Larry Cafero Says House GOP Clash With Tom Foley At Public Hearing Wasn\’t About Him

by Categorized: 2014 Election, Tom Foley Date:

The clash between House Republicans and former Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Foley during a public hearing this week marked one of the most contentious dust-ups of the legislative session so far.

Insiders have said for days that three House Republicans were actually defending their leader, Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk, who has been mentioned in a bitter civil lawsuit by Hartford Democratic operative Matthew J. Hennessy against the state\’s regional garbage agency.

But Cafero rejected that idea, saying that the House Republicans were acting on their own Monday because they believed that Foley\’s proposal was over-reaching and could prevent as many as half of the legislators from serving because of conflicts of interest.

When asked if the Republicans were coming to his defense, Cafero said, \”No. Listen, I think they were smart enough on their own. What you saw wasn\’t anyone coming to my defense. My defense? I don\’t think so.\’\’

He said that Republicans took umbrage with Foley\’s public characterizations that the conflicts were \”sleazy\’\’ and need to be stopped under the law.

\”That wasn\’t defending Larry Cafero or any individual,\’\’ Cafero said of himself. \”I think they were defending the institution.\’\’

The civil lawsuit alleges that Cafero\’s law firm, Brown Rudnick, has been engaged in illegal lobbying at the Capitol. Without mentioning Cafero\’s name specifically, the suit states that \”two members of CRRA\’s policies and procurement committee, one of whom was appointed by a partner of Brown Rudnick in his capacity as an elected official, voted to recommend to the board of directors that Brown Rudnick be awarded the [municipal liaison] contract for the period of November 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014.\’\’

Hennessy\’s consulting company failed to win the contract, and the firm is suing for triple damages, attorney\’s fees, and a court ruling that would award the contract to the firm.

While Cafero currently has two appointments to the board, he had not made any appointments when the Brown Rudnick contract was originally awarded in 2006 and then renewed in 2009. His first appointment came in 2010, and he later appointed Darien resident Dot Kelly to the board after receiving a recommendation from a House Republican colleague.

During a board meeting on December 22, 2011 on whether to extend Ritter\’s contract from January through the end of October 2012, Kelly abstained. The vote was 5 -2 to extend the contract, and the two board members voting against the extension were West Hartford Mayor R. Scott Slifka and Barkhamsted first selectman Donald S. Stein, who is now the board chairman.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

12 thoughts on “Larry Cafero Says House GOP Clash With Tom Foley At Public Hearing Wasn\’t About Him

  1. Richard

    Where has Mr. Foley been on issues like the budget, taxes, or education? Silent. But when he can take a swipe at Cafero, he trots right up to the L.O.B. 100% political.

  2. Bruce

    Tom Foley trying to fashion himself as an ethical crusader from outside the system? Hahahaha. There’s a picture of him in the dictionary next to the words “insider” and “fat cat.” Does he expect us to believe he got his ambassadorship by replying to the Washington Post classifieds? This guy is as inside as insiders get. Pulleeze.

  3. Tom

    Why does this story again claim ‘three’ republicans were tough with questioning on Foley?

    Tony Hwang?

    Give us a break! The guy practically asked if he could get him a cup of coffee. I’m sure the video of the hearing’s online by now so you can confirm what I refer to.

  4. Disgusted former Democrat

    Bruce the “job” Dannel’s wife holds certainly appears to be patronage. Malloy should worry about a primary before Foley.

  5. Stephen

    ex·foley·ate /eks?f?l???t/ Verb (of a material) When a political party sheds itself of a candidate named Tom Foley.

  6. Joe Black

    If Cafero doesn’t want fleas, he shouldn’t lay down with dogs. The Ritter at best, questionable lobbying operation is clearly hung around Cafero’s neck. Bottom line: Shady dealers, and lots of conflicts are all over the legislature. What they’re all afraid of is that Foley has crystallized what is a well known secret. It ought to be criminal.

  7. Poor Richard

    I’m sure the umbrage of Minority Leader Cafero’s minions stemmed from noble reasoning and was not designed merely to protect their leader from the glare of public scrutiny. What I’m unsure of is why Mr. Cafero and the rest of the legislature refuse to make any attempt to fine tune the language of this much needed piece of legislation to their liking instead of wasting everyone’s time bobbing and weaving.

  8. CommonSense

    I totally agree, By now, it should be crystal clear to Mr. Cafero and most other legislators that there must be language drafted to protect the public from these kinds of conflicts of interest. If the language of Mr. Foley’s recommendation is too far reaching, amend the wording and fix it. Is that not what legislators are supposed to do?

  9. george cody

    the real dust up at the hearing was Rep. Meyers leading off the Q&A, holding up the 250 page report on corruption and mismanagement byn the group headed by Foley regarding mis directed rebuilding funds in Iraq

  10. Curious Republican

    George- When Foley asked him a simple question regarding the document he was using as a prop, Meyer’s response was ‘I don’t know.’ Despite the squealing by democrats, media, and some Republicans, Mr. Foley clearly won the issue and gained traction with many voters. He was NEVER going to get the votes of those who oppose the intent of the bill.

  11. ????

    What a pity! I wonder if you??e tried the ??p??iales?? I don?? think much of the ordinary ??ines de claires??which I agree are very salty and of not much interest at all. Have you tried them grilled in the oven? Do you like seafood in general?

Comments are closed.