Former CRRA Head Reveals More Graft

In case you missed it, Jon Lender of the Courant, wrote an update to the long sad tale that starts the CRRA cesspool of corruption. He writes:

For every fact revealed in a political scandal, several others remain hidden. The big revelations lead to firings or indictments and headlines. Other rumored circumstances can’t be confirmed or reported as news before the scandal passes, the guilty are punished (or not) and life returns to normal.

But every once in a while, long after the trouble has blown over, some old and tantalizing secret comes to light when old allies turn against each other. This can be helpful in understanding the relationships among powerful people in government and business who later emerged as scandal figures.

That’s what’s happening now, six years later. Robert Wright, the former president of the state’s trash authority, is suing members of the prominent New Britain-area Tomasso family, claiming they reneged on a secret deal to hire him as head of one of their companies in 2002.

Remember that ties in politics go long ways when you think about the CRRA. So it’s important to pay attention to how things were done, to get a handle on how things continue to be done.

Wright was never accused of any criminal activity. But back in April 2002, his job as the $153,000-a-year head of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority was in jeopardy because of a public uproar over the CRRA’s loss of $220 million (much of which was later recovered) in its deal with the soon-to-collapse Enron.

The uproar had claimed its first victim weeks earlier — Ellef, who, in addition to serving as Rowland’s staff chief, was chairman of the CRRA’s governing board. He was forced to quit both posts.

It was rumored that Wright had lined up a safe landing place with a Tomasso company. But no one would confirm that, and when he quit the CRRA under pressure in late April 2002, all anyone would say was that Wright had found another job.

The rumor seemed untrue when Wright didn’t go to work for the Tomassos, and instead found a job with Klewin Building Co. of Norwich — a state contractor that two years later would rile prosecutors and legislators by giving the disgraced Rowland a lucrative consulting job after he quit as governor in mid-2004.

But now, after all these years, it turns out that the rumor was true. It’s all in Wright’s pending lawsuit against the Tomassos, filed in federal court in 2007 after first being lodged in state court.

Wright, with an introduction from Ellef, obtained a written offer in March 2002 to become president of the Tomassos’ Tenergy water technology company in New Britain, documents show. “Your base salary will be $165,000 annually,” Tenergy executive Michael Tomasso wrote to Wright on March 15, 2002.

But later, documents show, the Tomassos withdrew the offer by letter April 29, 2002, after the CRRA-Enron mess was deepened by calls for a criminal investigation of the CRRA that materialized by the end of the month.

The Tomassos helped Wright get the job with Klewin, though, and at least one of them talked of funding part of his pay at that firm under a contemplated joint venture that did not happen, documents show.

Ellef, was chief of staff to Rowland and head of CRRA when this all went down. And the CRRA is still offering plenty of murky news. This November 2007 reminds us of Lender’s opening premise a few months later.

It’s the second such silence ruling against the CRRA in the last year. The order covers CRRA officials and members of the board, which is comprised of mayors and first selectmen from throughout the state, including Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti.

Lauretti, in a brief interview Thursday afternoon, declined comment on the scope of Eveleigh’s order, other than to predict that it will be appealed by the CRRA.

“I don’t understand the rationale used for the gag order, nor do I appreciate or understand its need,” Lauretti said. About four years ago, the upstate towns of New Hartford and Barkhamsted sued the CRRA over the Enron deal. In February 2006, the 68 remaining Mid-Connecticut Project towns joined in the litigation, which reached trial a year ago. On June 19, Eveleigh ordered CRRA to pay those towns $35.8 million. Less than 10 days later, the CRRA appealed the ruling.

The case involves repercussions from the scandal surrounding Enron, which declared bankruptcy within weeks of the December 2000 deal with the quasi-public CRRA.

Lauretti has his own issues to deal with lately (from the Courant):

A Fairfield County developer has been indicted on bribery and a half-dozen other offenses for providing cash and other gifts — including a home addition — to eight-term Shelton Mayor Mark Lauretti, people familiar with the indictment and the investigation that preceded it said Monday.

In addition to bribery of a public official, James Botti, 45, of Shelton was charged with lying to the Internal Revenue Service, mail fraud and financial crimes associated with attempts to conceal large cash payments.

Lauretti, a rising star in state Republican politics, was not identified by name in the indictment and was not charged. In the indictment, he is identified as “Public Official #1″ and described as “Botti’s co-conspiractor.”

But people familiar with the case said Lauretti is Public Official #1. Lauretti filed an application to build an addition on his house in 2002, the year Botti is accused of paying for the work.

And why is this so interesting? Lauretti is on the board of CRRA.  Appointed in 2002. The story of CRRA has never been fully told. And when people in Norwalk start advocating on its behalf, knowing the long history of corruption, the ties to criminal organizations, it really makes you wonder.

source: Courant, Long After Scandal, Secrets Emerge, Jon Lender, December 7,

  • anonymous

    Isnt it CRRA that Amanda Brown and Bruce Morris wanted us to use in Norwalk ? Smells fishy.

  • Anonymous

    I thought CRRA was the ones we have a contract with until this next summer.The blue buckets may not cost a lot but why buy one if we won’t be using them next year?

    If it smells it may be the Republican politics not Brown or Morris.

  • Anonymous

    #2 You are typical of the misinformed on this site. City Carting handles the reclyling,not CRRA. They never have. The Republican admistraton dumped CRRA. The same organization that has about 4 lawsuits against it, and was pushed by Morris and Brown as well as Burgess, of course the fact tht Bruce Morris’s father has had a long association with CRRA had nothing to do with it. So #2 you blamed the Republicans for association with corruption, when it has been the Dems. Why don’t you try to blame Republicans for the stink comming from Illinois? Of course it must really be a Republican conspriacy to discredit Obama.

  • Old Timer

    Harold Alvord explained in detail that the long term contract with CRRA and their trucker, ends this month. Anticpating the end of the contract, the City hired consultants to prepare RFPs for a new contract that would be in place the next day so there would be no interruption of service. In response, several companies submitted bids. CRRA and their trucker, Enviro Tech, were high bidders, City Carting was lowest qualified bidder, with the qualifications to handle the contract. Subsequent negotiations with City Carting led to their proposal for the City to lease the Meadow St transfer station and run it as a regional transfer station after a new permit for a much higher volume was obtained by the City. That proposal was eventually rejected by the City, but the contract for City Carting to haul away our trash did go to City Carting. The only reason CRRA and Enviro Tech were shut out was their bid was too high. They made repeated efforts, after the bid was closed, to open negotiations with the City to get the City contract. Alvord was criticized, unfairly, in my opinion, for calling their effort “sleazy”. According to what Alvord told us, CRRA becomes a private company Jan 1st and will own all the same assets it operated for the last 20 years as a quasi-public entity. As to how many crooks were involved in CRRA, the story is still emerging and did not have any apparent effect on their relationship with the City of Norwalk, as far as we know.
    When City Carting takes over the new contract, Jan 1st, they may very well be hauling our trash to CRRA, as a good business decision by City Carting.

  • Anonymous

    Your right Old Timer we stand to make out on the new deal.Does Norwalk keep all proceeds from the recycle part of the contract,all but the steel?

    Or did we lose all options to gain from recyle material?

  • Old Timer

    As I understand it, recycling is a seperate contract, also with City Carting. I don’t know the terms of that contract, or when it expires. At today’s prices, it cost more to recycle than the materials sell for, so there are no proceeds. That thing about who gets what proceeds was part of a discussion about the benefits of an expanded recycling plan that was supposed to be part of the Meadow St regional transfer plan with Crescent St being used strictly for recycling. Don’t know now what is going to happen.
    The choice of companies to get the trash contract was right by the book, apparently, and not political. There was some political preference for the Meadow St regional Transfer station proposal that seemed to focus on a perception of money the City might realize, but that was after the successful bidder had been selected.

  • Anonymous

    ends in june, news was from this week

    “This is the largest, quickest fall in wastepaper prices that I’ve seen in my 31 years in the business,” said Bob Heffernan, vice president and general manager of the northeast region for Newark Recycled Fibers

    Last summer, recycled paper was selling for $160 a ton. Today, the paper mills are paying $5.

    So if you want to save the city some money lose your blue bucket.

    If this keeps up Norwalk may need $100,000 to dispose of recycled paper next year.I’m sure no one will come in and eat the cost cause we are such a great host to trash companies.

    Last night Lajoies on the news said they are cutting back operations steel is not moving anymore as well.

    Will it change the figures in Hals magical mystery book? I hope so ;)

  • Anonymous

    will someone please post accurate information on recycling costs? The lies posted by mr anonymous are bad for the environment.

  • Anonymous

    Its ok #8 misinformation gets ratings, I think Mr A just likes to set records straight or provide the con to all the pros we have here.Wrong or right Norwalk does not run on all cylinders everyone agrees there.

    http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_345224932.html

    Read it and weep there are another 20 articles today on the very same subject what makes you think none of this is true?

    Shame what Lajoies said on cablevision today,what was your take,10 cars a day to maybe 10 cars a week now,laid off and cut back on hours,even days to what 4 days a week was the deal breaker if you ask me not even steel is going to be a windfall for the city,or did the city give that concession up also?

  • Anon

    Look at the contract with City Carting for recycling commencing July 1, 2009. Norwalk receives revenues for recyclables including those with no value – like glass. Glass has rarely had a value or plastics #3-7 – even in the good times. It is a matter of public record if anyone ever got away from behind their computer speculating about it and looked at the contract, the PWC committee or CC meeting minutes. Norwalk will receive $17.50/ton. Sounds better than paying $82/ton to throw it in the trash to me.

  • Anonymous

    your right #10 but for those cities who have to pay to have the stuff picked up this EPA organization figures the average cost for those who do pick up at curbside cost something like this…

    the collection cost per ton is $278 for 20 percent diversion with weekly collection, compared to $139 per ton for a 40 percent diversion rate with the same weekly collection frequency.

    so when someone suggested ( I did) every two week pickup to save money lowest per ton and per household costs occur when recyclables are collected every other week and the diversion rate is high. The cost in this scenario is $89.38 per ton.

    #10 do you know what Norwalks diversion rate is?I don’t and can’t leave my screen to find out.

    this EPA information was of course updated in August of this year

    where would you find this information on Norwalks operation?

    Did anyone suggest every two week pickups in the new contract to save taxpayers money,or was it City Carting who wrote the contract?

    I would imagine all the above information was addressed in a legit researched contract correct?

  • Anonymous

    Trash these figures why don’t you.

  • Anonymous

    CCEF & CRRA — a corrupt pair.

    Did someone say they solicited bribes?

  • political scandals,add one more

    Bill Richardson withdraws

    Seems as if every presidency comes with some scandal. Hopefully no more surface before the inauguration. Aren’t there committees or something who are supposed to check out these people prior to appointments? Are there any polititians out thee that don’t have skeletons?

    Barack Obama’s choice for commerce secretary is being investigated by a federal grand jury.
    New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Sunday announced that he was withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama’s commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract.

    Richardson’s withdrawal was the first disruption of Obama’s Cabinet process and the second “pay-to-play” investigation that has touched Obama’s transition to the presidency.