Town gets $550,000 settlement

550,000 minus 274,000 leaves 281,000. Must be very expensive attorney's fees. Settlement should have been closer to 300,000. Why is it 250,000 more than the price of the damages?

TakeItBack wrote:

550,000 minus 274,000 leaves 281,000. Must be very expensive attorney's fees. Settlement should have been closer to 300,000. Why is it 250,000 more than the price of the damages?

Because attorneys are thieves??

If the story is correct ,the expenses have not ended and there will be other costs going forward .

Yozer does u dinks thatz da munies isser gunna bee spends on sumthing guud? I isser thinkin ittser gunna bee waistered.

Me thinks we should bottle the water that Hodge (the King) walks on. We could sell it and do away with taxes. He's so great. I wonder what he will do in his third term of office.

John is like a dog with a bone; he will not let go and the taxpayers benefit. The donkeys in NF are a sorry lot. Still whining over John's victory ... of almost a year ago!

its a shame hodge can't give credit where credit is due----katkocin and casagrande were the ones who got in the expert to examine the parts after things were fixed and started the process of getting the answer to the leak. check out the minutes of the bos at that time. hoge biggest bragging is that "it's alway about me!! I did it. I did it!!" except when somethng goes wrong and then it is never his fault.....

the lawyer got as much as the town. How much did he pay for the cleanup

new faircit wrote:

its a shame hodge can't give credit where credit is due----katkocin and casagrande were the ones who got in the expert to examine the parts after things were fixed and started the process of getting the answer to the leak. check out the minutes of the bos at that time. hoge biggest bragging is that "it's alway about me!! I did it. I did it!!" except when somethng goes wrong and then it is never his fault.....

Face it ,you can't stand that Hodge was successful . If you remember correctly it was Hodge ,as the BOF chairman ,who insisted that Katkocin go out and find an expert to examine the broken line . She said that it wasn't worth it and her sidekick ,Jim McKeon agreed that it wasn't worth pursuing . Her buddy ,Jim Mellett even wrote a letter stating that the line was not installed properly so the Town could not recover . Well ,they were ALL wrong .
After Hodge took office he asked the BOF for money to pursue this and they said no . Another Katkocin supporter Lucy Di Rocco led the charge on the BOF to deny funding the lawsuit . Obviously Hodge found his own lawyer ,made a deal with him and successfully pursued this matter . Why are you guys so bitter ? Be happy that the Town recovered all of the money .You benefit from it .

yeah. hodge is my hero. i love republicans and all they do for me in this lovely little republican haven. i wish everyone was republican so we can all go to hell in a handbasket together. you all suck.

Sour Grapes wrote:

<quoted text> Face it ,you can't stand that Hodge was successful . If you remember correctly it was Hodge ,as the BOF chairman ,who insisted that Katkocin go out and find an expert to examine the broken line . She said that it wasn't worth it and her sidekick ,Jim McKeon agreed that it wasn't worth pursuing . Her buddy ,Jim Mellett even wrote a letter stating that the line was not installed properly so the Town could not recover . Well ,they were ALL wrong .
After Hodge took office he asked the BOF for money to pursue this and they said no . Another Katkocin supporter Lucy Di Rocco led the charge on the BOF to deny funding the lawsuit . Obviously Hodge found his own lawyer ,made a deal with him and successfully pursued this matter . Why are you guys so bitter ? Be happy that the Town recovered all of the money .You benefit from it .

Good morning Blah, Just and now Sour, what will you be next time? You are so recognizable you may as well stick to one name. It is clear that you are so vehement in your support of Hodge that you have either no ethics or no mind of your own. It is true that Hodge has had successes that have benefited the town but several of them were achieved by unethical means. You can't just look at the bottom line as if nothing else is of any consequence.
It would be easier to take you seriously if you weren't so thoroughly critical of the former administration, who were not all bad as this one is not all good. If you are honest with your recollections you will have to admit that it was Hodge who tied the hands of Katkocin and prevented her from resolving issues that he has subsequently used as examples of his superiority. Even your pal Jane has seen the light, somehow she has gained the objectivity that has allowed her to see things as they are and it is good to know there is hope for some to see the whole picture if they take the blinders off.
Now, do you really think it is good for the taxpayers to fund the lawsuit in behalf of the Dunham Pond residents? If you agree with that decision, I'll have to suspect that you are one of Jeff Dunham's (odd coincidence) puppets (or Ron!) because a real thinking person couldn't possibly believe that is an appropriate use of our money.

A-Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Good morning Blah, Just and now Sour, what will you be next time? You are so recognizable you may as well stick to one name. It is clear that you are so vehement in your support of Hodge that you have either no ethics or no mind of your own. It is true that Hodge has had successes that have benefited the town but several of them were achieved by unethical means. You can't just look at the bottom line as if nothing else is of any consequence.
It would be easier to take you seriously if you weren't so thoroughly critical of the former administration, who were not all bad as this one is not all good. If you are honest with your recollections you will have to admit that it was Hodge who tied the hands of Katkocin and prevented her from resolving issues that he has subsequently used as examples of his superiority. Even your pal Jane has seen the light, somehow she has gained the objectivity that has allowed her to see things as they are and it is good to know there is hope for some to see the whole picture if they take the blinders off.
Now, do you really think it is good for the taxpayers to fund the lawsuit in behalf of the Dunham Pond residents? If you agree with that decision, I'll have to suspect that you are one of Jeff Dunham's (odd coincidence) puppets (or Ron!) because a real thinking person couldn't possibly believe that is an appropriate use of our money.

A you talk a good game but do your statements hold water ? I think not . It is clear that you and a handful of others are still upset that Katkocin lost to Hodge almost 3 years ago . Please try to get past it . The guy went out and recovered $550,000 for the Town . Some of you are actually upset that this happened because he can claim it as his achievement . Quite frankly I think that you have gone to far . As far as being critical of the former administration ,I was merely responding to allegations that Hodge had not given Katkocin credit . Let's face it ,she was in office for 13 months after the spill , she could have instituted a lawsuit against the company at any time . She chose not to .I wasn't being critical - just stating the facts . Her heart wasn't in it . Now one of her supporters wants her to take credit . It isn't fair . She and her supporters through up roadblocks . Hodge overcame those roadblocks by hiring another attorney and followed the suit through to completion . We as taxpayers have benefited ,why try to drag that down ? Do you think that is ethical ? Don't you think that , in the interest of fairness ,you or one of your fellow bloggers (by the way ,how many names do you have )could make one positive comment about the surplus ?
As far as Dunham ,please explain those comments .

Sour Grapes wrote:

<quoted text> It is clear that you and a handful of others are still upset that Katkocin lost to Hodge almost 3 years ago . We as taxpayers have benefited ,why try to drag that down ?As far as Dunham ,please explain those comments .

Good evening, you are judging me too harshly and consistently refusing to take my legitimate comments into consideration.
First, give me some credit, I am not whining about an election from 3 years ago, I am simply protesting what I believe to be some unethical behavior by our current first selectman (men). Hodge pats his own back enough to put his rotator cuff as serious risk. Whatever he does or has done, he did tie the hands of the previous administration making it difficult to impossible for them to bring several issues to a successful conclusion, that is a fact.
Read my last post again, I did give credit to Hodge for things he has done that are beneficial. My problem is with his methods related to a wide variety of issues from the "historic houses", and the senior center to the PBC.
I have only ever used two names here, the first was Reader but when I registered as a regular contributor on the site I was forced to choose another name as that one was taken. I don't see the logic in changing ones name repeatedly, they are all anonymous anyway, why not be one generic name? As I said, it is apparent you are who you are despite what you call yourself, at least to me.
Regarding the Dunham issue, for now I will withdraw my protest as I am not well enough acquainted with the facts and was possibly misinformed. I reserve the right to revisit the topic again in the future, based on real information.

Please be specific as to what subjects hodge tied katkocin's hands on . what issues could the past administration not bring to fruition because of Hodge ? thanks

Sour Grapes wrote:

Please be specific as to what subjects hodge tied katkocin's hands on . what issues could the past administration not bring to fruition because of Hodge ? thanks

To what end, so we can disagree about our perception of the specifics? Nothing to be gained by that, it's history. If you care to discuss anything in the present, I may accomodate you, first I'll have to decide if you are just yanking me around for your amusement. As yet you haven't acknowledged the legitimacy of any of my concerns about Hodge's ethics. If you continue to think that the bottom line is all the matters we have nothing to talk about.

Just as I thought ,you are just a propaganda machine .When pressed on your prior Dunham Pond comments you aren't sure what you are talking about . When pressed on specifics as to how you believe Hodge tied Katkocin's hands you can't give me one example . Although you keep mentioning Hodge's ethics you refuse to give an example . If your example of Hodge's ethics is from your postings related to a story about the Historic Houses we already know that your flat out lied about your objections to the Houses . When you realized that you were caught in a lie you refused to post any longer . I think that you should worry about your ethics . What is that they say about people in glass houses throwing stones ?? This is so typical .Another Hodge hater who prefers form over substance .It's more important to you to win the debate then to actually get something accomplished .No wonder he just bulldozes past you guys . NOTHING would get done if it were up to you . I'm sorry but I can not agree with your statement that I have judged you to harshly . As I stated a few days ago ,this is just SOUR GRAPES .

Sour Grapes wrote:

If your example of Hodge's ethics is from your postings related to a story about the Historic Houses we already know that your flat out lied about your objections to the Houses

Let's clear something up, I come on here, anonymously, and I can say anything I want to with no repercussions. I have nothing to gain from lying and doing so defies logic.

Now, I am not taking your bait, here's why. I have noted two very significant traits when reading your contributions to any Hodge related threads. The first is, without fail, you have never conceded to a single point I have raised. No matter how valid or reasoned, not a single instance of deference. This is familiar, very closely resembling Hodge himself. The second trait is related to your writing style, I have been fortunate enough to unearth an email that was written by Mr. Hodge and alas, he too places a space before a comma and does not use a space following the comma, a consistent (and improper) use of punctuation. This is a very distinctive and unique quirk, too much so to be considered a coincidence. It seems more than a little likely that I am conversing with "the" John Hodge about himself and his behavior, which makes all future discussion with you moot in my estimation. Say good night John-boy. ;o)

Hey Dick Tracy - actually I think my punctuation is all over the place so I really wouldn't put to much stock in your theory . As I have said before SOUR GRAPES . As soon as you have to explain your comments you take your ball and go home .

WOW...judging from all the past posts I would agree it sounds like John himself acting in his own defense.
Having watched and/or attended many town meetings over the past decade I would have to agree John H as chairman of BOF denied Mrs. Katkocin's requests for funding on many occasions. As if he was saving the money for his future pet projects when he planned on becoming first selectman. As First selectman, he constantly and consistently awards himself funds with very little supporting documents for his favored projects. To date the town still doesn't know the cost of this projects and future costs. The town Treasurer Phil C is the only one who can credit for the positive financial situation.

Sour Grapes wrote:

Hey **** Tracy - actually I think my punctuation is all over the place so I really wouldn't put to much stock in your theory . As I have said before SOUR GRAPES . As soon as you have to explain your comments you take your ball and go home .

John and Ron being the only two people who always agree with John, it has to be one of them, but the typing style is notably similar to John's.

If you insist on me citing examples of John's double standard, here goes...
Let's start with the settlement he just claimed as his own. Consider, please, that while BOF chair, John slammed the checkbook shut on any further legal expenses, including currently outstanding bills. How, may I ask, could Peggy have pursued a lawsuit against the oil tank installer with no funds to pay the attorney? While serving as 1st Selectman, John has asked the BOF to make multiple transfers to the legal line to compensate for spending outside the budget. After all, he is "taking care of town business"!

How about the fact that John was originally opposed to the streetscape project and yet he is photographed proudly watering the flowers that grace his new domain.

And then, let's remember that he fought both Shaw's and the water system that now serves the downtown so efficiently. He also wanted to move the seniors out of their current location to the CO A Fire House, and yet to win an election he sang a completely different tune.

Also, let's think about how long this whole senior center project has gone on and add up the related costs that have been accruing, not the least of which is another year or two of rent.

And, don't forget the bridge, the bridge rent, the installation, the purchase price and now the cost of removing it all.

One thing you can say about the previous administration is that they operated within the law. John indiscriminately violates local ordinance to deliver the outcome he seeks. Violation 1, FOI, 2, firing the sr. center architect, 3, disbanding the PBC, 4, assembling a new PBC for one project only, and 5, subverting the due process of the town by personally recommending the circulation of petitions to circumvent the authority of the BOF.

While BOF chair he eliminated the minimal stipends of the two underselectmen and then reinstated them in time for the election that put him in office. He couldn't very well ask Ron to be his running mate and suggest his contribution wasn't worthy of some compensation, however meager, now could he?

Now he wants to stick his nose into the plight of the residents of Dunham Pond! Sorry but, it is their responsibility to pursue the resolution to their problems with the developer and that includes an insufficient water system. If in fact, the water system is not large enough to address a fire, it would seem that the town building inspector, health inspector or fire marshal, should have to answer for having approved it.

I will close by saying, for the last time, that John (you!) has done some good things for NF but in no way does it absolve him for using people, ignoring the law and taking tax payer money to fund special interests.