The letter, which was published by the Middletown Press today in an article detailing an ongoing war of words between Milardo and Democratic members of the Common Council, was sent by Palmer to an email list which included this blog, the Hartford Courant and at least one member of the Middletown Common Council, among dozens of others. The email list is one compiled by Milardo, and used to distribute his occasional MMPA Newsletter.
Milardo's name was not on the email list.
"I finally had a copy forwarded to me from someone who received it," Milardo said in a phone interview today.
The reprimand received wider distribution once it was emailed (the Middletown Eye had at least two copies forwarded), and was used as a basis for a critique published here and in the Middletown Press by Common Council member Hope Kasper.
Milardo received his official copy of the complaint today in the mail with a note from the post office that the letter was found floating loose amidst the mail."We're meeting Friday with Sharon Palmer at the AFT to discuss the matter," Milardo said. "I don't understand the basis for her letter. She's never been to Middletown to meet with our union. Much of what she accuses me of is wrong. And I don't understand why, as a union colleague, she didn't bother to call and check before she wrote the letter."
"We sent the letter based upon a complaint," Palmer said. She refused to name the complainant. "We sent the letter, and we called and left a message to tell him the letter was being sent."
When questioned why a letter of reprimand would have been distributed so widely before the person it was addressed to had seen its content, Palmer confirmed that she would be meeting with Milardo to discuss the matter on Friday.
"We do what we think is appropriate," Palmer said when asked if it was common practice to widely distribute a letter of reprimand to such a wide audience.
Whether or not Milardo was the first or the last to receive the reprimand makes no difference to me. What I'm interested in as a reader is, did Milardo once and for all....."get the message"?
ReplyDeleteLet’s hope so.
Looks pretty cut and dry to me. He shouldn't blame AFT for calling him out when it was his own actions that led to the reprimand. Don't think there will be much sympathy for him because of all the people he has maligned and bullied in his rants.
ReplyDeleteYes, let's hope he got the message. Everyone I know is so very disgusted with what he has been getting away with. He truly has no class.
ReplyDeleteIs there no more decency----NEVER should a letter of reprimand be sent to anyone prior to the subject receiving the letter at the very minimum. And, what about the officials Sharon proudly disclosed were vetted.....see any Republicans? Good ole fashion manners should be back into vogue!!
ReplyDeleteDo these people work for a living?
So now he can't speak his mind. Interesting that is coming from a state union head.
ReplyDeleteWhy should he get the message as long as we have the same eight people sitting on the common council.
I hope more people speak up.
Anon 10:13, no one said he can't speak his mind. The objection is to his use of the so-called MMPA "Newsletter" to deliver his personal message under cover of his status as head of the MMPA.
ReplyDeleteI went back to look at some of his earlier "Newsletters" and they do not (despite his claim to the contrary) state that the opinions expressed in the "Newsletter" are solely the opinion of the author. The only disclaimer has to do with the possibility of his precious "Newsletter" falling into the hands of Scabs, Rats, etc.
No one should be offended by Mr. Milardo's MMPA "Newsletter", because everything in it (or not in it) is purely accidental. As he has always said in his Disclaimer:
ReplyDelete"Any claims, statements, omissions, or deletions, are not intentional."
From the people in the unions: Thanks Mr.Milardo, we appreciate your willingness to speak up. That's why we elect you president. Thanks for getting the word out. Maybe the readers of the Eye will try to find out why there are so many upset union members. Keep it up John
ReplyDeleteed could you please inquire what state election laws mr. milardo broke ? there is also the question of illegal donations made as the aft was quoted in the reprimand "in kind". being that this is a labor organazation dosent the rico act cover the contribution laws by special intrest groups ie: labor unions. i think this should be investagated. this was discovered by acident and we hope you follow through with more information on this issue. clearly the union membership is not happy with this gentalman just look at the blogs om the MP
ReplyDeletefrom annymous 5:15. ed i put down my copy of the city of middletowns personnel rules sec 17002 requirements for employment and delved into the wild world of election law and found a litany of violations but wont bore you with them all so ill just mention a few, thanx for your time reading this to ed. section 9-601 a(b)(4)and (5) of CGS discuss usage permitted of personal computers are not a contribution considered "in kind", city computers were used so thats a violation. got a nutter one, prohbition on cotributions of a labor union, a labor union cannot use resorces (computer) to make contributions to canidates or thier committe. (city computer not a private one) sections 9-601a (b)(4)(5), 9-602, 9-613(a), 9-614(a) CGS the confusing part is, is the city required to file a PAC cuz its resouces were used and used by a labor organazation and who pays the fines that can equal up to $2000 EACH. got bout 7 more but this is long enough. all came from sec. state website. thanx ed. by the way ed MR.C U DA BOMB!!
ReplyDeletewhether or not one is dem or rep; union or non; it should mortify everyone that a letter of this nature went public. How does a post office happen to have a letter floating around? scarey.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 10:44.
ReplyDeleteThe upper case is useful for something more than cheering on Sal.
As for the election law violations, I suppose the candidates Mr. Milardo is "supporting" would actually have to be running. As far as I know, no Common Council member has stated their intention to run in the 2011 elections, so the law is not applicable to Milardo's complaints until such time as they run, no?
I'd also review the recent Supreme Court ruling about donations from unions and corporations, and I think, unfortunately, that some of the regulations you mention have fallen by the wayside.
Also, when you misspell a word, even in this comments section, it's underlined with red line. That's a clue to check your dictionary, or spell check online.