, the key to changing behavior is for the victim to point out the behavior, and ask for change. Somebody in authority needs to directly intervene and ask Jim Calhoun to stop swearing at his players. We need Governor Rell to step in like John Rowland did a decade ago. We need athletic director Jeff Hathaway to supervise Calhoun’s behavior, and reprimand public acts of vulgarity and verbal abuse.

This is not about winning national championships and multimillion dollar contracts. It should be about humanity. Calhoun went on WFAN recently and said, “Life is a motion picture, not a snapshot. There are always a few frames any of us would take back.”

But the longer Jim Calhoun is allowed to storm up and down the court, spewing profanities at players and fans, the snapshots become a movie about abuse, not championship glory.

The Broken Promise

Four-Term Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura Faces Internal Party Challenges As He Seeks Re-election In 2009
Story By John Murray

Photographs By John Murray and Michael Asaro


(Photograph of Mayor Michael Jarjura)


In the world of politics broken promises are like weather changes in New England –predictably frequent. Americans have come to accept broken promises as part of our raucous political discourse. In order to secure our votes most candidates will tell us what we want to hear, and then after the election, they largely do whatever is in their own best interest.

Welcome to democracy in America.

Although broken promises litter the political landscape like cornstalks across Nebraska, two broken vows has triggered a political showdown between three democratic leaders in Waterbury. The story began to unfold in July 2005 when Waterbury Mayor Michael Jarjura approached Waterbury Police Chief Neil O’Leary at a funeral. Jarjura was plowing ahead with his campaign for a third term in office, and if successful, he had stated it would be his last.

O’Leary recalled the conversation. “The mayor told me he wasn’t running for another term and told me directly that I would be a good leader for the city. The mayor encouraged me in July 2005 to consider taking the next step into public office in 2007.”


(Photograph of Neil O'Leary)

One month later Jarjura’s hopes for a third term were upended when Karen Mulcahy scored a stunning upset in the democratic primary, and it appeared Jarjura’s political career was toast. Devastated, Jarjura reached out to O’Leary and other influential democrats for support in an unprecedented write-in campaign that challenged Mulcahy and three other candidates in the November general election. O’Leary was instrumental in convincing political strategist Fran Sullivan to come down from Cape Cod and run Jarjura’s long shot campaign.

Two months later Jarjura made national news when he became just the fifth candidate in American history to win a major political election on a write-in ballot. After Jarjura’s victory he again re-iterated to O’Leary that he was serving his last term in office. Jarjura also met with aldermanic president J. Paul Vance Jr. and promised him that this was his last term as mayor.

Based on the direct word of Mike Jarjura, both Vance and O’Leary began to contemplate campaigns for an open mayor’s seat in the autumn of 2007. But in the spring of 2007 Jarjura changed his mind and decided to seek re-election to a fourth term.

“The mayor told me he wanted another term so he could prove that the write-in campaign wasn’t a fluke,” O’Leary said. “I promised to support him and he pointedly told me this was going to be it for him. One more term and he was out.”

Vance didn’t appreciate the mayor’s waffling around and decided to plow ahead with his own plans and primary Jarjura in September 2007.

Wanting to avoid a costly and divisive political showdown, Jarjura went to Vance’s kitchen table and assured him that a fourth term would unequivocally be his last. If Vance waited two more years, the coast would be clear.

“I did sit with Paul and his wife at their kitchen table,” Jarjura confirmed. “Paul told me he had been waiting in the wings and wanted to challenge me in a primary. I told him that I would hate to see that happen. I asked him to hold off and he could run in two years, I just wanted one more term.”


(Photograph of J. Paul Vance Jr.)


Vance and O’Leary holstered their ambitions and in November 2007 they both supported Jarjura as the mayor swept to a convincing fourth term in office. With Jarjura promising that this was his last term there was now an opportunity for any political aspirants to move forward with their own plans, and both Vance and O’Leary eyed mayoral campaigns in 2009.

Vance made the first move by filing papers in late May, just six months after the last municipal election, and 18 months before the electorate would decide Waterbury’s next leader. No one could recall a mayoral candidate declaring their intentions so early in the process, and the response from Mike Jarjura was shocking. During an interview with the Observer in early June, Mayor Jarjura announced he was strongly leaning towards seeking a fifth term in office, and that if he didn’t run, he thought Police Chief O’Leary would be an excellent choice to replace him.

Let the political sumo wrestling begin.

Vance no longer cared what Jarjura was or wasn’t going to do, and made his intentions official on July 11th, on his 34th birthday. “I’m in,” Vance said. “Several people have approached me and said I should just wait until Mike decides he’s through. Mike’s friends are concerned that he doesn’t have anything lined up, and he is unsure what he’d do afterwards. But really, what does that matter? Politics is not a career. Do a short time and get out.”

Vance admits he is frustrated by Jarjura’s broken promises. “I’ve been a hothead and said the wrong things before,” Vance said, “ but I’m not going to break my word. Mike has done that two times now. It doesn’t matter what he says anymore. I’d appreciate his support, but if I don’t get it, we’ll let the voters decide what they want.”

Despite Vance’s seven years of aldermanic experience, some political pundits believe O’Leary presents a more dangerous internal threat to a fifth Jarjura term. O’Leary is a forceful man who has modernized the police department, created one of the most successful PAL programs in the country, and has overseen a drop in the city’s crime rate for six straight years.

“Ever since the mayor approached me at the funeral in July 2005,” O’Leary told the Observer, “I have had an interest in running for mayor.”


(Photograph of Neil O'Leary and Mayor Jarjura)

As O’Leary considers his options he is acutely aware of the Hatch Act, a federal law that prohibits local police officers from seeking “partisan” elected office. If O’Leary announced he was running for mayor - while still serving as Waterbury’s top cop - he would be in violation of the Hatch Act, could be fired by Mayor Jarjura, and find himself a target of a federal investigation.

“I have to be very careful what I say,” O’Leary said, “ but I will tell you that a significant number of people have approached me and asked me to run for mayor. I am flattered that so me people think I might do a good job as mayor, but because of the federal law I’m going to take my time and mull over my options until early January and make my decision then.”

If O’Leary were to run for mayor he would have to step down as police chief. It is his understanding that he could resign and announce his candidacy in the same breath. But during a telephone interview on December 9th he clearly stated he hadn’t made up his mind yet, and will continue to gather input from the community as to whether he should mount a challenge to a Jarjura fifth term.

“Everybody should do what’s in their hearts to do,” Mayor Jarjura said. “Who knows? Maybe they can win.”

But is Jarjura really going to run? During a Fox-61 interview in November the mayor said he would be announcing after the holidays and that it was premature to think about the next election. “People want to enjoy Christmas and the New Year,” he said. “But I have every intention to continue my responsibilities here. I think I’ve earned it.”

But while he was publicly proclaiming that to Fox 61 news, Jarjura had privately agreed to a power meeting with O’Leary in January that would bring the party leadership together to hash things out. Jarjura and O’Leary agreed to hold off on any political announcements until after the meeting.

Many big name players in the local Democratic Party are treading lightly around the subject of a Jarjura-O’Leary match-up because it has the potential to splinter a united party. Vance has a legion of supporters as well, but not among the leadership and deep pocket donors.

“There would be a lot of strained relationships if Neil ran,” Jarjura said. “But with the Independents and Republicans weakened, we could survive a three way splinter.”

When the Observer sat down with Mayor Jarjura in his office on December 4th he unexpectedly announced that “I’m 100% running for mayor and I’m going to win.”


(Photograph of John Murray interviewing Mayor Jarjura)


When asked about a power meeting in January the mayor confirmed it was going to happen. “Unless someone can convince me why Mayor Jarjura shouldn’t seek re-election, I’m running,” he said. “I can’t think of any reason not to run other than to step aside to promote the political aspirations of other candidates.”

Is the mayor trying to have it both ways? He promises not to run, and then he runs. He openly calls on all candidates to follow their hearts and run if they want to, and then he and his minions indirectly threaten people supporting other candidates with lost board appointments and lost job opportunities. Several people have confirmed that Vance supporters and O’Leary supporters have received threats via the grapevine that they are in harms way if their candidate challenges Jarjura.

“There’s a lot of passive-aggressive stuff going on in Waterbury right now,” Vance said. “And I don’t like it.”

But to many insiders that’s just old school politics and the way the game is played in Waterbury.

Vance bristles at that notion. “We can be better than that,” he said. “Look at President-elect Obama and his team of rivals. Look at how Obama handled the nasty campaigning that came his way. When it got ugly he didn’t respond with the same tone. I won’t get personal with Mike Jarjura. I’ve run with him four times. I respect him, but I don’t like the game he is playing right now.”

Jarjura doesn’t believe he is playing any political games. He said he is too busy governing to be focused on others’ ambitions.

“The city is at an important juncture in its history and we need to have a steady hand on the wheel,” Jarjura said. “Continuity is very important and we need to be more progressive right now. We’ve been focused on reorganizing and I now want to focus on infrastructure and programs. Another term will give me the opportunity to do that.”

Vance said the mayor has a right to change his mind, but this is the right time for Paul Vance to step into the ring. He and his wife Michelle are expecting their first child in the spring and they’ve bought a house in Town Plot. “Most of our friends have moved out of Waterbury into the suburbs,” Vance said. “I don’t like where the city is right now. I see the big picture and believe being mayor is about more than flag raising ceremonies.”

Vance said he’s running “not because of Mike or Neil, I’m running because I think I can do a good job, and if the voters agree, they’ll hire me. If not, I’ll continue to practice law.”

So what’s going to happen? Vance and Jarjura are running, and O’Leary is pondering his future like a cougar eyeing his prey. After several years of relative calm in the city’s Democratic Party, expect all hell to break loose in 2009, and don’t be surprised if Democratic Party Chairman Ned Cullinan develops an ulcer.


(Photograph of Ned Cullinan while he's still smiling)

As Jarjura puts it, both Vance and O’Leary would take considerable risk in challenging a popular four-term mayor.

“Paul is risking his political future at a very young age and Neil would be losing his job as police chief,” Jarjura said.

Jarjura said he has no problem working with O’Leary and Vance in their official capacities as they try to move the city forward. “There won’t be anything that strains my friendship with Neil,” Jarjura said, “and I’ll try to be professional with Paul.”

Asked if he would try to broker a deal and promise Vance and O’Leary that this would be his last term in exchange for their support, the mayor rolled his eyes and said, “Oh no, I’m not saying that again. That keeps getting me in trouble. But I will say that I have ended up serving longer than I anticipated – by necessity - not by design.”

The Importance Of Ralph Nader

The public safety crusader brought his powerful anti-corporate message to Waterbury, Connecticut, in September 2008

Story and photographs by John Murray



























If Ralph Nader were a consumer product this would be a lot easier. Nader, standing on familiar ground, would fight like a bulldog to get the public to understand the importance of bringing that product - which makes us all safer - into every home in America. The product, he would tell us, holds the key to crushing corporate power out of our political process, and would return democracy to the American people.

Who doesn’t want that?

But Ralph Nader is not a product, he’s a 74-year-old man wedded to the lifelong pursuit of making America safer. It was Nader’s tireless consumer advocacy in the 1960s and 1970s that brought us seat belts, air bags, food labels, clean water, clean air, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Nader’s work for public good is astonishing, and led to him being selected one of the 100 most influential men in American history.

But when Nader took his consumer advocacy crusade into the political arena and started running for President every four years - he got screwed. His idealism collided with modern American politics. Nader was caught in a vice between Republicans and Democrats, a two-party system he calls a “duopoly”, which was long ago hijacked by corporate money, lobbyists and greed.

Nader entered the political arena to try and pry corporate fingers off the steering wheel. Nader’s weapon was a brilliant mind and suitcase full of ideals. He two opponents , however, were armed with money, guns, knifes and pepper spray. Without a means to spread his message to the American people he didn’t have a chance.

The system is stacked against Nader and any other third party candidate who challenges the iron fisted rule of Republican and Democrat power. Many Americans don’t know that Nader is on the ballot in 45 states in 2008. Why? Because the mainstream media has effectively censored him. Nader said the New York Times and The Washington Post have told him they aren’t going to report about his campaign this year because of the negative impact they believed he had on the 2000 race. (Nader received 97,000 votes in Florida, a state won by George W. Bush by 543 votes)

The media should give the public the information and let the voters decide. An abundance of information should flow through a free country like blood through our veins. We need vigorous journalism to provide the public with more information, not a high minded few applying a tourniquet to the flow of news about Ralph Nader.

It’s un-American. And it’s wrong.

The rap about Nader costing Al Gore the 2000 election is also mis-guided and wrong. Consider the facts: 12% of Florida democrats (200,000) voted for Bush, and all the other third party candidates tallied above the Bush margin of victory – Reform Party (17,000), Libertarians (16,000), Worker’s World (1800) and the Socialists Workers (562).

Why isn’t their fault? Why pin the Bush victory on Ralph Nader? It makes no sense.

I was too young to fully appreciate Ralph Nader in his prime, but my mother was enthralled with him. She read about him in the daily newspapers, watched him on the Phil Donahue Show, bought his books, and went to see him when he visited New London, Connecticut, back in the 1970s. My mother was inspired by Ralph Nader and wrote hundreds of letters to corporations and businesses to complain about their products, and when she didn’t get the response she thought was warranted, she wrote more letters.

Nader reappeared on my radar screen in the early 1990s when he launched his first write-in campaign for the presidency. I was working at the Register-Citizen newspaper in Torrington at the time, and Nader, being from neighboring Winsted, was of intense local interest. One of our reporters, Jedd Gould, was given the assignment to cover Nader’s campaign in New Hampshire. Jedd was so inspired by Nader that he eventually left the daily newspaper to launch The Winsted Voice, which was entirely written by the citizens of Winsted, giving the people the chance to cover themselves.

I remember visiting Jedd in his apartment in Winsted after he published his first issue. The morning changed my life. As one of more than 100 employees at the Register-Citizen I believed you needed reporters, photographers, salespeople, a production department, a vast distribution network and a printing press to publish a newspaper.

But here was Jedd Gould sitting at one computer in his disheveled apartment with a frisky Labrador Retriever bounding between piles of dirty laundry. Jedd sold the ads, made the ads, laid out the newspaper in his computer and cut and pasted the contents together into one mechanical copy. Then Jedd would take the one copy of his newspaper to a printer where they would print thousands of Winsted Voices and drop them back off at his apartment the following day. Jedd would then personally deliver the papers at dozens of locations around town.

He was a one-man band, and his success became the blueprint for the Waterbury Observer. One year after Jedd launched The Winsted Voice, a fellow journalist at the Register-Citizen, Marty Begnal, approached me about an idea he had about starting a newspaper in Waterbury. My first move was to consult with Jedd to see exactly how he published The Winsted Voice - what equipment did he have, what software programs, how much money did he need to start the business, how did he figure out his ad rates, and was it hard to get businesses to distribute a free newspaper?

Ralph Nader inspired Jedd Gould to launch a community written free newspaper in Nader’s hometown of Winsted. Without Ralph Nader there wouldn’t have been a Winsted Voice, and without Jedd Gould there wouldn’t be a Waterbury Observer.

One of the last projects I worked on at the Register-Citizen was an investigative piece about the horrific impact industrial cleaning solutions were having on the workers at the Becton Dickinson (BD) plant in Canaan, Connecticut. The company manufactured hypodermic needles for the medical industry and used a variety of methods to sterilize the product, including radiation and ETO gas. I spent a year interviewing injured employees and reconstructing a nuclear accident that had occurred inside the plant. When it was time to publish the story the editors were terrified that a multi-billion dollar corporation would sue the family owned newspaper. It took months for the story to make the rounds through every editor, the publisher, and finally, the owner of the paper.

The article finally had the green light, but just days before publication, the Journal Register Company, an aggressive business corporation with a reputation for destroying a newspaper’s soul, purchased the Register-Citizen. Dozens of employees were let go and the story was killed.

Frustrated, I took the story to Jedd Gould, who was now publishing The Winsted Voice, and The Canaan Voice. Jedd immediately agreed to publish the story and every home in Canaan received a copy of The Canaan Voice with an eight page expose on the dangers inside Becton Dickinson, the largest business and employer in the region. There was some talk from BD officials about suing Jedd for publishing the story, but the specter of Ralph Nader looming ominously in the background might have squelched that idea.

A few months later, Agnes Mulroy, the BD employee who had risked her life to bring the story forward, was flown down to Washington D.C. to receive a Citizens Courage Award from Ralph Nader.





Fast forward 15 years and I get a call from Silas Bronson librarian, Anita Bologna, telling me Ralph Nader was coming to Waterbury for a rally. Despite the indirect impact that Ralph Nader had on my life, I was uninspired to go out of my way to see him. Like many Americans, I had swallowed the propaganda, and saw Nader as a polarizing figure who helped deliver the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.

I was sluggish going to see Nader in downtown Waterbury in late September, but I went. Ralph was 30 minutes late and walked into the Independent Party headquarters and headed straight for the food buffet. He nibbled on some treats and was whisked into a back room for a private audience with journalists from the Hartford Courant, the Republican-American, the Observer, and a two film crews.

Nader’s posture was slouched and he looked straight at the floor as he uncorked a blistering attack on the $750 billion Wall Street bailout package just passed by Congress. Pulling no punches he called the package a bailout for the reckless and the greedy that contained little to nothing to help homeowners about to lose their homes.

“This is taxation without representation,” Nader said. “Congress is bailing out Wall Street with $750 billion without a single minute of a public hearing. This is the worst piece of legislation I have seen in 40 years.”

And for the next 30 minutes Ralph Nader stood in a cramped room with six journalists and delivered the keenest insights about democracy and the modern political process that I have ever heard. The words tumbling from his mouth were like notes from a Mozart tune - crisp and clear.

He didn’t lose Al Gore the 2000 election, he said, Al Gore lost when he couldn’t deliver his own home state of Tennessee, and despite all the focus on Florida and the recount, it wasn’t Florida that swung the election to Bush - it was the Supreme Court of the United States that swung the outcome when they voted along party lines to give the throne to “King George IV.”





Nader’s message is as sharp as an ice pick, but he can’t effectively deliver it to the American people because he isn’t allowed to debate Barack Obama or John McCain. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation run by the former chairman of the Republican National Committee and the former chairman of the Democrat National Committee. They decide which candidates voters get to see, and despite 66% of the American public wanting Nader on stage with Gore and Bush in 2000, the commission not only froze him out, they threatened to arrest Nader if he entered the hall with a legitimate ticket to simply sit in the audience.

The justification for Nader’s exclusion was that polls indicated he didn’t have enough support to be a factor in the race, which makes no sense, because after the election he was blamed by millions of Americans for being the biggest factor in the race.

“Which is it,” Nader said. “You can’t have it both ways.”

Nader received almost three million votes in 2000, and snagged 10% of the vote in Alaska. Many national experts have stated that if Nader were allowed to debate his presidential opponents, his 3% in the polls would swell to 25% to 30%, not only making him a major factor, but also forcing the two political parties to adopt some of his platforms, which can be viewed at www.votenader.org

And it might be one of the planks in Nader’s platform that keeps the debate door slammed in his face. Nader has spent his life challenging corporate America to provide better and safer products to Americans, and one of his first moves as president would be to launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare. The political process in America is now driven by corporate interests, so does anybody in their right mind believe that the major corporations in America have any interest in letting Ralph Nader expound his views of democracy and civic duty to the American public?

That’s why he’s barred from the debates - he’s too dangerous to corporate interests.

Amazingly, it is through the efforts of the local Independent Party in Waterbury that Nader is even on the ballot in Connecticut. Independent Party chairman, Mike Telesca, met Nader in New Hampshire in 2004 at a meeting of independent political candidates. The Independent Party was fresh off a major victory after they had swept local Republicans out of office in Waterbury, gaining 8 elected seats.

This eventually got Nader’s attention, and during a rally the following year in Hartford, Nader saw Telesca in the crowd and said “Mike is doing amazing things in Waterbury. Come up here and tell us how you did it.”

Nader then walked off the stage and gave it to Mike Telesca. Earlier this year a Nader coordinator called Telesca to ask if the Independent Party would be interested in working with Nader to try and get the 7500 signatures needed to get him on the Connecticut ballot.

“I was thrilled,” Telesca said. “ And I promised our support.”

Then Telesca and a group of highly motivated volunteers went out and gathered more than 15,000 signatures to insure Nader was on the ballot. Incredibly, Nader is running on the Independent Party ticket, and is using local party headquarters as his state headquarters. The Independent Party started in 2001 in Waterbury and now has candidates for office in Naugatuck, Winsted, Newtown, Norwalk and Milford. And now the Independent Party has Ralph Nader at the top of their ticket.

Although it’s clear that Ralph is never going to be invited to any presidential debate, his mere presence in the 2008 race is a benefit to all Americans. His tenacious pursuit of democracy is not only inspiring, it’s heroic. By hurling his body against the corporate wall of politics Ralph Nader has created a crack in the fortress, an opening for the rest of us - if we ever wake up - to march through and reclaim our democracy.

A Punch In The Face

In A Bizarre Twist, Billy Smolinski's ex-girlfriend, Madeline Gleason, sues the Smolinski family, and The Waterbury Observer

Column By John Murray


(Photograph of Billy Smolinski and his dog Harley)


How much abuse can Janice and Bill Smolinski take?

The Waterbury Police Department failed them, the political process is messing with their heads, and now they find themselves trapped in a lawsuit filed by their son’s ex-girlfriend that amounts to legalized extortion.

This extraordinary story began three years ago when Janice and Bill’s 31-year-old son disappeared in Waterbury. The Smolinskis were unable to get local authorities to treat the situation seriously, and their own efforts to find Billy have been thwarted by sloppy police work, bungled science, and a national missing person network with holes large enough for a herd of elephants to stampede through.

Everywhere they turned for help they crashed into a wall of incompetence. Their faith in the system is shattered.

“ Everything that could go wrong in this case has gone wrong,” Janice Smolinski said. “Everything.”

The Smolinskis are convinced their son was murdered three years ago. At the time of his disappearance Billy Smolinski was involved in a love triangle with enough haunting circumstances to launch a Stephen King novel. Billy was dating an older woman, Madeline Gleason, who was 16 years his senior. After dating for more than a year, Billy discovered Madeline was also involved with a married Woodbridge politician named Chris Sorensen.


(Photograph of Madeline Gleason and Billy Smolinski at a wedding)

Billy and Madeline argued, and broke up. Billy left a threatening message on Sorensen’s answering machine telling him “to watch his back”, and a few hours later Billy vanished off the face of the earth.


(Photograph of Woodbridge politician Chris Sorensen)

Janice and Bill Smolinski don’t know the details of what happened to their son on August 24th, 2004, but they believe he was murdered and his body buried somewhere in the lower Naugatuck Valley.

A tip called into CrimeStoppers, and subsequently released by the Freedom of Information Commission, fingers Madeline Gleason’s son, Shaun Karpuik, as the murderer. The information given to CrimeStoppers was highly detailed and alleged that Karpuik, with help from at least one friend, strangled Billy inside Madeline’s apartment.

Karpuik was a former grave digger in Seymour, and at the time of Billy’s disappearance Karpuik was working for a landscaping company and had ready access to heavy earth moving equipment.

Three months after Billy Smolinski vanished, Shaun Karpuik died of a drug overdose in Waterbury. The FBI seized control of the investigation in August 2006, and earlier this year they excavated several sites in Shelton in an unsuccessful effort to unearth the remains of Billy Smolinski. The federal investigation is ongoing.

STRANGE BEHAVIOR
Several days after Billy disappeared the Smolinski family, unable to get the attention of Waterbury police, launched their own search. They scoured the banks of the Naugatuck River and combed through all the spots they knew Billy loved.

The Smolinskis hung missing person posters throughout western Connecticut, and followed up on every lead that came their way. A month later reports started filtering in from several towns that someone was tearing down Billy’s missing person posters. Janice and Bill drove around Ansonia, Seymour and Woodbridge, and discovered that dozens of posters had been removed.

Eventually a witness in Amity caught a woman standing on the bumper of her car tearing down a poster and jotted down the license plate number. The vandal turned out to be Madeline Gleason, Billy’s ex-girlfriend.

‘That’s when the chaos started.” Janice Smolinski said. “We brought the information to the Waterbury police department and the Woodbridge police department and they were both totally disinterested.”

So the Smolinskis set up a surveillance operation and videotaped Madeline tearing down the posters. The family would hang them up, and at night Madeline and one of her friends would tear them down. In addition to ripping posters off telephone poles Gleason eventually began slashing Billy’s face on the poster and spray painting “Who cares?”.





“We couldn’t understand why she was doing this,” Janice Smolinski said. “Our son was missing and instead of helping us find him, she drove around slashing his photograph. Why would anybody do that?”


(Photograph of Madeline Gleason running back to her school bus with a missing person poster of Billy Smolinski in hand)

Unable to get any police assistance, the Smolinskis continued the cat and mouse game for months, convinced that Madeline knew something about Billy’s disappearance. The game grew so bold that Janice would hang a poster on a telephone pole and Madeline would walk up and rip it down right in Janice’s face.

In a world turned upside down, the confrontation ended when Janice Smolinski was arrested by Woodbridge police for harassment. Gleason lived in Woodbridge and was a school bus driver in town. Sorensen, the other part of the love triangle, was an elected official in Woodbridge, and a prominent businessman involved in running a long distance trucking company. Janice had dared to enter the lion’s den in search of her son, and she was bitten. The charges against Janice were eventually dropped, but not before the soft-spoken woman was booked and fingerprinted. She was told to stay out of Woodbridge.

In March 2006 the Observer published a five page investigative piece on the case entitled “Gone”, airing out explosive details of the love triangle, and exposing the inept police investigation into Billy’s disappearance. There were impossibly strong leads to follow in the case, yet Waterbury detectives said their investigation had stalled. Deputy Chief Jimmy Egan had the nerve to say that “Billy was probably having a beer somewhere in Europe.”

Three months after the story was published Madeline Gleason and B and B Transportation (her employer) filed a lawsuit against Janice Smolinski, Paula Bell (Billy’s sister) and The Waterbury Observer for harassment and invasion of privacy. One month later the FBI took over the investigation into Billy’s disappearance and the lawsuit went silent for 14 months, until a few weeks ago.

A judge called the lawyers together on November 15th in a move my lawyer, Atty. Mark Lee, said was a simple procedure to see where the lawsuit stood. Atty. Lee and the Smolinski’s lawyer both said we didn’t have to be present, and I went out of town on a previously scheduled trip to Ohio. I missed the unexpected fireworks.

Despite our lawyers statements that we didn’t need to be present, Bill and Janice Smolinski, and their daughter, Paula Bell, went to Superior Court in New Haven to see what would happen. Madeline Gleason showed up with high powered lawyer John Williams, who decades earlier had built a reputation by challenging police corruption, and defending the Black Panthers in New Haven.

As the proceedings began the judge unexpectedly tried to settle the case on the spot. Instead of dismissing an outrageous and baseless lawsuit, the judge asked Atty. Williams what his client needed to settle the case.

The response was $115,000 from the Smolinskis, and $115,000 from the Observer. After some wrangling Atty. Williams set his clients final demand at $25,000 for Gleason and $5000 for B and B Transportation. The offer was quickly refused.

The charges against Janice Smolinski and Paula Bell is a “he said - she said” story. Gleason accuses the two women of systematic harassment that led to emotional distress. She has no proof to back up her allegations and Janice and Paula state the charges are “total lies”.

The charges against the Observer are more specific and easier to decipher. The paper is accused of invasion of privacy for publishing the sordid details of Gleason’s life - which are all true - and for publishing photographs of her tearing down missing person flyers in public.



(Photograph of Billy Smolinski and Madeline Gleason)

The charges are ludicrous. For nine months Madeline Gleason destroyed hundreds of missing person posters of Billy Smolinski in broad daylight - in public - having the nerve to tear them down in the face of a grieving and distraught mother. The Smolinskis have videotape of Gleason stopping her school bus to tear down flyers. A Woodbridge police report names Gleason as a suspect in the disappearance of Billy Smolinski. The report said she would remain a suspect until she took a polygraph test. She has never taken the test, so she remains a suspect. A document released by the FOI Commission alleges that Billy Smolinski was murdered in Madeline Gleason’s apartment.

And Madeline Gleason is the one filing a lawsuit?


(Photograph of Madeline Gleason)

It reminds me of a case a lawyer friend had back in 1992. She had just been hired by a local firm that specialized in personal injury law and her first client was a real slug. Her client had been intoxicated, sped through a red light and crashed into another car. He claimed damages and wanted to file a lawsuit. My friend was shocked, but her boss told her to file the lawsuit. The insurance company eventually settled for $10,000 rather than pay expensive legal fees to fight the case. It made no sense to her, or to me.

And that’s the situation the Smolinskis find themselves in now. There is no way Madeline Gleason could ever win her lawsuit against the Smolinskis, or the Observer, but that doesn’t matter.

If we fight the ridiculous charges in a full blown trial we are going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on depositions and legal fees. Several lawyers estimate that a trial could cost the Smolinskis $50,000 to $100,000. No lawyer I’ve spoken to believes Madeline Gleason has a shot of winning a verdict at trial, but who has an extra $50,000 laying around to pay for that outcome?

And that’s why I describe this process as legalized extortion. Fighting this absurd charge will cost you $100,000, but if you pay us $25,000 right now we’ll settle the lawsuit. Either way you lose. It doesn’t matter about being right or wrong, about printing the truth or publishing lies. The system forces people to accept a punch in the face to try and get out of the court system with their vital organs still intact.

While the lawyers were in the judge’s chamber going over the case, four people sat quietly in a hallway; Bill Smolinski, Janice Smolinski, Paula Bell, and not far away – Madeline Gleason. And when their lawyer came out and told them they could settle the case for $115,000, Bill Smolinski said he wouldn’t give Madeline Gleason one dollar. Their lawyer advised them that if they went to trial they would spend tens of thousands in legal fees, and if they lost, they could lose their house and their life savings.

“I was crushed,” Janice Smolinski said. “I always thought we could depend on the authorities and society to help us out. But the whole system completely failed us.”


(Photograph of Janice Smolinski)

The Smolinskis have already shelled out more than $10,000 in legal fees, and now trapped in a legal vice, they eventually offered $2500 to settle the case. That offer was refused by Gleason and B and B Transportation. The Observer has shelled out $5000 in legal fees, offered $500 to settle, and that offer was also refused.

Neither the Smolinskis or The Waterbury Observer will offer another dollar to settle the case. Let the chips fall where they may.

“We are not going to give anyone a dime for false accusations,” Janice Smolinski said. “We were caught off guard that day in court, but we’ll go to trial if we have to.”


(Photograph of Paula Bell, Janice and Bill Smolinski)

In the three years since Billy disappeared the Smolinskis belief in the system has crumbled around them. They not only lost a son, they have lost faith in the concept of justice in America.

“If we weren’t going through this I wouldn’t believe that all this could happen,” Janice Smolinski said. “We used to believe that if someone got arrested it meant they had done something wrong. We used to believe that if somebody was sued they had done something wrong. Nothing makes sense anymore. I feel like we are in an episode of the Twilight Zone.”

(For more informationon on the case check out www.waterburyobserver.org)

October 2007 - Waterbury Mayoral Candidate Tony D'Amelio Q & A

Experienced State Representative, Intent On Cutting Red Tape


(Observer publisher John Murray sat down with State Representative Tony D'Amelio inside the newspaper office on Bank Street in late September for a wide ranging interview on ethnic politics, the health of the Republican Party in Waterbury, and how the leader of the the city should spend more time lobbying up in Hartford. D'Amelio has served the 71st District for the past 12 years. Photographs by Michael Asaro)




Observer: Your parents were both Italian immigrants and some people will look at Tony D’Amelio and say you are living the American Dream. Through hard work you started your own business, have been a community leader for 19 years, and now you are running for mayor in the 5th largest city in Connecticut? What has been the key to your success?

D’Amelio: A lot of hard work. I got involved in public service for the right reason and that’s why I’ve managed to have longevity. It’s about what you can do for your constituents and not what you can do for yourself. I honestly live that. My father came here when he was 18, my mom when she was in her twenties…

O: Were they from the same town?

D: From the same region. The towns were next to each other. My cousins John and Joe own D’Amelio’s restaurant and their father and my father are brothers, and their mother and my mother are sisters, so we call each other brother-cousins. I hope they never need a liver or a kidney, because we might match. (big laugh)
We are a tight knit family. I have aunts who are 10 to 12 years older than me and we all kind of grew up in the same house. My grandmother raised all of us because my parents went off to work. Being brought up in that culture affected my values. I watched my grandparents and parents helping each other out. If someone was sick or hospitalized they didn’t have to ask for help. Meals were prepared. Community values were instilled in me.
It wasn’t always easy for me because my parents got divorced when I was young. That was devastating, especially because they were Italian immigrants. As a young guy when that happened your whole world is taken from under you. But I learned from that experience that you have to work hard because no one is going to hand you anything.

O: How has politics changed in Waterbury since you were first elected to the board of education in 1989?

D: Individuals that are elected now take things more personal. When I was first elected Joe Santopietro was the mayor and I served on the school board. There was always give and take with the other side of the aisle, but after the meetings everyone would sit down and have a beer together. I don’t see a lot of that going on now.
Now people are often against a proposal because of who proposed it. They are against an individual and don’t see the bigger picture. Another difference is the confidence of the voters. Back then there was a lot of pride in Waterbury. I think people felt better about their elected officials. Don’t forget that since I was elected Joe went through his problems, Phil went through his problems, and then the Governor. There was pride when I was first elected and now it’s “what the hell do you want to serve for? Why are you running?” People looked at you back then with honor, and now when they look at you they don’t have the same amount of trust that they used to have.

O: Former Governor John Rowland called politics in Waterbury a “contact sport”. How would you describe the political process in Waterbury right now?

D: It’s still a contact sport, but I have always prided myself on sticking with the issues. I don’t hit on someone’s personality or someone’s character. But in Waterbury now it’s all about character assassination. If you’ve been in public service for a while you must be a crook. My opponent for the state rep race last election called me everything under the sun. He said I was a crook and that everything I’ve achieved in life is because of my political connections.

O: How do you deal with that?

D: I’m very grounded. I know who I am. I’m comfortable with who I am. It bothers my wife and family more than it bothers me. I know it’s politics and I’m just going to roll with the punches. If you are going to be in politics you have to have a thick skin. Especially in Waterbury. Your opponents are going to attack your character to try and show that you’re not the person you really are. It’s very difficult and that’s the reason it is so hard to get people who want to run. It is getting harder and harder to find people who want to serve.

O: Tony, you’ve been on a short list of mayoral candidates for the past 12 years. There was talk of you taking on Mike Bergin in 1995 and of challenging Phil Giordano in 1999. Every municipal election in the past 12 years your name has been bandied about as a mayoral candidate. The Republican Party leadership has begged you to run before and you always said no. What’s different in 2007? Why did you say yes this time around?

D: It’s very simple. I’m very much a family guy; my family comes first before anything else. I have two daughters in college now and I have a 12-year-old son. I wasn’t sure where my daughters were going to school and I wasn’t going to jump into a mayoral race. Both girls go to UConn so it’s affordable, but they could have chosen to go to Fordham or Yale. My wife and I are committed to giving our children an education and we don’t want them to have a huge debt. I never wanted to rely on politics for my livelihood because it’s so uncertain. So my family came first.
Secondly, I had to consider my business. I’m self-employed. I started Three Of A Kind restaurant with my two partners in 1983 and then in 1997 I opened Paisanos. I made a huge investment in that new building so there was no way I could walk away from that. I now have a good management team in place, and a great staff, so I can run for mayor.
On a personal note, the first time they wanted me to run in 1995 against Mike Bergin I wasn’t ready for it. I wasn’t ready to take on that type of position. Now I’ve been involved for 18 years. I’ve been a board of ed member, I’ve been an alderman, and I’ve been in the state house for 12 years so it’s a different day. I know exactly what this city needs.

O: The Republican Party has a solid history of selecting young Italian males from Town Plot as its mayoral candidate. It hasn’t worked out all that well for Waterbury because the last two Republican candidates elected mayor went to prison. There is a very real fear in some quarters of this city from voters who look at Tony D’Amelio and say “Oh no, here we go again, another Italian male from Town Plot.” What would you say to those voters?

D: It angers me that this was even brought out. When I first announced I was running the mayor went on TV talking about Phil Giordano and Joe Santopietro. The only similarity that we have is that we’re Italian Americans from a certain area. That’s where it ends. I think I have proven myself. I’ve been involved in public service for 18 years and there’s not a blemish behind my name. With all the scandal that’s gone on here in Waterbury there’s nothing been said about Tony D’Amelio.
And this issue drives and motivates me. If I do become mayor I am going to do a fantastic job. The Italian community has been labeled because of Santopietro and Giordano, but that doesn’t mean that we’re all bad. I have daughters that are Italian-American and they shouldn’t be labeled because of what two individuals did. It is important to the Italian community to have me run and clear up this issue. They want this stereotype to go away.
The mafia originated in the Italian community, we all know that, there’s a history of that, but we’re not all Mafioso, or a part of that. We’ve contributed a lot to Waterbury and America. We are good hard working people.



O: I agree, but one of the challenges of your candidacy is to convincingly bring that point across. Voters around the city are concerned about this issue. Joe Santopietro was just arrested again this year for his effort to help the mob control trash hauling in western Connecticut. Giordano had links to the mob that were being investigated before he was arrested for pedophilia. This is not the Sopranos, this is Waterbury and the mafia has been right here in the city. Organized crime has been in the mayor’s office. This is a difficult issue for people to put on the table and ask you, but voters are talking about it all around you, behind your back. That’s why I wanted to ask you directly to your face and let you respond to the issue.

D: I appreciate that. The Italian-American community has struggled with the corruption of Joe Santopietro and Phil Giordano and that’s why the Italian-American community is thrilled that someone like me is running for mayor. They know me. I have a strong record of public service for the past 19 years. I’m excited to show Waterbury that this problem isn’t about all Italian Americans, and I think they know that. A lot of the politicos want to make a case to discredit me, they use a whisper campaign….he’s Italian, he’s corrupt, and the campaign started off that way this year. They wanted to put fear in people’s minds that here’s another corrupt individual. The minute that article came out that quoted the mayor as saying I was backed by crooks and felons, the stereotype was being put forward.
My daughter wrote a letter to the editor that expressed how she felt. It was very powerful. She didn’t tell me until after she sent it in. It brought tears to my eyes. My 19-year-old daughter wrote that her father had done nothing but serve the community, and opponents have no issues against him so they try and drag him through the mud by bringing in the Santopietro situation and the Giordano situation.
She wrote that she was an Italian-America and asked if that made her bad. Her letter was very powerful and that whole issue died down.

O: The one part that let’s people keep the issue alive a little bit is that you are very good friends with Jeff Santopietro. You don’t hide that, he doesn’t hide that. He’s in your headquarters picking up lawn signs. There is something radioactive about the name Santopietro, and suddenly he becomes the cunning fox pulling your strings. Is he?

D: Not at all. When I first decided to run people told me to keep Jeffrey out of the picture, in the background. That’s not me. I don’t hide my stripes. I am who I am. Jeff has been a dear friend of mine for the past 20 years. I became really good friends with him when he was going through the situation that he had. It wasn’t easy for him. His brother was a very popular mayor and his whole world collapsed. He was a young man, I think he was 19, and it was a very tough time. He has always been there to help me and we’re good friends.
If you look at Jeff today he is married, he is running a very successful business and he continues to give to the community in so many different ways. He is a great guy. If people are concerned about the Santopietro name, they shouldn’t be concerned with Jeff. He doesn’t control me in any way, shape or form. No one controls my decision-making. I have to do what’s right for me.

O: The last two Republican candidates for mayor, Mark Forte and Tom Tremaglio, both had innovative and refreshing ideas, yet both men said they were screwed over by the very Republican leadership that urged them to run. It’s been a tough time for Republicans in Waterbury. What’s your take on the health of the Grand Old Party in Waterbury?

D: I’ve helped energize the party with my candidacy. The majority of the party feels we have a legitimate shot. I understand how Mark and Tom feel, after the Giordano mess our party was splintered. I applaud them for taking the helm, for actually putting their necks out there. And Dennis Odle in 2001.
Even now, the party gives you the nomination and you hope for some help, but it all falls on your own back. Some members are great, and some members hand you the nomination and don’t volunteer or work hard. That’s in every political party.
I am one of the few people who get along with everyone. I was good friends with Nick Augelli, I was good friends with Sam Caligiuri. There was a big split there from what Sam did to get the leadership of the board of aldermen from Nick. He did what he did, but I remained friends with him. Now we’re even better friends since he came to the Statehouse and we work together and we have really gotten to know one another. Nick I served with for years on the board of aldermen. When everything went down with Joe Santopietro it was Nick Augelli who was our leader. I was on the school board at the time but he was the figure that kept us all together. He said we can’t get discouraged, we have to stay together, and not long after that Giordano got elected. But Nick was the leader that held this party together and a lot of people forget that history. If you look at all the camps out there today there is little factions everywhere. Not everyone is happy with his or her party, and that’s just something you come to live with.

O: 34% of all tax dollars in Waterbury go to unfunded pensions and retiree medical costs. Despite the unfunded $450 million pension nightmare. Some of your opponents have stated that the medical costs to retirees is likely an even larger liability to the taxpayers. How would you tackle the problem?

D: That’s the next huge hurdle that Waterbury is going to face. We don’t know what that exact number is yet, but we have to find that out and deal with it the same way we are dealing with the pension fund, and that’s pay as you go. Some people may disagree with me, but when you have a debt of that magnitude, when the actuarial reports say we must pay $40 million a year, we have to do that. Waterbury is not out of the financial woods yet. We still have a huge debt. It’s no different than your home. You have $100,000 debt on credit cards and you borrow against your home and start making monthly payments. You think you’re out of the woods, but you still have that debt. Unless you sell your home that debt is not going to go away until you pay it off. It’s going to take us 18 years to get out of debt but we have to do this. When we find out what the health care costs are we are going to have to do the same thing.

O: How do we figure out that number?

D: That’s a good question. For years I don’t think anyone knew what they were doing in dealing with health care benefits. Now that we are addressing this issue I think it’s scaring a lot of people. Just imagine what the state of Connecticut is on the hook for. But whatever these numbers are we are going to have to deal with them head on. No smoke and mirrors. Whatever the debt is we’ll have to tackle it. Sam Caligiuri proposed legislation in Hartford that would have the state bond the money for the pension fund and then Waterbury borrow that money. But there is only $25 million in the bonding package before us right now and Waterbury needs $450 million. There are 78 communities out there right now that have a pension fund problem so it’s going to take a while to convince Hartford to actually bond that money. That would be the best scenario because we would bond that money at the state rate and pay that debt slowly.
These issues bring to light our financial situation in Waterbury. We have a $7 million surplus this year. That’s nice to say that but we have a $460 million pension fund debt, and whatever that health care cost is going to be. We’re not sitting as pretty as we think we are.

O: The Republican mantra is always to cut taxes, or to keep taxes as they are. Waterbury has the highest tax rate in Connecticut. People are drowning here. And another pig is about to drop on the table with the health care costs. The bad news isn’t over is it?

D: No. The Oversight Board did yeoman’s work by reversing a lot of the sins that occurred in the past 30 years of mismanagement in Waterbury. The $40 million a year that we have to contribute every year is because of the mismanagement of city finances. We are paying for that. I would love to be able to say that I will cut your taxes but that’s not who I am. I can’t lie to people.
There are things that can be done and I think economic development is the key to that. It’s no different than my business. I have fixed costs just like the city and those costs go up every year. Lights, fuel, payroll, health care benefits, they are not going to go down. Unless you bring in more revenue to cover that, the money has to come from somewhere. So what do you do?
Can you go to the taxpayers? No, people are tapped out. Everybody is just barely surviving in this area. We are a blue-collar town.



O: So how do we attract more businesses here?

D: We need an aggressive economic development plan. First we need to encourage developers and businesses that Waterbury is a place they want to be. One thing I learned in Hartford is that there are 169 communities in this state and we’re all competing for the same factory, the same fuel cell business, everybody is in on this game. Years ago suburbia wasn’t in on this; they wanted to maintain their same small town character. But that’s changed. The small communities now understand the importance of economic development in keeping their taxes down and they’ve created industrial parks like the one in Watertown.
I propose that we pre-permit sites in Waterbury. One of the things Waterbury is known for is that when a developer or new business comes here they get discouraged with red tape and bureaucracy. They decide its going to take them too long to get up and running and they go somewhere else. But if we pre-permit sites, we have so many Brownfields, and buildings falling in disrepair that are no longer viable, that we need to get them ready for change.

O: How would you do that? Pick out a site and take us through the process.

D: We are trying to do this with the Harper Leader property on South Main Street. We have applied for money to remediate that property. It was an old fuel company that fell into disrepair. We would take that property and apply for all the necessary permits on the state level.

O: You’d take it by eminent domain?

D: We can, but with this new Brownfield legislation it’s going to be a lot easier for the city to go in and take these properties. We could work it out with the existing owner who doesn’t have the funds to clean the site. We can do all the necessary legwork as a city to get this property ready to be permitted. They we can go out and market it. If we want we can apply for the money and clean the property and get it ready for a potential developer or factory owner. By doing this we can take all the leg work out of the project for any developer or business looking to move in. This will get rid of the stereotype Waterbury has that nobody moves fast enough and you’ll get tied up in red tape. If we pre-permit these sites we could get the Waterbury Development Corporation to remediate the property and then we could sell it to a developer. We would get back the money we spent cleaning the property up and we’d have a new addition to our tax base.

O: It’s interesting that you talk about the feedback you get from businesses and developers about their frustration dealing with Waterbury’s red tape, and we just had the top two leaders at the Waterbury Development Corporation leave in frustration that the city is imposing red tape on them making it difficult to start projects.

D: Alderman Paul Vance proposed to have everything go through the board of aldermen and that’s not what WDC was created for. It was a shoot off of the Naugatuck Valley Development Corporation and was supposed to get rid of all the red tape. If you look at all the projects NVDC did in downtown redevelopment like the Palace Theater, UConn and the magnet arts school, all that money went straight to NVDC. In Hartford we didn’t want that money going straight to the city because it would slow down the process. The most recent example is the money to fix the football field at Municipal Stadium. We earmarked the money to WDC because we wanted to avoid the nightmare of having the project bogged down in the city’s bureaucracy.
I got a $150,000 to fix up Town Plot Park a year ago and nothing has been done. The money is to buy new playscapes, to fix the walking trail, to fix the sprinkler and other maintenance things.

O: Is the money still in Hartford?

D: No, the money was earmarked to the Park Board and it hasn’t gotten done yet. The city for some reason sits on its hands. There is no motivation to go out and do these projects. That’s what has to change. So I don’t blame Mike O’Connor (the former executive director of WDC) for being frustrated, and he started to air some of that frustration about the City Hall project. That project was adopted after a painful referendum on the issue. On May 30th of this year the aldermen adopted the $39 million project. It’s October 1st and we don’t even have a contract yet. That’s obscene. When there is a standard contract used throughout the industry, and it’s the same one Michael O’Connor used for the $300 million downtown development, we need to sign that and get the project started. It was good enough for the Palace and UConn, it’s not good enough for City Hall?

O: The mayor just came firing back with an op-ed piece in the Republican-American newspaper saying that standard contract was set up to protect the contractors and not the city. He said a new contract would better protect the citizens.

D: Maybe that’s his belief, but I’ve spoken to attorneys who deal with this issue all the time and they have told me that the contract doesn’t protect the developers. There is equal protection and that’s why it’s an industry standard. There was a 30 day grace period after the referendum in case someone challenged the results, but during that time the mayor could have had someone working on a contract. There is no excuse for the delay. So imagine you are a private business having to go through this, where every single day is costing you money, you couldn’t do it. That’s why the real money, the real businesses that we look to bring into the city don’t even look at Waterbury. They get frustrated and aggravated that everything takes too long.

O: So how do you fix WDC?

D: By having leadership. The mayor has to take a strong lead on these things. He has to be an ambassador for development in Waterbury. Whoever takes that seat has to dedicate a majority of their time to economic development. If that doesn’t happen we are in deep trouble. Because our costs are only going up. If you look at our tax bills from ten years ago and compare them to today’s, they have almost tripled. So how much more can you ask from a taxpayer? We can’t ask for anymore.

O: So you have to take a pair of scissors and cut the red tape?

D: Absolutely. Not create more of it like they are proposing to do now. The mayor is seeking more control over WDC and that’s not why they were created. WDC has an executive board, the neighborhood has some people, the chamber is on that board, and then there is a board of directors of 25 individuals. There is checks and balances with WDC. You want to take it out of government’s hands because any time the government gets involved it will take you forever. I see that on the state level. State projects take forever because you have to go through all that red tape.

O: Downtown Watertown is fully occupied and flourishing, and Waterbury’s downtown isn’t. Why is that, and what can you do to specifically help downtown Waterbury?

D: If you look at what Carl Rosa and Main Street are doing they have some great ideas. As a mayor you have to become a part of that, you have to become a real cheerleader for Main Street.
I did a merchants walk and the number one concern from the merchants was parking. They complain that sometimes a customer will pull up and run in and get something quick and when they walk out there is a ticket on the windshield. We have sent the message that we won’t tolerate illegal parking, but we have to go beyond that and address the parking so businesses can survive downtown.
Another issue is that property owners want to put money into their property but they will have to pay more taxes on the improvements and there is no guarantee they will get tenants. So we need to give tax breaks on property improvements to help get things going. These are ideas that the property owners have come up with. There are beautiful buildings down here with spaces that can turn into apartments so we can create more living space downtown. A lot of kids getting out of college would love to live downtown in a one of these apartments but we have to market that and have to give the landlords and property owners an incentive to rehab those apartments.

O: Just so I’m clear, what would you do with the parking tickets? Would you stop issuing parking tickets?

D: No. That’s another stream of revenue that the city has, but I think there needs to be some common sense applied. If you see someone pull up to Louie’s Pizza to run in and grab a grinder we shouldn’t be racing over to give that customer a ticket. If the car is sitting there for an hour, tag them. You don’t want to create the image that we’re giving away free parking, that’s not what I’m trying to say. We just need to use wiser judgment to make it more business friendly. I go to Tony’s Men’s Shop all the time, I buy the majority of my suits and clothes from Tony’s and I go to Fine Crafts because they are specialty shops. It’s a little harder to convince our wives because we have become a mall society. But we have great ramparages downtown and we need to do a better job marketing that they are clean and safe. Maybe we should offer free parking a few days out of the year to try and get more shoppers downtown. Once they are downtown they can see that we are safe. The image is that downtown is not safe. We have the buses on the Green, and the people that hang around the Green might be good people, but they make some people uncomfortable.
We have a beautiful downtown and if we can get the transportation center going I envision parking all around the Green. Maybe we can open up some of those shops on West Main Street. Parking is the number one issue, and number two is giving incentives to property owners to rehab their buildings, and number three is to go out and actively recruit.
We had the Information Technology Zone down here and that was extremely successful, but we didn’t reapply for that money. I don’t know why the city would let that money go. I was told that 23 applied for the ITZ and 15 are still here. That’s pretty successful.
Carl Rosa and Main Street just put on the BeerFest in Library Park and 1000 people came into downtown. We need to do more of those types of events. I’ve talked to Carl about creating a restaurant zone in downtown Waterbury. The workers clear out of the insurance companies in Hartford after work, but people come back into Hartford to eat at Max’s Downtown, Hot Tomatoes and the Trumbull Street Grill. We can do that here in Waterbury. Look at City Hall Café and Diorio’s, we just need more places.

O: Part of the difficulty is that when people walk out of the Palace Theater they run smack into a fortress of UConn. If you look to the left it’s dark and creepy, and people do one of two things – they head to the parking garage at UConn, or the one behind the theater. People aren’t wandering around downtown. There are tens of thousands of people coming downtown and we don’t have a really good way to capture them after a show.

D: You’re right. But if we can turn that dark area into Max’s or a Hot Tomatoes people will come down even when the Palace isn’t open. Food attracts people from all over the place. I’m not talking about Subways or my place, but fine dining restaurants. Higher end restaurants. Carmen does a great job. Nobody thought he’d make it with a high end steak house on Chase Avenue, but he’s doing a great job. Diorio’s is doing a great job and attracts people from all over the state. That’s the kind of caliber restaurant I’m looking for. I talk to Carl about creating incentives for restaurants to come down here to liven up downtown after office hours. But we do have to clean up the image of downtown. We have to provide better lighting. Maybe create more off street parking along East Main Street, and create more parking around the Palace Theater. Maybe there’s streets we can totally block off and create outdoor dining. That’s what people want these days, and we have to give them what they want. The restaurants will help attract more speciality shops, places where you can’t go anywhere else to get the product.

O: In December 1993 you were the sole alderman to vote against a plan by Mayor Bergin to purchase and renovate the Palace Theater for $4 million. You clearly stated that the city and its taxpayers should not own the theater. Ten years later the Palace Theater was renovated for $30 million and the city of Waterbury now owns the theater. What do you think now of this arrangement?

D: Two different scenarios completely. Back in 1993 Mayor Bergin’s proposal was to have the city buy and renovate the Palace Theater. We couldn’t afford to do that. Being involved in government back then I saw that we couldn’t even run our Park Department in the right manner so what made us think we could own and operate a theater. The city has no business being in the theater business. The structure that they had in place was all wrong. We were going to create another layer of bureaucracy by creating another city department and hiring all kinds of people. Once we made that investment Waterbury was going to be married to that project for years and years and years and we weren’t going to get anything in return for it. So it was a bad idea, but it wasn’t an easy vote for me because the night of that vote it was the who’s who of Waterbury that came down and spoke in favor of it. But being in the restaurant business, and being with the average Waterburian who works hard every day, I knew that they didn’t like this idea, and I didn’t either. I voted my conscience. After the vote the who’s who belted me saying I didn’t know what I was doing and that I should be ashamed.



O: Well the Republican-American loved you. They wrote an entire editorial praising your courage.

D: But I didn’t know they were going to do that. Later we had a referendum on the project and my vote really stood out because I had the pulse of the people. I work with the people, it’s not a magic formula, when you work with the people every single day you know what they are feeling. This time around the Governor proposed doing the theater with state money. It was all state money that came in and we did it the right way. We created the Palace Theater Board, they are running it. They’ve done a great job and God Bless Jim Smith from Webster Bank for stepping up and pouring a lot of money into that endowment. So it’s not costing the city. We might own it, but the city’s involvement is not there. It was a completely different proposal that is not costing the taxpayers of Waterbury any money to run. You could argue that it’s still taxpayer dollars no matter how you look at it, but we have a tourist tax in Hartford that funds a portion of it and the delegation needs to keep fighting for funds to help run the theater. I think the way Steve is running the place he is doing a great job, I mean Frank, Frank Tavara.

O: You’ll give Frank an identity crisis.

D: (laughs) I don’t want to do that.

O: Part of your economic plan is to capitalize on your contacts in Hartford to help secure more funding for development projects in Waterbury. Former Governor John Rowland pushed the Waterbury envelope for ten years. Isn’t Hartford a bit tired of Waterbury right now?

D: Absolutely. Before John Rowland, Waterbury got nothing out of Hartford. We were like the state’s step child. But a lot of that falls on the leadership of the city. I’ve seen how communities present their ideas up in Hartford and how they get money. Bridgeport has a $1.6 billion proposal that Magic Johnson is involved in to develop a waterfront park. We need to get on the ball here and it has to come from the mayor’s office. Every year before our legislative session we sit with the mayor, it doesn’t matter who is the mayor, to come up with a legislative agenda for the city of Waterbury. We want to hear what the mayor is proposing that year and we bring those ideas up to Hartford. We create bills and try to convince our colleagues to support our ideas, but we have to remember there are 169 communities in Connecticut and they are all doing the same thing.
The chamber of commerce has a legislative agenda and some of the items they are looking for mirror what the mayor is looking for, and some are separate. We look to help them achieve some of their goals. And then you have individual legislators who are looking for their own area. I’m looking for park money here, we’re looking to do municipal stadium, we’re looking to do Fairlawn Park. We get some of the funding because we have a great delegation that works well together. There is no politics when its comes to the seven of us working for Waterbury, but the problem we have and why we’re not really getting what we should is because other communities, their mayors, their first selectman, come to Hartford. And when they come to Hartford they come with their city planners, they come with their chamber members, they come with their business community, they come with 15 to 20 people as a team.
They come with blueprints and when they go into the Governor’s office their delegation is part of that, and then they convince the Governor what the project can mean to not only Waterbury, but greater Waterbury. This is what we need to do.

O: Mike Jarjura isn’t doing that?

D’Amelio: No. That’s never happened in my 12 years in Hartford. It doesn’t matter who is mayor they never come to the capitol with the chamber of commerce or as a team. Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim was a pain in John Rowland’s ass because he was up in Hartford all the time looking for money. Bridgeport came as a group, a team, it wasn’t just the mayor’s idea.
We can get money to fix the stadium, but to get the real money the mayor has to work with the chamber of commerce and go to Hartford as a team. Our mayor needs to show real leadership in creating a vision for Waterbury and that isn’t happening now. That’s what I want to do, it’s the only way to do this. We have to sell Waterbury to Hartford. We have to sell the governor and the other legislators, we have to show them what this project can mean to Waterbury, and that’s not happening now. We need a united front. We shouldn’t have a mayor’s agenda and a completely separate chamber agenda, there are differences but they have to work more closely together. Government and business have to be on the same page on what we are going to do for Waterbury, and then we’ll get things done.

O: Forty percent of students who enter 9th grade in Waterbury public school do not graduate four years later. The truancy and dropout rate is a full-fledged crisis in this community. Do you have any ideas how to address this nightmarish problem?

D: I served a four year term on the board of education and I went to visit the schools. On a weekly basis I would go into a different school and it was an eye-opening experience. I had no idea about some of the hardships going on within the community. There are a lot of kids struggling. We want them to have higher test scores, but do we know what’s going on with them? Some kids are being brought up without any parents, or their parents are alcoholics or strung out on drugs. It’s hard to compare the test scores from Cheshire to Waterbury. I bet a majority of kids in Cheshire come from a two parent home, the family is making good money and not struggling like a lot of the families in the inner city of Waterbury. That’s why our test scores aren’t doing that well.
What can we do about it? We have to listen to the educators that are on the front lines every day, and that is our teachers and administrators. If they are spending 80% of their time trying to calm one or two kids down it’s not fair to other kids who are there and want to learn.

O: Some of this isn’t about test scores. Forty percent of the kids aren’t graduating on time or are dropping out of school. That is an outrageous number. What happens to these kids? Where do they go? Many of them end up in shitty jobs or in a dead end scene. That’s the future of Waterbury. What are we going to do about this?

D: For Waterbury to succeeed we have to have a strong educational system. That’s why I favor the neighborhood school concept. The middle schools are what is driving middle class out of the city, or they are sending their kids to private schools. There is a lot of fear about what’s going on in our middle schools. I was in the second graduating class from Westside Middle School. Prior to that was Barnard School, which was my neighborhood school. My cousins, myself, we went to school together. Everyone in our neighborhood went to Barnard School. There was a sense of community. Everyone knew who your parents were, my parents knew the other parents and there was a lot more respect and a lot more pride in the neighborhood. If there was an activity you could walk to your school. Let’s not forget there is a lot of people in Waterbury that don’t drive and we are busing their kids half way across town. It doesn’t matter which ethnic group you belong to, everybody wants neighborhood schools. They work. The middle school concept has failed us.
We have to look at the curriculum in high schools. Why are so many kids dropping out? Well maybe they know they aren’t college material and we aren’t given them a purpose to come to school. We aren’t training them for any type of job skills. We need to address that. We need to change that. When I went to Kennedy High School we had college prep, business, and industrial arts courses. If you were geared towards college you’d be in the college prep course, business you’d study business, and if you were in industrial arts you studied shop or auto mechanics so you felt like you were learning something useful to help you get a job. We have to go back to that concept and make sure the students not going on to college are prepared and trained for some type of job. Not every kid is going to college and when they get to a certain age they are bored and ask themselves “what am I doing this for?” God knows what these kids are going through at home. For a kid to drop out you have to wonder if the parents are actively involved with them. There are a lot of reasons why these kids are dropping out and we have to figure out why.



O: The Observer was involved in helping to launch a youth newspaper this summer called Young Voices. We had 12 public school students sit down for two days to brainstorm all the reasons they believed their peers were getting discouraged and dropping out of school. After lengthy discussion they zeroed in on Waterbury’s strict dress code as the #1 reason kids were dropping out of school. Every one of the students had been suspended for being in violation of dress code. One student received in-house suspension for wearing the wrong colored hair tie to school. The students believe the teachers and administrators are spending too much time enforcing a bizarrely strict dress code. Last year for example there were more suspensions in 9th grade than there were students in 9th grade. The kids say they are suffocating under petty rules, get sick of the daily hassle and drop out? What do you think of the situation?

D: These kids are faced with a lot. That’s why I think it is so important that the mayor gets involved with the education system. We need to listen to the teachers. The board of education is probably putting the pressure on the schools about the dress code.

O: Dr. Snead (superintendent of schools) loves it. He absolutely loves the dress code. He said that the students know what the rules are and the should follow them or be held accountable.

D: Maybe teachers can share with you. A teacher might step forward and say the situation is ridiculous, that this is a great a student and it doesn’t matter what color hair tie she has on today. Maybe our teachers are frustrated with the dress code too. We have to ask them and find out what’s really going on in the classrooms. One thing I learned by being on the school board is that we have great educators here in Waterbury. They are very caring and concerned, but we tie their hands in many respects. I wonder how many school board members actually go around and visit the schools. We grab these ideas like the dress code, which can be good in many ways, but maybe there’s problems too. The idea was that everybody looks the same now. I think it’s a healthier environment with a dress code.

O: All the kids on Young Voices agree there should be a dress code. No one is saying there shouldn’t be a dress code. They are saying it’s too anal. They feel they are being choked for ridiculous things.

D: My daughter got a demerit because one of her buttons was undone. Does the board of ed really understand what this policy is doing? That they are discouraging people from learning.

O: The mayor has created a blue ribbon commission to address the truancy and dropout rate and there are 50 community leaders involved and there are hardly any kids involved in the process. There are some minorities represented on this commission, but it’s mostly middle aged white folks trying to figure out why blacks and Hispanics are dropping out of school. There is a total disconnect. These kids want to talk, they want to express themselves to the board and tell them what is really going on inside the schools. Students want to bring their ideas forward and if you are elected mayor would you be willing to hold a Youth Summit to allow the young people of this city to speak out?

D: I think it’s important that we do that. We need to hear what their frustrations are. A lot of kids won’t participate, but the ones that do will give you a good insight. I have two daughters that recently graduated from high school. My wife and I take a strong interest in our kid’s education so we kind of knew what was going on in the schools as they were developing. But we really need to figure what is going on in those classrooms. Teacher bashing is the easiest thing. People say look at how much money they make and our test scores are down, but there are reasons and we need to look deeper into the situation. We also need to look at different teaching methods and how some principals are motivating their staff and students. The principal at Wendell Cross got his school engaged by offering to kiss a pig if they did good on their test scores. They did, and he kissed a pig. By looking at what is working, by studying success, we can find out how to spread this throughout the school system. Look at Rotella School, it was selected the best magnet arts school in America. How is that principal motivating her teachers? We need to study that and learn. How do we do that? By having a mayor who is willing to get into the schools and engage the teachers. I will do that.
Some senior citizens aren’t concerned with the school system anymore. They raised their kids already so they aren’t worried so much about what is happening today, but its of great concern to the entire community because the school system determines what your real estate is worth. If you have a strong school system, where people want to come in, that will create more demand and the price of your home will go up.

O: You are a former alderman so you experienced the stress of having to make big decisions with little information, or information given to you at the last minute. Do you think we should provide aldermen with a support staff so they can better handle the important issues coming before them?

D: Absolutely. People have to realize there is virtually no pay involved in the job. You do get a stipend, I don’t even know what it is, $4000 maybe. The most frustrating part for me is that you have to seek out your own information. If you’re working full-time and trying to juggle your family and everything, it’s very time consuming to get into the meat of an issue. You won’t know where the issue came from or whether you were casting the right decision on this. Basically you are depending on the mayor’s office for whatever information you have. Corporation Counsel provides information, but they are pretty much run by the mayor. In Hartford I have a legislative aide that is shared by five legislators. We need to create some type of system like that here in Waterbury where an alderman can call up the aide and say there is an important issue going on in the south end of Waterbury and I don’t really understand it. Can you research it and provide all the data. This would give the alderman more of a comfort level on the issues before they cast a vote.

O: Plus you’d get an independent assessment of what’s going on, something different than a partisan mayor’s point of view.

D: That’s important. I would like to create a legislative aide that is bipartisan. Not one for Republicans and one for Democrats. We need a researcher. Whatever the pressing issue that we need research on they have to conduct it. And most likely when they do that research it’s going to be for the entire board. We do have staff that provides that, but it’s not a bipartisan staff. Let’s face it, when a mayor is in office, the corporation counsel and every department head will go along with the mayor. So it’s very difficult as an alderman and that’s why you see a lot of the votes going the way they do. It’s just so much easier to say no. Mike Bergin used to do something that Phil Giordano never did, he called individual aldermen in. He would say this is the issue and if you’re going to break my balls on it I want you to know why I think it’s important and this is how I came to my conclusion. That tactic worked. 90% of the time he was right, and it was very hard for me or the other alderman to go against him. John Rowland did that a lot in Hartford. Personal lobbying showing you facts. You had to doubt them, but if you don’t have someone doing that independent research it makes it very difficult to go against them.

O: Mayor Jarjura has actively been involved in personal real estate development around the city. The mayor says he’s just investing in the city he loves, what’s your take on the issue?

D: It’s easy to sit here and say that the mayor is lining his pockets as mayor, but you have to understand that Mike and I go back. I know Mike, I know him as a person. I don’t have a problem with Mike making money in real estate. He’s a good person. He’s an honorable guy, there is no question about that. The problem I have is that when you are mayor there is a fine line sometimes. When you have a million dollars invested in a piece of property and you need a city board to pass that development it can be very tempting to get involved. How can you keep your hands out of that?

O: Especially when you have appointed members to the board that you are seeking approval from. And when the head of the Inland Wetlands Commission is appointed by you, and works at a city job, like Kathy McNamara does, it places her in an awkward spot.

D: Exactly. Everything could be above board but it’s the public perception that will hurt you. Mike has to realize what Waterbury has gone through, not only with two mayors, but a governor. There is a lot of distrust out there, and now you have a mayor who is a developer and it makes people scared. I said in the beginning of the interview that I don’t ever want to rely on public service for my livelihood, I own a business and would continue to manage the restaurant from a distance if I was elected mayor. Mike was a developer before he was mayor and has continued to manage his developing from a distance. But when you are mayor and developer you open yourself up to criticism. He took some hits for his project in Middlebury when his office space lured doctors out of Waterbury and the city lost revenue. It was a good business deal for Mike Jarjura, but not so good for Waterbury. If Mike wants to continue developing then a fair amount of criticism will continue to come his way. He needs to understand that many people, myself included, don’t think you should be mayor and developer. It’s a bad image.



O: There seemed to be several different ideas how to develop senior centers around the city, what are your ideas on this issue?

D: I’ve been lobbying in Hartford for the past three years to expand the Chase Park house. Joe Savoie is the Town Plot neighborhood president and they came to me and said they wanted a senior center in the Town Plot area and I believe sooner or later we are going to be able to secure those funds. Chase Park is an existing structure and we want to add on to it to create a space for seniors to meet.
Dennis Odle has an idea to create one big senior center for the entire city and build it out in the East End. It will be like the original Palace Theater proposal under Mike Bergin, it will create another department and more bureaucracy. We have five senior centers in the neighborhoods and we should continue to keep them in the neighborhoods. It’s where they belong. People are used to going down the street, they don’t want to be transported across town.

O: If you had one minute alone with every voter just before they entered the voting booth, what would you say to convince them to vote for Tony D’Amelio?

D: I am truly a public servant. If you look at my 20 years in politics I am not a headline grabber, or someone who wants to stand out in the limelight. I just truly want to serve. I am someone who truly cares. I’m not going to change. I haven’t changed. I love the constituent service I have provided to the people I represented in the 71st district. As a small business owner in Waterbury I know what has been lacking and that’s what has propelled me to do this. In order for Waterbury to survive we need to change our course. I can provide the leadership we need. I am the type of individual who will bring people together. I’m not stubborn and say I have all the answers. I am willing to listen and to create new ideas. I want the business community engaged. I want the neighborhood communities engaged. I hope Waterbury is ready for that type of leadership, because we haven’t had it for a long time.