Norwalk: Bruce Morris is Unqualified and Fleecing Us

by turfgrrl

August 31st, 2007 · 26 Comments

Tags: Education · In the News · Norwalk

26 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Bruce Morris is Unqualified and Fleecing Us”

• 1 Bruce Morris is fleecing us // Aug 31, 2007 at 8:12 am

  This crook must go. Something must run in his family. This is outrageous and should be investigated.

• 2 NoName // Aug 31, 2007 at 9:00 am

  Mr Morris was hired by the previous superintendent and a republican board of ed chair. We are stuck with him. We cannot fire miscreant cops or firefighters, so I would guess Mr. Morris is here to stay.

• 3 Nameless // Aug 31, 2007 at 9:43 am

  #2 ANYONE can be fired for lying on their resume! It is a universal standard for firing. if Morris lied about his education and credentials, he should be FIRED!

• 4 It must run in the Morris family // Aug 31, 2007 at 10:49 am

  It must run in the Morris family.

  The FOI Commission Gives Town Officials a Lesson in Law
  by Marcia Chambers | August 29, 2007 12:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

  foicommissioners2007.jpgFOI Commission
  Hartford—The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is designed to assure that government bodies will act openly so citizens and elected officials can make informed decisions.

  Exactly a year ago today, First Selectwoman Cheryl Morris presided over a Board of Selectmen (BoS) special meeting “to consider and if appropriate approve an Addendum to a Lease.” Her office sent out the public notice the day before.

  Last week the five-member Freedom of Information Commission ruled that Mrs. Morris had violated a state statute by issuing a statement that was so vague and abstract that nobody could know what she was talking about. By unanimous voice vote it then declared the 2-1 BoS vote approving a third addendum to the Stony Creek quarry lease to be null and void.

  “The most extraordinary action we can take is to declare an action taken by a municipality null and void. And when we take that action, if that doesn’t educate them as to what we mean by notice, there is nothing in the world that we can do,” Chairman Andrew J. O’Keefe, a partner in the Hartford law firm of Jackson, O’Keefe and Phelan, said during the hearing.

  At the hearing, Shelley Marcus, Town Attorney #2, argued that the Commission’s ruling was moot, because the BoS subsequently rescinded its action after the Representative Town Meeting passed a resolution requiring any revision of the quarry lease to come before it for review. The town owns the quarry.

  She announced the mootness issue as if it were just another simple fact that developed along the way. But in fact the new (third) addendum that the Morris administration worked out in deep secrecy because of “delicate negotiations” was arrived at without any other bids or zoning approvals. It changed the nature and possible uses of the historic quarry and set in motion a major political and civic confrontation.

  Over a two week period last year, the RTM Republicans sought an independent review of the new lease, the RTM Moderator, accepting Ms. Marcus’s advice, refused to post a special meeting, the Republicans on the RTM led by Kurt Schwanfelder, the RTM Minority Leader, hired their own attorney and orchestrated the new resolution and the Stony Creek Association weighed in. Overall, the meetings drew scores of citizens who attended many meetings in order to both protest and deal with the new third addendum.

  In the end, the second addendum was put back in force. But the new operator, Doug Anderson, was allowed for the time being to implement the most controversial part of the lease. Section 12 permitted non Stony Creek Granite to be moved into the quarry for subsequent distribution. John Opie, the Third Selectman, voted against the new addendum a year ago, saying Section 12 “opened the door to an industrial operation.”

  This controversial part of the lease is still before the RTM’s administrative services committee. The new addendum took effect January 1, 2007 and since then negotiations to solve the Section 12 issue have lagged. Residents have complained about intense truck volume at early hours on narrow roads.

  The FOI Commission adopted a 7-page single spaced report written by hearing officer Victor R. Perpetua. The Perpetua report noted that the Quarry lease “was a matter of significant public interest and importance in the town, involving issues of revenue, traffic, environmental protection and preservation of an historic landmark.”

  The Perpetua investigation showed that Opie, a member of the Board of Selectmen, Pam Fowler, a Republican RTM member, and Mark Zaretsky, a reporter for the New Haven Register, all sought to find out what lease Mrs. Morris was talking about. Zaretsky and Fowler called the First Selectwoman’s office seeking clarification. No one called them back.

  Opie, who was to vote on the issue, was told to pick up a packet at the police station the day before. It was marked “confidential.” A letter inside the packet instructed him to share the contents with no one. At the BoS meeting, he asked Ms. Marcus about the secrecy. She said “it was the prudent thing to do,” perhaps because the contract had to be signed by August 31, 2006.

  Fowler said that she and RTM member Peter Black asked Opie what lease was involved and “he said at the time he was ’sworn to secrecy’ and so he could not tell us.” Perpetua said that Opie should have had sufficient time to prepare to participate in the board’s decision. Opie said as much at the special meeting. Perpetua also found that Fowler was not given ample time to speak about the revised lease. Instead she raised the vague agenda issue that night.

  Perpetua found that Zaretsky did not attend the meeting, thinking that based on the agenda, not much would be taken up. Had he known it was the quarry he would have covered the meeting.

  “I would like to suggest that you shouldn’t need a road map or a treasure map or any kind of secret decoder in order to connect the dots to figure out what government is up to,” Zaretsky wrote in prepared remarks last January. He asked then, and at last week’s hearing that Morris and the Town’s attorneys, be required to take a FOIC seminar or refresher course on the law.

  The quarry was much in the news last summer not because of a new lessee but because of Granite-gate. And while Ed Marcus, Town Attorney #1, did mention there was a possible new lessee at a July granite-gate meeting, his observation was buried in the details of the imploding scandal. Marcus believes this mention signaled an alert to the townspeople.

  Not true, Perpetua found. “It is therefore concluded that …the vagueness of its agenda, combined with its concomitant failure to respond to the inquiries concerning the subject matter of the August 29, 2006 meeting, effectively denied the right of the reporter for the New Haven Register, and likely other members of the public, to attend the meeting.”

  Zaretsky and Fowler filed their formal complaints with the FOI Commission in September 2006. At a FOI hearing before Perpetua last January Ed Marcus represented Cheryl Morris and Trista Clyne Milici, Mrs. Morris’s assistant. Zaretsky and Fowler represented themselves. On August 7, Perpetua ruled for Zaretsky and Fowler.

  The full Commission’s hearing on August 22 heard from Ms. Marcus, Zaretsky and Fowler. Rep.Black was in the audience during the 25 minute session.

  “Who finds the greatest the greatest discomfort with the decision?” O’ Keefe, the chair, began by way of opening remarks.

  Ms. Marcus replied, “The Board of Selectmen.” She spoke softly, saying the town did not disagree with the law. It only had trouble with “what was left out of the opinion. It is our contention that the notice did comprise a fair notice.” Her main argument, like her father’s, was that “it was “common knowledge in the town that this addendum was for the Stony Creek lease.” At the same time the legal secrecy surrounding the negotiations might well have guided Mrs. Morris’s decision to approve a public notice that did not say what business was to be conducted.

  Perpetua wrote in his decision that Ms. Marcus believed the documents related to the lease were “privileged and confidential.” That, too, was misguided. Perpetua said the Marcus Law Firm failed to prove that the documents relating to the lease were exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act. He said Cheryl Morris conceded at the hearing that there was no reason not to use the phrase “Stony Creek Quarry lease.”

  Ms. Marcus refused to budge on the accuracy of the notice. It was at that point that O’Keefe decided to let her know she didn’t know what she was talking about. The following dialogue took place:

  O’Keefe: “Let me ask you a question about the language that you think is appropriate for the notice. Would you read me that language?”
  Marcus: “To consider and if appropriate approve an addendum to a lease.”
  O’Keefe: “To a lease? If you were a townsperson, what lease would that mean to you? What lease are we talking about?”
  Marcus: “It is our contention…
  O’Keefe: “No. no. I asked the question. You answer it.
  Marcus: “If I were a townsperson knowing what I knew in the days leading…
  O’Keefe: “No. No. No. You are just a townsperson. And you see the notice on the bulletin board. And it says we are going to have a meeting to consider and if appropriate approve an addendum to a lease.”
  Marcus: Silence.
  O’Keefe: “Who are the parties to the lease? How do you know from that who are the parties to the lease?
  Marcus: “If you take it….
  O’Keefe: “No. no. How do you know?”
  Marcus: “I want to answer.
  O’Keefe: “No, I want an answer to the question,” he said, clearly exasperated.
  Marcus: “I know taken on its face by itself without the knowledge that a townsperson had it would be difficult for a person to know which one it was but with the additional knowledge that they had …it couldn’t be anything other than what it was.”

  After a few more questions, O’Keefe said:
  “What does the word notice mean? It means to tell people what is on the agenda.
  Marcus: “I understand.”
  O’Keefe: “Now how do I know what is on the agenda when it says an addendum to a lease. That is about as abstract a statement as there can be. And obviously various people couldn’t.”

  She nodded as he attempted to show her that her argument was absurd on its face. He won as much of a concession as she was able to muster.

  At the hearing last Wednesday Zaretsky said, “I have been a reporter for 21 years in Connecticut and I have never had to take a complaint all the way to the Commission. Usually filing a complaint is enough to loosen things up…” He said town officials could have said ‘you know what, we were wrong and this is how we are going to do it in the future.”’

  Fowler said afterward that the Commission’s ruling was a “real victory” and was extremely important in order to prevent further recurrences of “bad behavior.” Fowler asked the Commission to apply fines to Morris, the Marcus Law Firm and Trista Clyne Milici, saying they engaged in an abuse of power and showed a “blatant disregard for the people of Branford.” But the panel turned her down.

  After the decision Morris told The New Haven Register she disagreed with the ruling, but promised to be more careful in the future. Shelley Marcus had no regrets. Despite her grilling by O’Keefe and the Commission’s final ruling, Marcus told the Register: “The Town still believes that the agenda was correct and that everybody knew or should have known what the subject matter was.”

  This is a significant decision, one that sends a basic message about how to conduct open government. That is what the Town believes. It does make one wonder, looking back on the enormous energy it took by so many people at the RTM and the Stony Creek Association to undo the BoS’s vote, what might have happened had the FOI Commission been able to act quickly. It’s been a whole long year.

  ###

• 5 Anonymous // Aug 31, 2007 at 10:52 am

  Morris’s resume seems to be an issue. Because some people on this site have a tendancy to lie and misrepresent, I do not know if we can beleive that his resume is false. But thee is a solution, under FOI his resume must be released, why not just ask the Board for it and see what it states. Then we can find out what the truth is.

• 6 Anonymous // Aug 31, 2007 at 11:33 am

  I think the point here is that Corda has refused to address this situation for such a long time and the folks on this site feel that there must be a reason it is being swept under the rug. So, people start digging and find little tidbits that when put together show a whole different take on things. If in fact Mr. Morris’ resume does not meet criteria then shame on those who hired him. A FOI should make those allegations true or false. The problem at hand is the lack of transparency of this the admins and BOE board when it comes to simple questions and answers. Is Mr. Morris effective in his position, is Mr. Morris able to conduct his job properly when in session in Hartford and has his job performance met the highest standards for those working with children. I’ll bet not since we have heard so many complaints about him over the years in how he handles individual cases and how he picks and chooses his causes. A Human Relations Director for the schools is a hands on position and there should be no favorite causes that you pick and choose. Too many children have been ignored by Mr. Morris and too many complaints have gone un heard because of his lack of understanding that children have no color when it comes to their rights. No matter what color, race or creed a child is they should be treated equally. Mr. Morris seems to believe that discrimination only counts in the black community and this should be one reason why he needs to be evaluated and a FOI obtained to see if he in fact recieved the proper education to handle this position.

• 7 NoName // Aug 31, 2007 at 1:51 pm

  No, the problem is not the lack of transparency of the administration or BOE, its the digging and finding tidbits thats the problem. All this outrage over Mr. Morris is based on a lot of hearsay, opinion, righteous indignation. I have seen no facts - only a bunch of hot air from this blog. If any of you can come up with anything factual (and I doubt it!) something would be done.

• 8 turfgrrl // Aug 31, 2007 at 2:04 pm

  NoName: Bruce Morris does not have a college degree. (see his CGA website).

  The original job description/posting is here.
  Needless to say people employed by academic institutions should not be employed after it is discovered that they lack academic credentials. The job says adequate progress towards a masters degree and five years experience in education or community relations.

  Let’s see Bruce Morris’ job application and resume on file with the BOE.

  If you want to argue facts, then do so.

• 9 Anonymous // Aug 31, 2007 at 4:02 pm

  #7-for your info-State Representative Bruce Morris is serving his first term in the Connecticut General Assembly. He is a graduate of Saint Thomas More Preparatory School and attended the University of Connecticut. Currently, he is the Director of Human Relations for Norwalk Public Schools, and serves on the ministerial staff of Macedonia Church in Norwalk. Do you see any “GRADUATED” in that statement? Do you see any “HOLD MA

• 10 Charles the Hammer // Aug 31, 2007 at 4:07 pm

  Morris has spot reserved in the Eighth Circle of Hell, the realm of fraud. Bruce Morris is all “cheese and sleeze.” When you’re in the room with him he just oozes unctuous phoniness.

  Holding down a “no show” job while after-school programs, athletics, and numerous teaching positions were cut, was not a problem for this ersatz “reverend”. Could a legitimate man of God conduct himself in such a way? He has a no show job, but no credentials and no honor.

• 11 anonymous // Aug 31, 2007 at 6:23 pm

  If you go to the UConn website, you cannot verify that Mr Morris is a graduate. If I were his prospective employer, I would have questioned him sbout this … and the killer is, I’m not a private company loooking to employ him, with my own discretion involved; no, in this case I’m the GD City of Norwalk, with a job description requiring a BS degree!!!!! What went wrong?????

• 12 Bruce Morris is Defrauding Us // Aug 31, 2007 at 6:59 pm

  That should be his new campaign slogan.

• 13 Silence Dogood // Aug 31, 2007 at 7:16 pm

  If you go to the City of Norwalk website, there are a couple of mottos. One is “On the Move,” the other, “The Right Place The Right Time.” Let’s create one for the BOE: “Norwalk Public Schools: A Place with No Accountability.”

• 14 Aunt Bertha // Aug 31, 2007 at 9:20 pm

  Yes, He should go!

• 15 Jeff Hall // Sep 1, 2007 at 9:19 am

  #5: OK, I just sent a Freedom of Information Act request for Bruce Morris’ resume. I’ll post it when I get it.

• 16 anonymous // Sep 1, 2007 at 11:10 am

  Way to go Jeff. When they do not respond to you within 7 days, the next step is to then file a complaint with the state freedom of information commission. Good luck, since the crooked boe crew will not respond. You should also file a request for his application for employment and the job description for his job, since the two of them together will show how he should not have received this job. Keep us posted.

• 17 anonymous // Sep 1, 2007 at 12:07 pm

  FYI, the FOI covers records of Board and Agency decisions, excepting personnel matters. The government does not make applications and resumes public, without permission of the person in question. Maybe you should ask Bruce Morris directly. Even if he doesn’t have a degree, how do you know that the requirement wasn’t waived at time of hiring? there are no regulations covering his position, it’s at the Board’s discretion.

• 18 Jeff Hall // Sep 1, 2007 at 12:55 pm

  #17: No, you are confused. Resumes of public officials are certainly public records, and are covered by the FOI act. It is true that resumes of unsuccessful job candidates are sometimes (but not always) exempt. A typical example:

  http://www.state.ct.us/foi/1989FD/FIC1989-270.htm

  Excerpt from the FOI Commission’s findings:

  12. It is concluded therefore, that the resume of the respondent director of health is a public record pursuant to §1-18a(d), G.S.

  13. It is found that the respondent director of health, who voluntarily chose to serve the public and be paid with public funds, has very limited personal privacy rights in matters pertaining to his public employment.
  …
  16. It is concluded that the respondent director of health violated §1-15 G.S., by not providing a copy of his resume promptly.

  In Bruce Morris’ case, he is a Human Relations Director: the whole point of his job is that he is supposed to make sure that everybody is treated equally. It would be ludicrous if he was given a special exemption from a posted job requirement, and it would certainly be a matter of public concern to learn that he was treated differently than other candidates for this important position!

• 19 I Do Know Jack! // Sep 1, 2007 at 4:08 pm

  I inquired about Bruce Morris responsibilities and required work hours and according to Sal Corda, and I quote:

  “There is NO official policy related to the pay of Mr. Morris. Additionally, Mr. Morris, due to the nature of his work, HAS NO REGULAR HOURS. He is in the office or on district business during normal business hours, but is also engaged in many evening meetings and other events which may occur at different times during the day”

  (All CAP emphasis is my own) Well, well well. What a Great Job! NO reg. hours. Sal says he is in the office during normal business hours, why do I feel Sal’s idea of reg. businesss hours differs from the rest of the population? And how come there is NO OFFICIAL POLICY concerning the PAY of Mr. Morris?? My spelling & grammer may not always be perfect and it may be off now & then, but I DO know how to spell SCAM, FARCE & SNOW JOB and I also can figure out which letters are missing in the following statement: What a bunch of BU_L SH_T! They obviously Don’t Know Jack, But….

• 20 anon // Sep 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm

  The problem with Morris is that all the defenses laid by Corda and the Board fly in the face o common sense. Morris is not an evangelist he’s a desk jockey who’s gotten away with everything.

• 21 Aunt Bertha // Sep 1, 2007 at 9:53 pm

  Doesn’t a desk jockey show up to a desk every now and then?

• 22 anonymous // Sep 2, 2007 at 12:47 am

  It is just not fair that Morris got this job without a degree - worse than that, he got this job in an educational system that some of us, fools we are, still regard as an institution of integrity.

  Maybe a dergree is meaningless -that’s definitely a point to debate. But I doubt it’s meaningless in an educational setting.

• 23 NoName // Sep 2, 2007 at 1:53 pm

  I guess I still don’t get it. Mr Morris’s web site shows he attended UConn, he never says he earned a degree. The job posting wants a Masters or work towards one. Those are the facts that allow this bile and venom to be spat? You all allude to him being a crook and demand his firing but offer no legitimate reasons for his discharge. Again I say - Hot Air!

• 24 Anonymous // Sep 2, 2007 at 2:10 pm

  It’s simple really.. In the academic world you have to have a bachelors in order to start on a masters. If Morris was not accepted into a masters progam at the time of his hire he would essentially be lying about his qualifications. Lying about academic qualifications in the academic world is serious. Almost like defrauding small businesses in New Haven and selling votes.

• 25 Aunt Bertha // Sep 2, 2007 at 2:40 pm

  #23, the only hot air around here comes for down town administraters that claim to be doing their jobs. Mr. Morris is not qualified nor is he able to be at his board of ed job when his clients (parents and children) need im. Has he been fair to the teaching staff at NPS? I would say not if you knew the teachers that I know that he did not support. I think it is a shame that he does not have a back bone to do the right thing, which would be to step down and let someone apply that has the degrees that were required.

• 26 LovelyWeather // Sep 6, 2007 at 11:46 pm

  Hot air? Geeze…the weather was perfect for the three day weekend. Aunt Bertha, do you ever smile?

Leave a Reply

Name

eMail (not required)

Website (not required)