YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: NEON On Right Track; Agency Review Deflates Criticism


by turfgrrl


October 4th, 2007 · 17 Comments

The list of allegations filed CACF by Mary Brown were addressed in a peer review by the Northeast Institute for Quality Community Action. “[the] NIQCA Peer Review Team could not find any substantive documentation of illegality or wrongdoing in the allegations submitted to Commissioner Starkowski,” concluded the report, with a point by point dissection.

#1. Failure to conduct agency business under the existing by-laws.
Such a broad and sweeping allegation lacking specific references made it difficult to evaluate. … the Board has drafted a new set of Bylaws for adoption which reduces the size of the Board, clarifies responsibilities and procedures for the recruitment and election of new members and specifies consistent tripartite Board composition. Beyond this matter the Team found nothing to support the allegation.

#2. The attempt to change the number of Board members, which would result in a loss of poverty area residents. This plan, coupled with rumored change in the designation of target areas, would get rid of some target area Board members who have continually challenged the administrative staff’s daily operating procedures.
Proportional representation of low income representatives (one-third) would be maintained under the proposal. Revising language to make the NEON, Inc. Board a more manageable and effective vehicle for agency oversight, planning and governance seems to be in both the agency’s and community’s interest. The motivation for this change is clearly more substantive than simply removing one or more existing Directors.

#3. The establishment (which has already been accomplished) of a “governance committee” which would supersede the power of the board executive committee and the board itself which was in place.
The responsibilities for the Committee do not undermine or conflict with the responsibilities or the Executive Committee and, like all other agency committee’s, it is fully and completely accountable to the agency’s Board of Directors per existing as well as proposed Bylaw language.

#4. Proposed change of title of the Executive Director to CEO and President. This it is widely believed would place too much power in the hands of the Director.
The change does not affect the balance of power or authority of the Executive relative to the Board of Directors but assures the Executive of an active, ex-officio non-voting presence in Board and Committee deliberations.

#5. The Director’s insistence that the entity may choose its own board members and those members can be removed without cause.
Section 676B of the Community Services Block Grant Reauthorization Act of 1998 states that…. “members of tripartite boards “shall be selected by the entity”…” The agency’s Director is correct in his assertions regarding both the election and removal of Board members. Further clarification of this matter can be provided by CAPLAW, Inc.

The rest the allegations centered on personal attacks of the Exectuive Director Joe Mann. A request for more documentation was curtly dealt with by “The NIQCA team reviewed the documentation assembled to address this request and found it more than sufficient to address a reasonable inquiry.” Inquiries into leased space, renovations, fire marshall permits, renovation costs wee all dismissed with findings of appropriate conduct and documentation. One allegation that a NEON staff member was a relative of Mann’s was explained,
Mary Mann who is the Executive’s sister and was employed by NEON, Inc prior to Mr. Mann’s employment with the agency beginning in 1996. Mary Mann left the employment of the agency in 2000 but was, due to her knowledge and effectiveness, was persuaded to return to agency employment in 2001. At the time of her return to agency employment Mr. Mann did not serve as the agency’s Executive and had no supervisory or oversight responsibilities for Ms. Mann. Ms. Mann continues to serve as a NEON, Inc. employee in good standing.
The second employee is Alvia Hilliard (no relation to the Board Chairman) who is the Executive Director’s wife’s sister. Ms. Hilliard was hired by the former Executive Director Mr. Callis in December 2005. Ms. Hilliard was originally hired as a part-time, temporary employee but due to her effectiveness and growing service demands she was transitioned to full-time employment in May of 2006.
It is the Team’s conclusion that no violations of policy or statute have occurred in the hiring or current employment of the two identified staff.

The actions of one of the chief trouble makers John Mosby were harshly criticized: NEON, Inc. does have a designated Affirmative Action Officer. Concerns expressed by some Board members regarding the inactivity of the Affirmative Action Committee led to the appointment this year of a Board member who had expressed concerns as the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Mosby). Since Mr. Mosby’s appointment in February, 2006 the Committee has only met one time. At that meeting the Chairman attempted to remove the current Affirmative Action Officer and appoint another staff member in her place. This unauthorized and inappropriate action by a Board member and Committee Chair was reversed by the NEON, Inc. Executive Director when the matter was brought to his attention.

The report serves as vindication for Joe Mann and good work he has managed to accomplish in the short time he has lead NEON. For NEON to continue to improve services, the larger issue of the NEON’s board committee structure should be addressed in the Bylaw revision process.

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

17 Responses so far “Norwalk: NEON On Right Track; Agency Review Deflates Criticism”



  • 1 Anonymous // Oct 4, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Joe Mann is doing a terrific job at Neon and has brought so many good changes. There are those who want the agency to turn back the clock to the days where a small faction ruled everything and everyone and cost the agency so much money in law suits etc. and gave it a bad reputation. Under Joe Mann and the Current Board there is transparency and accountabilty. Because of these allegations many corporations are afraid to become involved. This is a huge setback for the agency. Reducing the number of board members will not lessen the minority representation but will lessen the wasted time of bickering and accusations from those who wish to discredit Mr.Mann and which takes up most, if not all of the meetings. It is certainly good news that NIQCA has rendered their findings so that Neon can get back to the business of helping those with greater needs than the petty members who wish to destroy in order to rule.

  • 2 anon // Oct 4, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Looks like Bobby Burgess backed another loser claim and tried to smear the rep of a good man. Isn’t it time to dump Burgess and his crowd from power?

  • 3 anonymous // Oct 4, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    NEON is now engaged in so many good and positive things that did not occur under the Burgess regime. With him, whether it was racial threats, sexual harrasment or the keeping of multiple sets of books it was all bad.

    There is now a real effort to move the agency forward and trying to engage the community on the important issue of removing people from poverty.

    He (Burgess)is fully behind the negativity that is spewed against the agency. While we are all aware of his shameful activity that kept the agency in the news for years, you would think thet he’d stay the hell out of the way less the stories and the facts that have not yet been reported should come to light. This is a man that is small in both stature and mind and whose little ego and quest for influence and power is well known. John Mosby and Amos Brown are his puppets on the NEON board and two individuals that ought not be on anyone’s board. They are ignorant, stupid and petty. I attended a NEON board meeting and simply could not believe what I saw. Mosby continually goes on tirades and really says nothing other than he will sue anyone that doesn’t agree with him, and Brown sits against the wall spewing profanity and agreeing with Mosby.

    None of these folks have a real job, so they have all day every day to plot on how they can stir up controversy and negativtity. What a shameful and utterly foolish group.

  • 4 Another Dem // Oct 5, 2007 at 7:33 am

    Galen Wells has been propping up Bobby Burgess for years. She thinks overlooking his crooked dealings is acceptable. It’s not, there are those of us who are angered and frustrated with her leadership. She has diverted donations that could have been used to run campaigns to Burgess. She should be ashamed of herself.

  • 5 Anony Mous // Oct 5, 2007 at 8:50 am

    It is clear that Neon needs an infusion of leadership with regard to its board. It has been known for years that its outdated by-laws are in serious need of revision. The previous director also tried to get the board to change its bylaws. However, factions, infighting, political cowardice and personal agendas have kept the board from doing what it has to know is necessary. The board has been dealing with the issue of renegade board members who have no business on the board and who represent no one but themselves for years, yet they have done nothing to rectify the problems and, instead, have sat back and allowed damage and chaos to reign. This is board malfeasance at its worse. Perhaps, what is necessary is that the newspapers list the names of all board members so the citizens can see who is directly responsible for this fiasco. The board has the power to immediately make the necessary changes, but does it have the will?

    The Neon Board of Directors need to finally step up and do the right thing for Neon and for this city by acting to bring the agency into the 21st century: Reduce, streamline and make this board more efficient by adopting the bylaws that have been before it since June.

    The Advocate in its editorial of September 16th, entitled “NEON board needs to be streamlined”, hit the nail on the head, as follows:

    “But here’s the thing: The NEON board is bloated, outdated and inefficient, and it possibly prevents the organization from operating as well as it should. Mr. Mann is right to want to reduce its size.

    Over the past decade, the federal government has recommended that agencies such as NEON review their bylaws and bring their boards more in line with modern nonprofits. That, among other benefits, could ensure better fiscal responsibility.

    The feds’ thinking is that huge boards - NEON’s numbers over 30 - are not conducive to getting things done. Indeed, it’s not unusual for NEON meetings to be conducted with fewer than half its board members in attendance. And the factionalism that has led to infighting - which could be at play in the current dispute - is a likely byproduct of the big board as well. Put even three people together, and there’s the potential for it. With 30, it’s almost
    inevitable.

    Other anti-poverty agencies in the state have already gone through the process of reducing their board sizes.

    When NEON was formed some 40 years ago as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, it was customary for boards to number 40 members or more. But over the years, funding streams - federal, state, private - have grown more sophisticated, and many boards have
    adopted more professional models to keep up. It’s time for NEON to do the same.

    Not that it will be easy. Without doubt, thinning the board would be a gut-wrenching process. The NEON board is a truly community-spanning body that includes Common Council members and City Hall officials, tenants’ associations, Norwalk Hospital, civic
    groups and elected representatives from the regions of the city that the agency serves.

    Some understandably fear that it would be representatives of the city’s poorest residents
    who get the ax.

    But state and federal laws mandate that boards for agencies like NEON be divided into thirds: representatives of low-income residents, delegates from the private sector and elected government officials. Proportionate representation wouldn’t change.

    NEON was subject to a peer review under the Connecticut Association for Community Action this week. Results, to be issued later this month, could recommend whether or not the board should change. If so, the state might have to help in the process, in part to help quiet the vitriol.

    The people who serve NEON are well-intentioned, and the agency does good work. But in its current form, it might not serve those who depend on it as well as it should.

    It’s time for a more professional model that brings the board into the 21st century.”

  • 6 Anonymous // Oct 5, 2007 at 9:05 am

    Without the revisions being called for there is no way to change any of the rules,

  • 7 Anonymous // Oct 5, 2007 at 9:07 am

    Now this is probably a really dumb question, but if so many Democrats have so little respect and confidence in Galen, why the heck do you keep her as your chair.

  • 8 concerned citizen // Oct 7, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    IGNORANCE is the key word here. It seems as though some of NEON’s “rank” board members and I do use this term loosely, have no idea of what there roles should be. I believe they think they are entitled and feel it is there duty to nit pick and try and damange the charecter of one of the best directors NEON has had is quite some time. It will be a great day when all of these so called “rank members” are tossed out on their tails so that the board can move forward.

  • 9 concerned citizen (the original) // Oct 7, 2007 at 9:03 pm

    Someone apparently like my sign off

  • 10 concerned citizen (the original) // Oct 7, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    Poster #8 I don’t really mind if you sign off with “Concerned citizen”, but I take it you might be new to this blog and you should know that the leftist Dem Liberals hate me (I take Great pride in that since the feeling is quite mutual). So if you find someone retorting one of your posts with nonsencical gibberish, they probably were directing it at me. I love that they take time off from hugging a tree or ty-dying a shirt to repond to my posts. They are quite entertaining. Just keep this in mind.

  • 11 anon // Oct 7, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    There seems to be alot of that lately, people using the same handles as long time posters here.

  • 12 NeedWeSayMore // Oct 8, 2007 at 8:05 am

    Karsky said she would like Burgess to allow his successors to do their jobs.

    “It’s so ironic the people who are bringing these complaints are the people who had created some of the problems,” Karsky said.

  • 13 Anonymous // Oct 8, 2007 at 8:36 am

    People who are incompetent and mess up want to see their successors fail. There’s no reason for these people to do what they do other than the fact that they want to take things over again and have things their way. They may want to rethink what they are doing before the federal government comes in and see exactly what they were responsible for when they were in charge. The federal government usually frowns upon some of the practices that were in effect back then. This is not slander, these are facrs and anyone who can pull up archives from past newspapers can see for themselves exactly what went on under past directors. Joe Mann has taken Neon under his wing and has sought to make much needed improvements to Neon and to bring in much needed corporate sponsors so Neon can go about the business of helping this community.

  • 14 Anonymous // Oct 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    People who are incompetent and mess up want to see their successors fail. Boy does that describe the Burgess posse

  • 15 tell it like it is // Oct 8, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    I have known many people who have been helped by the ones who are now in charge, not one could find anything bad to say about the help or people,,if its working why change it or fix something that isn’t broken.I’m sure this conflict has taken away from people who need srvices,but we all go on ,,support Joe he has been through enough now lets help him do his job.

  • 16 one who knows... // Oct 8, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Mr. Mann says that none of the people in this SOSS group has ever asked him about anything related to NEON since he has been the director. That’s kind of strange since all of them know him well. You think they would at least tell the director of their concerns if they really had any. Most of their information comes from John Moseby and Amos Brown, the two board members who are behind all of this along with Burgess. Also, Moseby and Brown don’t tell other board members anything because none of them will pay much attention, since their claims are always so ridiculous and border on being ludicrous. For example, they want to see every check and every bank statement and think it is their job to go around soliciting greavances from all the employees. They come to our work site all the time talking bad about Mr. Mann and Mr. Hilliard and saying they will get us more money for raises, especially Mr. Moseby. Nobody likes to see them coming since we already know what they want to talk about. They just keep us from doing our jobs and stir up trouble. We don’t think they should be on the NEON board. Everybody knows they just want to be important and are not really doing anything to help anybody. Mr. Mann is doing a real good job and has made people feel good about their jobs and the future of NEON.

  • 17 Anonymous // Oct 8, 2007 at 10:57 pm

    Few people are your friend and we know that Bobby Burgess isn’t a friend of Joe Mann but he(Burgess) is a foolish, un-caring individual that has nothing better to do than to criticize the great efforts of Joe Mann. It’s too bad we can’t(all) be on one accord and just be there for Joe. Keep up the good work, don’t let the Burgess, John Mosby, or Amos Brown dictate your leadership. Neon needs what you have to offer.

    by A Prayer Warrior

Leave a Reply